User talk:Caleb Jon

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Caleb Jon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome! I've been using wikipedia for a long time (several years), but I've finally decided that I should stop making all my edits anonymously and register an account. And I do have a question, is there any way for me to stay longed on simultaneously from two computers? Caleb Jon (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto of the Silver Hand[edit]

Very nice, a good job you've done there, all the best. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's always nice to receive a complement. Caleb Jon (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

As requested on WikiProject Children's Literature, I have assessed Otto of the Silver Hand. In future, if you want an article assessed which doesn't yet have a project box on the talk page, adding a project box will be enough to request an assessment. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 11:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for pointing that out, I'll do that in the future. Caleb Jon^talk 04:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2009 indonesia plane crash[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2009 indonesia plane crash, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Per WP:NOTNEWS

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Wperdue (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this crash is notable because of the number of deaths involved, but I could be wrong. I'll go start checking around to see if I can find any guidelines for notability of plane crashes anywhere. Caleb Jon^talk 04:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the crash is notable, but being a recent news event will make it harder to put in a historical context which is my understanding of what the not news guideline is all about. One good example I have found is ValuJet Flight 592 which such things as the investigation, background, etc. I think the Indonesian plane crash may indeed merit an article. I just think that waiting a while to get the complete story, might be the best way to go. I will remove the PROD from the article, assume good faith, and let you make that determination. Happy editing. Wperdue (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

I have a tendency to jump at things too quickly without taking time to think it over. Next time I'll try to wait a little longer and give myself time to think it over before adding an article about a current event. = ) Caleb Jon^talk 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for 2009 Indonesia C-130 Hercules crash[edit]

On 20 May, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Indonesia C-130 Hercules crash, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Utulau[edit]

What made you think that 'Utulau was a hoax? It could use a little work and polish, but there's nothing to indicate that it's a hoax. In fact, it's easy to find references that support the idea that it's a real place.

Please be more careful with your speedy tagging in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I am really sorry. I probably should not have marked it as a hoax, but when I marked the page for speedy deletion the article said nothing about being a location, instead saying that the article was about a word, and a quick check on my part did not find that word in a dictionary. The story about the supposed history of the word also appeared suspect. Caleb Jon^talk 03:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and we all make mistakes! Just remember that a poorly placed CSD tag can scare off someone who might possibly become a productive editor, especially in this case where they've specialised knowledge that might not be available to the average Wikipedia editor. Happily, the editor who created that article has returned, so no serious harm was done this time around. A good rule of thumb is that if you're not absolutely 100% sure that the article is speedy deletable, don't tag it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: First Star (charity)[edit]

Hello Caleb Jon, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of First Star (charity), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: having a notable founder indicates importance/significance - use WP:AFD instead. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. So Why 20:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, I have just recently started following the new pages and am still trying to get a sense for what should be marked for speedy deletion and what should not.

I had marked this article for speedy deletion because when I first read it there was no mention of the founder, no references apart from the charity's website, and nothing in the article indicating notability. But as the article's creator was still working on the article (there were new edits every couple minutes) I refrained from immediately marking it for speedy deletion. The edits seemed to stop around 12:20, at which point I marked the article for speedy deletion (I probably should have reconsidered the notability at that point, but the only addition to the article had been giving the names of the two founders, neither whom I recognized). Since that point the article has been expanded and new references have been added by another editor, and I now no longer believe that the article should be deleted. Caleb Jon^talk 00:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]