User talk:NoSeptember/archives/AfD
| Return to the NoSeptember: |
Topical archives index | Talk page |
RC list
[edit]Yeah. Well- the list is messy. I think the best would be to put all specific professions (musicians, military,..) on separate pages & to retain this list as, eh, mother of all RC lists. Just, it's kinda weird to have "Catholic criminals" or "Catholic directors" lists. Anyway, this shall be done- one only has to think of appropriate titles. Best Mir Harven 16:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Related talk: here
List of Jews
[edit]I would urge you to reconsider your vote for this page (see the latest thread at the talk page -- the discussion between Tomer and User 24 -- for why). freestylefrappe 20:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I found the discussion irrelevant to whether the article should exist or not. If content needs to be improved or the article needs to be broken into other articles, this should be done. Round up some good editors, if you need to, and make the content good. NoSeptember 08:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Sig
[edit]Thank you, now it does! Trollderella 16:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Related talk: here
Corey Maye
[edit]Not a problem; I just wish the links had been acknowledged on the deletion page. Daniel Case 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you meant inbound links. Sorry. No harm. Daniel Case 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Glad to see that you voted to speedy keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
free expression on user pages
[edit]Hey, congrats with the admin nomination I just read above! :) But what I'm writing you for is this. Some time ago, we were discussing the proposed deletion of wikipedians by politics and you made some good arguments in favor of keeping it. Now there still seems to be an ongoing dispute about whether these categories (and related userboxes) are factionalizing or not. I'm trying to find people who support the view that a users should be able to express themselves and their views freely on their user pages. I'm not massively sending messages to users this time, though, because of the charges I was faced with the last time. Instead, I would prefer to start out with a small group, to monitor categories for deletion and templates for deletion, and vote there. Would you like to join this? I hope to hear from you! Larix 13:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
CFD (Living people) and Jimbo Wales' decision
[edit]Yeah that's why I removed the tag already. If I missed anything , please feel free to remove it. Thanks.Gator (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Related talk: here
afd question (Swatjester)
[edit]Ok so I have a question here, and I want a second opinion before I submit this as an AfD
The Drowned Baby Timeline appears to me to be non-notable fan-fiction. It's admittably fan-created alternate history by User:Johnny Pez. A google search of Drowned Baby Time Line and Drowned Baby Timeline both come up with a handful of hits, however two of those hits are the wikipedia and answers.com wiki entries, and the remainder appear to be either blog entries, submissions to short story database, and a link to a Flickr.com photo archive [1], [2]. Now I'm of the belief that while the article appears to be well written, it's non-notable. I don't want to generate any ill-will, however, and I wanted a second opinion before I submit to AfD. Do you think this should be submitted for deletion? Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester 
Ready Aim Fire! 14:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Related talk: here
Speedy v. AfD
[edit]Hi:
I may have made an error. John WI Brown was tagged with a speedy deletion tag as “bio or vanity”. I looked at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and thought that it didn't meet any of the speedy delete criteria, so I changed it to an AfD. The person who originally attached the speedy delete responded and noted that it met the {{db-bio}} criteria, which it probably does and which I missed when scanning the speedy delete criteria. Could you take a look and speedy delete it if appropriate?
Sorry to bug you.
— DLJessup (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help.
- BTW, right as I started writing this posting, I noticed the comments below about keeping the image at the bottom of the page. If people ever start using the “+” tab, that's going to play hob with keeping the image at the bottom….
- — DLJessup (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I don't mind fixing the footer, as my hidden text indicates. NoSeptember talk 00:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Related talk: here
Hello NoSeptember| : - ) I don't see anything but Trouble with a capital T. It's hard enough to contain the problems on AN/I. Best case scenario, what do you envision? FloNight talk 21:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)