User talk:Kismetologist

You have recently re-created the article Better Than, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. - Lucky 6.9 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This goes for your previous contributions as well. - Lucky 6.9 19:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because whatever it is, it appears to be original research, a text dump from another source and/or possible nonsense. You are free to request undeletion, but I have a feeling that the community may agree with me. The title hasn't been blocked, so if you can write an article about the phhilosophy in your own words, in the formal tone required and with verifiable references, you should be OK. - Lucky 6.9 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder I couldn't find references. That's the problem; this isn't the place to try and assert the notability of something that isn't yet notable. In other words, Better Than and Fortuna would both have to be well-referenced and in wide use before an article could be written about them. If the movements are relatively new and unknown (and I admit the Fortuna article brought a smile to my face), then they simply don't ring the notability bell. Wish I could be of better help. If you'd like a second opinion, feel free to contact another administrator. Good luck. - Lucky 6.9 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question; it may depend on what the undeletion discussion had to say about it. There's a neat policy here which simply states "be bold." I'd say a well-referenced and scholarly article would likely be a keeper. Only way to find out is to post it. Good luck! - Lucky 6.9 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Fortuna

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fellowship of Fortuna, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Fellowship of Fortuna. Jfire (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chance.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chance.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Shield crown.gif

The file File:Shield crown.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]