Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles, as you did with Defunkitated. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{ hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. -- Shadowlynk 09:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe that this needs to be deleted. I believe that it is being put up for deletion due to malice intent. There are many things on Wikipedia that are harmful to it's nature, but this is not one of those things.
(
SlimJimmy
09:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
- Please read my explanation, and it's not due to any malice intent. It's not harmful, it's just not notable. And whether you believe it to be deleted or not makes no difference. - SpLoT / ( talk) 09:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop tagging my articles with a deletion notice. Maybe it's you who has 'malice intent'. - SpLoT / ( talk) 09:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I also suggest that you stop blatantly trying to squeeze in things like 'a word you made up' into WP:YFA. It's considered vandalism. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh please. Don't tell me you haven't read all that material about articles. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You've got to stop thinking that this is an issue about democracy. Wikipedia isn't it. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the only reason I'm even involved is that I left a notice on the original creator's talkpage, which leads me to think that your just another sockpuppet. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with the articles that you claim are Patent nonsense? I can't see anything. Please provide a good reason when you request deletion. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 09:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I didn't think that it had historical significance to me, but I could be wrong. I apologize if I am wrong. ( SlimJimmy 10:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
- Thank you for at least having the decency for an apology. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds kind of harsh.... "at least" but I'll take it. No worries. I thought that I was very polite the whole time. Once again, sorry if I was not. I do try to be as polite as possible, even when I have a disagreement. Which I still do BTW. :-D Hope all is well. ( SlimJimmy 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
It's not really well though. You vandalised my articles, removed deletion tags, vandalised a WP page, sockpuppetry, wow. That's quite a lot, you know. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent
vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Core
des
at
10:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not vandalize a single one of your articles? I didn't change a thing on anything... I did remove a few deletion tags because it said that if I did not create this article and thought that it shouldn't be deleted then I could, but that was before I read on another page that only admins can and that the quote is a typo. And what WP page did I vandalize? SockPuppetry? It does sound like a lot, maybe I am missing something... I guess I don't know what to say... Sorry can't cover it if I did all that. ... ... Humblest apologies. ( SlimJimmy 10:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
What in the heck did I vandalize? ( SlimJimmy 10:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
For real, what did I vandalize!?!
What did I edit/Vandalize?
I do not wish to respond further to this matter. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- SpLoT pretty much got it all. Adding speedy deletion tags to articles that aren't speedy deletion candidates (and are clearly encyclopedic) without reason or to get back at someone for tagging your article is vandalism and disruption (in violation of
Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point). Changing
a Wikipedia help page to make your article look acceptable doesn't help. Please don't do it again. --
Core
des
at
10:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, unless there is evidence that the word "defunkitated" is widely used and the article can be more than a dictionary entry, the article won't be acceptable. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and we're also not a place where words from Urban Dictionary go to become more well-known. You'll have to post about it elsewhere. -- Core des at 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles, as you did with Defunkitated. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{ hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. -- Shadowlynk 09:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe that this needs to be deleted. I believe that it is being put up for deletion due to malice intent. There are many things on Wikipedia that are harmful to it's nature, but this is not one of those things.
(
SlimJimmy
09:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
- Please read my explanation, and it's not due to any malice intent. It's not harmful, it's just not notable. And whether you believe it to be deleted or not makes no difference. - SpLoT / ( talk) 09:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop tagging my articles with a deletion notice. Maybe it's you who has 'malice intent'. - SpLoT / ( talk) 09:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I also suggest that you stop blatantly trying to squeeze in things like 'a word you made up' into WP:YFA. It's considered vandalism. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh please. Don't tell me you haven't read all that material about articles. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You've got to stop thinking that this is an issue about democracy. Wikipedia isn't it. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the only reason I'm even involved is that I left a notice on the original creator's talkpage, which leads me to think that your just another sockpuppet. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with the articles that you claim are Patent nonsense? I can't see anything. Please provide a good reason when you request deletion. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 09:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I didn't think that it had historical significance to me, but I could be wrong. I apologize if I am wrong. ( SlimJimmy 10:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
- Thank you for at least having the decency for an apology. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds kind of harsh.... "at least" but I'll take it. No worries. I thought that I was very polite the whole time. Once again, sorry if I was not. I do try to be as polite as possible, even when I have a disagreement. Which I still do BTW. :-D Hope all is well. ( SlimJimmy 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
It's not really well though. You vandalised my articles, removed deletion tags, vandalised a WP page, sockpuppetry, wow. That's quite a lot, you know. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent
vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Core
des
at
10:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not vandalize a single one of your articles? I didn't change a thing on anything... I did remove a few deletion tags because it said that if I did not create this article and thought that it shouldn't be deleted then I could, but that was before I read on another page that only admins can and that the quote is a typo. And what WP page did I vandalize? SockPuppetry? It does sound like a lot, maybe I am missing something... I guess I don't know what to say... Sorry can't cover it if I did all that. ... ... Humblest apologies. ( SlimJimmy 10:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
What in the heck did I vandalize? ( SlimJimmy 10:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
For real, what did I vandalize!?!
What did I edit/Vandalize?
I do not wish to respond further to this matter. - SpLoT / ( talk) 10:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- SpLoT pretty much got it all. Adding speedy deletion tags to articles that aren't speedy deletion candidates (and are clearly encyclopedic) without reason or to get back at someone for tagging your article is vandalism and disruption (in violation of
Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point). Changing
a Wikipedia help page to make your article look acceptable doesn't help. Please don't do it again. --
Core
des
at
10:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, unless there is evidence that the word "defunkitated" is widely used and the article can be more than a dictionary entry, the article won't be acceptable. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and we're also not a place where words from Urban Dictionary go to become more well-known. You'll have to post about it elsewhere. -- Core des at 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)