User talk:68.239.79.82/KathrineS

Hunted Cow Studios
On your talk page above, someone has already provided ways as to how you can handle this situation. Please follow one of these methods to make the copyright acceptable for Wikipedia. Also, I contest that Hunted Cow Studios does not meet WP:CORP notability guidelines, which means an article on the subject should not be created. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

May 2007
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Hoofmaster, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Dweller 07:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not recreate deleted nonsense material. --Dweller 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Hoofmaster, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 72.75.73.158 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Hoofmaster
It is no longer necessary to keep adding to the article as it is no longer tagged for speedy deletion. The article is now the subject of an Articles for deletion discussion which will determine whether the article is deleted. This can be found at Articles for deletion/Hoofmaster. Regards. Adambro 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of article and changing afd tag
Do not recreate the Andrew Mulholland article again or change the page name in the AfD tag on Hoofmaster. If the article survives AfD you can move it (or request it be moved) to his real name. Yomangani talk 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The current article has had several edits which are not valid and removed important information. The 2nd article wa created to preserve the information and to meet suggestions. KathrineS 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can continue editing the original article during the AfD process and, if it survives, it can be moved to the correct title using the move facility once the discussion is complete. Creating a second article is not the correct procedure, as this removes the page history and makes it look as if you are attempting to circumvent the deletion discussion. If the original article contains what you consider to be incorrect information or lacks information you feel is important, then you need to make a case to the involved editors to correct or add the appropriate information. Yomangani talk 16:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:72.75.73.158's speedy deletions
I am concerned by User:72.75.73.158, who seems to feel authorized to use anonymity to evade the consequences for breaching the wikipeida's policies.

Could you fill me in on the details of the article your started that they tagged for speedy deletion?

I too have had a perfectly legitimate article tagged for speedy deletion, and then quickly deleted by a careless admin, in spite of having a  placed on it.

There is a procedure for asking to have an article "undeleted". It shouldn't be painful, or time-consuming, when the deleting administrator failed to comply with the rules. However, in the case of this article I started, was both painful and time-consuming. But, if yours seems legitimate to me, I'll help make it less painful for you...

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have had several articles 'speedily' deleted and a couple of others that 'vanished' before the 5 days discussion was up. My most recent article vanished overnight - Hoofmaster. It was supposed to be renamed and moved, however it has just been deleted. There was a lot of discussion regarding it, which will obviously now go unresolved and the editors in question get away with bullying etc as the article no longer exists. Gothador, Fallen Sword and Hunted Cow Studios were all speedy deletes too. KathrineS 23:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. The wikipedia documentation could be a lot clearer on how to trace the responsibility for who deleted an article.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Article || Deletion log (CSD code) - Instigator || justification offered
 * Hunted Cow Studios || G12 - ||
 * Blatant copyright infringement (G12)
 * Hoofmaster || A7 - ||
 * Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites (A7)
 * Articles for deletion/Hoofmaster
 * Gothador || A7 -  ||
 * Articles for deletion/Gothador
 * Fallen Sword || A7 - ||
 * Articles for deletion/Fallen Sword
 * Articles for deletion/Gothador
 * Fallen Sword || A7 - ||
 * Articles for deletion/Fallen Sword
 * Articles for deletion/Fallen Sword


 * }


 * I'll return tomorrow with some comments on the channels to restoration...


 * Cheers Geo Swan 07:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled across this page, and the answers were right in front of your face all along ... if the delete log doesn't have the answer, try "What links here" for the deleted article ... I have taken the liberty of updating the table you provided to include the editors who instigated the speedy deletes while on New pages patrol.


 * Gee, did I really instigate the deletion of all of those articles? (Nope, only half of them. :-) ... and yet you got them restored, and they were still deleted by consensus of the Senior Partners ... I didn't even bother to offer my 2¢ worth during the AfD for Fallen Sword.


 * These speedy deletions, and having my IP blocked from editing, are something I'd rather put behind me, but at least it resulted in my new/revised protocol described in What to do after your speedy delete has been restored ... at the risk violating Do not feed the troll, I invite you to make your suggestions/comments on that sandbox.


 * As for and Articles for deletion/Hoofmaster, what brought me here today is that I finally noticed Hoofmaster had gone redlink ... once I had made some comments at the AfD, my IP address changed, and besides, it was time to MOVE ON ... I remember participating in that AfD, and even doing some WikiGnome cleanups on Hoofmaster, but as for Gothador and Fallen Sword, it looks like the Counter Vandalism Unit tagged them as "recreated by author after a CSD " ... apparently I did leave a warning about the CSD for Hoofmaster that led to it being deleted, restored, and immediately taken to AfD, so I'll gladly own up to that speedy delete call ... because it's gone now, too, in spite of the extra time that the AfD provided.


 * Now, before I can finally MOVE ON from "The 72.75 Incident," I'd like to remind you folks of two things ... my edit history (scroll to the bottom for the oldest entries) shows all of the courtesy warnings I left while on New Pages Patrol on 01 May 2007 ... if I had not left these messages, the editors might not have known what happened to their articles ... so don't blame me if you didn't read my warning before Some Other Editor (an admin) agreed with my tag and deleted the unworthy article/stub/whatever.


 * That you were somehow offended or affronted by the notion that an anonymous IP editor's opinions and judgments of your contributions should even be considered by the Senior Partners must have been a fallacious assumption on your part, seeing as how the consensus decision was "kill it before it grows" ... so it appears that I was not Too Quick to judge these articles.


 * Which brings me to my second point, which is "If you had just used your sandbox first and provided some WP:A to support WP:N, then these articles wouldn't have been deleted!" ... I've tried to take my share of the responsibility for articles that were mistakenly deleted by CSD and restored, but apparently none of these were mistakes, because they're all redlinked now.


 * And since they are, I can once again MOVE ON ... Happy Editing! &mdash; 05:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)