User talk:Fbus

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Fbus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Isidro Clot, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Amortias (T)(C) 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Isidro Clot[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Isidro Clot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Amortias (T)(C) 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Isidro Clot has been reverted.
Your edit here to Isidro Clot was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://grandesnumeros.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/isidro-clot-fuentes-el-catalan/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Deletion[edit]

Your article did not have any apparent claim to significance or notability, hence the reason why the article was axed. If you like I can restore the article to your userspace or draft space so that you work on it, but the article itself can not exist on wikipedia in its current form. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't understand very well how is determined if someone is important or not... Isidro clot was one of most important art dealers near Salvador Dali, read information about one collection which have his name : https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/16219/lot/56/

I don't understand how people can be motivated to add content to wikipedia if when added it's deleted.... Most very very major personnalities might already be in the encyclepedia but it doesn't mean that less renowned people cannot be in the encyclopedia. In specialised topics people are also important and is interresting to be in encyclopedia, this is the idea of an encyclopedia, get deep knowledge of one topic.. My point of view is that is article exists other persons can help to improve which is idea of a collaboration environment, if you keep deleting energy of others how can encyclopedia grow? It's a bit demotivating...

Kind regards.

Ok, thats a fair complaint. In simple terms, Wikipedia's biography articles operate as a kind of meritocracy, so on the strength of a person's accomplishments they may or may not be eligible for an article here. Usually, for articles on people, the minimum requirement is to have done one of the following:

Held a office or position of importance, such as a seat in state or national government,
received a famous and well known award (like an Oscar or a Nobel prize),
contributed significantly to their respective field (painted the Mona Lisa, developed the energy mass equation for nuclear physics, cured aids, starred in several major award winning films, earned a Grammy for their music, etc)
been rather publicly well covered as an activist of some sorts

There are other examples, these are just the best ones available to me for ease of simplicity. For what its worth, I do agree with your position, and frankly its bothersome for me to volunteer for wikipedia these days since the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit has increasingly mandated we throw material out rather than take material in. For what its worth your best shot at this point would be to either rebuild the article in your user space or draft space so it can be observed by other wikipedians willing to help your create an article that can stand on its own here, or alternatively you can try and add the relevant information to existing articles here so that others will know that your guy exists. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Loriendrew may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a bit suprised of violence of these messages with so many warning sign, I honnestly don't see where I did any vandalism, I am a newcommer after long time without contributing and try to contribute constructively. If it's so complicate to participate to this encyclopedia I am offboarding this community. I contributed in 2005, 2006 and 2007 to many articles and never had problems like this, and articles I had created in past are still here. I understood from user interface that user page was where you can exchange since I don't see any messaging system. Sorry if I mistake but i never was in the intention to do vandalism. Just felt frustrated that the effort to improve a bit encyclopedia is so fast deleted with very little explainition and it's not very motivating to keep helping to improve when you receive this cold messages from bots and administrators. Fbus (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be the first to feel frustrated. Wikipedia's morphed so much these days that it seems that the only thing we now believe in is the bureaucracy. I think the single greatest oxymoron on here these days is that "anyone can edit", which as you've experienced in person over the last few days is far, far from the reality of the situation. And judging from your "cold messages from administrators" note above I'm not helping the situation either, for which I feel I owe you an apology. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]