User talk:Murgh/Sore Thumbs

Due process

Whoa. No place to put the {{hangon}}. Having created this article, gone to bed and received this post and the article speedied before waking up, I suggest someone is not the patient type. And someone got something wrong. The implication seem that I either put up a copyvio page, or damn near an identical article to one that got deleted by AFD. I know I didn't do the first, and highly doubt the second, but how can one know all preceding contribution? You see a red link, you know an article is missing..

So someone made an association to a previous Sore Thumbs article that I have no idea was ever written. Still, I am curious to the justification behind the decision to speedy within 6 hours. I wasn't familiar with the Recreation of deleted material clause, but someone should pause to think, Re-creation implies that someone has created material before. The same person, perhaps? Not someone else ignorant of a particular namespace history. At any rate, I expect this to be resolved before someone becomes embarrassed. Murgh ^disc. 10:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI archive post goes some way to explain the actions of User:Blaxthos (in the absence of a response or any other satisfying info) but I complied and wrote an article unaware of any of this, per MOS and ATT with the goal to withstand potential AFD scrutiny, but obviously not to be speedied though some loophole. Murgh ^disc. 11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sore Thumbs; unless something has changed since the votation, meaning it is now notable per WP:WEB, it'll keep being speedy-deleted. If you think that each and every concern expressed in that discussion is now solved and that the page you created explicitly listed the reasons for notability, you can ask Natalie Erin, the admin who deleted it, to undelete it (it works that way for contested "proposed deletions", however I don't know if it works for "speedy deletions" too), or place a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 11:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get over the ANI post, which has nothing to do with you (or this subject) -- it's a noticeboard regarding a different user whow as recreating the same article. There has been no accusation of malice or anything other than a courtesy notice that the article you created doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. There is no need to {{hangon}}, as it simply doesn't warrant inclusion. I was simply letting you know what happened to your article. /Blaxthos 14:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics

I'm not sure of all the rules of userfied pages, but I believe the purpose of such is to allow you to transwiki the article to a more appropriate home. Given that this article was given a full AfD and has been deleted, adding a user page to a WikiProject seems like an attempt at an end-run around the AfD result of delete. I've removed the template, and strongly encourage you to move this articke to the Comic wiki (it currently falls under criteria for speedy deletion here and could be removed at any time). Thanks! /Blaxthos 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about that and "out of line" as they say. You would do well not to insinuate any "attempted end-running". This article has never seen an AfD, as opposed to the unsourced stub of same name you did a process on nearly a year ago, and was certainly not userfied in order to undergo a transwiki. Whether the end result will be a deletion review or a direct reintroduction when the sources are sufficiently strong will be decided within the Wikiproject, but meanwhile please don't lurk and dishonestly threaten with speedy.

You are probably right in that I should not have had an active project template on the talk page, but deactivated as on the front page, but as the wikiprojects have merged, templates are being substituted project wide, and I forgot to nowiki this one. Keeping close watch, you must have seen this, so please take your own advice and don't assume the worst. MURGH ^disc. 20:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]