JohnMajerus
Welcome!
Hello, JohnMajerus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
A tag has been placed on Mingi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --moyogo (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Moyogo, I regret to have to say that I feel there's an appearance of having been introduced as an idiot in the very first comment on my talk page, and now I seemingly have to make myself look like even more of an idiot by whining publicly about it to follow your comment (because I'm all but forced to do that by your public comment on my page). I guess I have some process complaints to make here. First of all, there's no specific-subject email notification of an impending deletion; people are apparently just expected to check back weekly. Another thing is that when you say "the links", you're not saying "one or more links", or even "most of the links", you're conveying the impression that every single link I put up was either unsupportive or just plain random and goofy. I take exception to that.
In the first place, I don't think that you checked out the videotape series reference and watched it all the way through, did you? If you did, that's highly commendable, as there are maybe only a handful of academic libraries in the country that have that tape series in their collections. Your boilerplate notation, if that's what it was, comes across as being rather terse and dismissive -- particularly if you devoted so many hours to researching that reference -- and I think counter to the spirit of discussion and refinement that should prevail for an article that was a labeled as a stub (and a very brief stub at that).
Secondly, the other links that no longer appear supportive of the article I figured out are due to reorganizations of the underlying websites, including National Geographic's website. This is a common occurence out there in the electronic world: websites being revamped and reorganized. In many such instances, a no-longer-valid link is automatically redirected by the website to a start page of some kind. I think Wikipedia editors, rather than mis-assigning blame, could do a better job of tracking and flagging those kinds of changes to linked content, even to the point of auto-relinking in some instances, just by having better tools available to help automate these processes. Then the onus isn't placed on every individual article author or stub creator to follow and track the sitemaps of every linked and associated webpage to n levels deep. I think there are technological solutions to be explored here just as there are technological solutions to be explored in creating tools that support Wikipedia article creation, refinement, and discussion, meaning they don't require hand coding of clunky tags and non-WYSIWYG data entry. It's a somewhat crude technical environment here, in numerous ways, which contrasts sharply with the scholarly sophistication of many who contribute (and I'm not including myself among such company). I'm not saying that it was a perfect stub, but it was a starting point by which others may be inspired to further refine and fill things in, which is what I'd hoped to see. JohnMajerus (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The article SAM76 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unreferenced since creation in 2006. No indication passes WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loksmythe (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)