User talk:Vlad fedorov

Archives
edit Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for informing me about the case with the article about internet trolls. ellol 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is hopefully not a case of canvasing, I hope. CPTGbr 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL. See the talk page of ellol, where I have posted my message. But you are certainly trying to canvass your rigged votes by contacting Biophys, Ilgiz, Colchicum.Vlad fedorov 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are going out on a limb by accusing me of canvassing without presenting proof. You really have got some nerve. Also, doesn't change the fact that you were in fact canvassing, which is the only conclusion I got from Ellol's is more evidence that you canvassed. CPTGbr 03:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal attack recorded at my talk page. Please be more bold next time.Vlad fedorov 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way you may need to study the English dictionary to learn the meaning of the word "to canvass". I have contacted Ellol openly and ohh see here.Vlad fedorov 10:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is NOT a case of canvasing, LOL. Perhaps we are speaking different English languages, at least I see no other option to explain such strange reaction of user CPTGbr. ellol 08:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new article

I do not have the text of the old article on Internet trolls, or of the process that deleted it, so I cannot compare. could you please send me the links--thanks DGG 04:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have access to the deleted version of the article on internet troll squads either. I may have posted in the DRV, but I don't remember the article well enough to be able to recognize whether or not this is one and the same. If and only if the page is either the same article renamed or extremely similar to it, tag it with {{db-g4|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads}} as a reposting of deleted content. I'm afraid that if he's completely rewritten it, you will probably have to drag it through AfD again. This looks to me to be a more substantive article, and though I am unable at this time to go check it thoroughly for quality and presence of original research as I am about to go to bed, 14 sources isn't bad. If it is as bad as the other one was but different, it is sure to fail AfD again anyway. I'm sure if you found an administrator he'd be able to offer more specific advice because he could see the article that was deleted. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance.--Dycedarg ж 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the Deletion review at [1] which in turn links to the AfD at [2]. An admin could undelete the original for discussion if it becomes relevant. As for me, my comment at the Deletion review was "Relist. We obviously did not have a proper discussion of this in the first place", and I still am of that opinion: the Deletion Review indicated that the content was being revised, so I all the more think a new discussion is in order. (I had not commented at the original AfD.) DGG 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] internet brigades

Nominate it for deletion, and make sure to mention it is a POV fork of the other article. Make sure to provide all of the wikilinks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)