User talk:Paranormal Skeptic/Archives/2009/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paranormal Skeptic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Vandalism?
Hi
That wasn't vandalism. Anyone is allowed to remove PROD tags: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." We can't then call people vandals if they do just that.
It's most probably going to be delete along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton's Second Album anyway. --Amalthea 17:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- ... and I've just extended the AfD that way. Would you consider striking the warning from the anon's talk page? --Amalthea 18:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- meh, sure. If you want. It wasn't a vandal template, it was a "don't remove the prod tag", but sure. Not too big a deal. It's an anon ip, and probably not intending to come back with additional fudging of thing. Sometimes my tagging finger gets too quick. Cheers! Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not a big deal. You called it vandalism in the edit summary, and the warning template is one that says "don't remove the AfD tag", since really, anyone is allowed to remove a prod tag, even the author. :) It's going to be history quite soon in any case. Personally, I think even the AfD is redundant since it was discussed already, should be G4ed as a recreation.
Thanks for striking, and Cheers, Amalthea 19:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not a big deal. You called it vandalism in the edit summary, and the warning template is one that says "don't remove the AfD tag", since really, anyone is allowed to remove a prod tag, even the author. :) It's going to be history quite soon in any case. Personally, I think even the AfD is redundant since it was discussed already, should be G4ed as a recreation.
- meh, sure. If you want. It wasn't a vandal template, it was a "don't remove the prod tag", but sure. Not too big a deal. It's an anon ip, and probably not intending to come back with additional fudging of thing. Sometimes my tagging finger gets too quick. Cheers! Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
So I broke off the "Cultural References" section of the Otter article in an attempt to clarify the Otter article and support the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Popular_Culture. Obviously you disagree? I would like to know your POV. I propose we discuss this at Talk:Otter#Otters_in_popular_culture. Azoreg (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
CSD tagging
Hi there. Just a tip: While I am happy to assume good faith, I suggest you avoid such edits in future. I guess you just overlooked that the speedy deletion request was already declined or you didn't know that re-tagging after declination can be consider admin-shopping, so no problem with me. But some other admins may take offense in such actions and assume aforementioned admin-shopping-attempts, so I'd suggest you are more careful. As for the article in question, you should be a bit more careful with A7: It only applies if there is no indication whatsoever that the subject of an article may be notable. If they published books, if the article exists at another wiki, etc. then you should not tag for A7 but rather use PROD or AFD. Regards SoWhy 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)