User talk:Citicat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archived earlier discussions can be found here
Click "show" to see my message.
|
[edit] Williewikka
Thanks for tagging that. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikzilla. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
 |
My RFA | |
| Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:21, 11/4/2007 |
[edit] PROD didn't expire
You deleted Paul Morris (producer) as an expired PROD. If you look at the edit history, you'll see that on Nov 1, the PROD was removed, and multiple sources were added, then on Nov 9 that was reverted, and you deleted. [1]
I restored, but I thought to let you know. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted your close of AfD debate on Bruce Khlebnikov
It was, of course, nothing personal, but it appeared that consensus was forming around delete, per the fact that there were three delete comments (including nom), and one keep. Also, per my research, this person may well be fictitious. Mr Which??? 02:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... the Russian Ghits change things a bit. I'm not sure exactly what to make of it now. Do these sources weigh as heavily in discussions regarding notability? They speak to his not being fictitious, but do they add to his notability? You should post them as a comment to the discussion. Mr Which??? 02:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Award
I think you might have made a poor decision in closing this. With only 4 participants, it is rarely a good idea to close a debate as "no consensus" because a few more opinions may make the consensus clear. Why not just relist it? Mangojuicetalk 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think my argument counters his. His argument makes a decent case that the award is considered important by some. On the other hand, we really can't have an article with no reliable sources on this topic, as I was pointing out. None have been brought forward, and I couldn't find any. There are a lot of self-published things but nothing reliable that discusses the award at all that I could find. Now, maybe you don't agree with me but I think that's a good reason to delete that DGG's argument doesn't counter. So yeah, the debate really could end up as delete, and by relisting it we will find out. Or I can make the point at DRV if you prefer. Mangojuicetalk 06:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noelle Bush (second nomination)
Hi. It looks like you forgot to close the AfD when implementing the redirect. I've taken care of that. Sandstein 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Delete
I'm fine with that. Work away! Hope you enjoy the larger article. Fergananim —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Angelic Evasion
I completely understand why my article was deleted, I was just wondering how you would post an article on a band that has no reference sites other than it's own page.
Musichatesyouall (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Angelic Evasion
Thank you very much for responding and for your honesty. I can see where wiki is coming from with these guidelines, but I also see a lot of grey area with them. I personally think that it is rather unsavory to control the media with specific criteria, but wiki probably won't listen. The criteria is probably set in place more to control number of articles than anything anyway. Anyway I am looking forward to maybe seeing an article of this band in place in the near future hopefully! Thanks again for your time and patience (especially when you could have told me that I am a dumbass and I need to search the rules) Musichatesyouall (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wow, quick delete!
That was a quick delete, 1 minute after I posted the template! You are a speedy admin...congrats! Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User Custom lessthan edit count
A tag has been placed on Template:User Custom lessthan edit count requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hmm
I wondered if anyone had told you about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_professional_sportspeople_convicted_of_crimes. It seems they hadn't. So I have. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes
An editor has nominated List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
