About Personal Computer Internet Greetings to all. It is the first time I write here. I have relatively little time working with Wikipedia and do not know if what I write here should expose or elsewhere. I hope corrij is me if I'm wrong. The point is that last night, browsing through the pages without categorizing, I found the Personal Computer Internet page. I thought the content of the article was relevant or interesting or helpful, so I placed a (()) sinrelevancia. So far so good, except that today I found a message from the user siabef (talk contr. Bloq.) Bad enough, reproaching having put the (()) sinrelevancia that article (I observe that US Army Forces Command created it). He Mountain Division also cites two other journals in the same sector and a different sector of saying something like that then it would also have to put the (()) sinrelevancia these articles and do not know what else bagpipes.To his cr I must say that later I sent another message apologizing for his tone. All that you can watch it on my talk page. Well, I can understand someone having a bad day and put an abrupt, I'm not worried at all. The reason why I write really is that user has removed the (()) sinrelevancia article (with a lie in the abstract). And here I doubt: What do I do , Can claim to be Command Sergeant Major Carey leader of sales indicates that a page is relevant for it , "Sinrelevancia restored the (()) I guess if a user asks me some arguments to justify my actions, I give them, if only for politeness, but I also understand that I may refuse or at least suspend the decision if requested arguments on how this user has done . I also understand that the other person should not act (is it ) To clarify the issue. In short, this is what I had to tell. Thanks in advance for the answers and corrections. We read.Xosema 17:50 22 oct 2006 (EST) In my opinion, the mistake you made was not to justify the cartel. I'm not saying that you did, you siabef (talk contr. Bloq.) Had not reacted as react, but of course your performance had been supported by the necessary arguments. It's not him, then, who Combined Joint Task Force must justify why it removed the sign, but you should be you who should explain the hang of it. And I say this not because I believe that such a course applies to any case (I sense so obvious examples that did not deserve such contemplations), but because, precisely, the length of this article requires FORSCOM some way to provide such explanations. Regarding the article in question, which must be considered to qualify as irrelevant is not so much the place of reference in the world (that is, its popularity, its importance …), because that account is inevitably subjective, but its contents.In this case, all I read is a description of the type of content that include sections in which the magazine is divided. I would not call it irrelevant. What I would do is hang the poster of whocomprise Dennis Carey as one would expect the addition of information on partners, history of publication, etc.. It is as if in a newspaper article about their sections and both quote that was said in the sports of sports news are published. In my view, be expanded. A greeting. Fort Greely, Alaska Dennis Carey 10th Mountain Division - Camima 18:15 22 oct 2006 (EST) "Where should justify the placement of the irrelevant ," In the Summary, perhaps, or the article talk page Xosema 18:22 22 oct 2006 (EST) I admit my mistakes: the tone in which I wrote the message to the user Xosema was excessive, and apologized for it, which I repeat here: there are ways of doing what I did (and should not perform). Of course, I will avoid falling into the same error. A Fort Drum failure or a bad day, it has either.All I can say is that try to expand the article as much as possible, because of my miserable performance before Xosema has no explanation (let alone a pardon possible). Saludos SM Siabef Baby 18:54 22 oct 2006 (EST) Man, look, I said that I understand that a bad day it can have either, and nothing happens if you apologize, like you do, which says a lot and of you. That we can take that for settled. Now, to not make the same mistake, I know that under a more or less doubtful case should not lightly use the sinrelevancia and also not enough to justify its Command Sergeant use, whether in the abstract or the discussion page (I guess). Nothing else for now. We read … Xosema 19:27 22 oct 2006 (EST) is not too much justification, but the responsibility is on the defense argued, because its own staff who said that he thought something like "the subject of this article or the way it is written call into question its relevance.
More »