User talk:LeCrawf

Welcome, LeCrawf! I noticed that you placed a vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silly-not-to. Participation in the community is encouraged, of course, but your status as a brand new user means that your vote might not be counted. Please understand that this is a common practice on Wikipedia, and that it is necessary to prevent deliberate misuse of our voting systems. Straw polls on Wikipedia are meant to measure community consensus, and should not necessarily be taken as literal one-member one-vote voting. However, please do make further contributions to Wikipedia, and express your opinion on policy matters.

Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Silly-not-to was deleted via AfD. If you disagree with this decision, you should voice your concerns at deletion review. You should never simply recreate deleted content. Doing so is considered vandalism, and can get you blocked. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And doing it again is just plain daft. Tonywalton | Talk 15:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. Before you try and deltete silly-not-to again I will try and explain what has happened here. There was disquiet on AfD that I had not inserted references into silly-not-to. I have now added two verifiable references that coroborate all the factual information in the article. The deposit vault section at Guildford's library will have copies of both items should you wish to verify.

Now the referneces are in, silly not to should be allowed to stand. Most people were in agreement about this in the AfD discussion, sadly one or two people deleted a lot of the comments of others. I can find vast numbers of people willing to vouch for the silly-not-to lifestyle being in existance if that will be of any assistance.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.

Please stop recreating deleted pages and removing deletion tags. StarryEyes 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. Syrthiss 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before: don't simply recreate the Silly-not-to article. If you want it undeleted, you can bring it up at deletion review. Thank you for your attention and understanding. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 19:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I (along with a few other users)am the creator of the 'silly not to' article. As a new user I have only just found my talk page full of people saying that they have deleted it- it was my presumtion that my submitting simply wasnt working, hence my persistance. Having read this i can appreciate your irritation. On the AfD page for silly not to, a consensus was reached that until references had been found, the article should be deleted. (Sadly some users seemed to be deleting any fabourable comments). I have subsequently found two references in genuine and currently published books to verify the silly-not-to article. I added these, and re-instated the page, as with references, there is no reason why silly not to should not have an article. If you check the log you will see some recreations were carried out by persons other than myself. LeCrawf

If that's the case, then you need to bring it up at deletion review, as Aecis said. Tonywalton | Talk 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]