User talk:Carados

The Proco Rat
What an absurd decision - there is an article on the Big Muff Pi, and Boss DS-1(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_DS-1) why should there not be an article on the Rat, which is also a famous distortion pedal? It is probably the most famous flat out "distortion" pedal. You're not helping Wikipedia by being trigger happy. Do some research of your own on similiar articles before tearing up other people's work.

this
There isn't anything wrong with removing prods from your own articles, and prods shouldn't be replaced once they've been removed. The whole point of prod is that it's for uncontroversial cases; if someone objects, even if its the article's creator, you should take it to AfD.P4k (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete of Evening Revival
This is my first article on Wiki and I'm trying my best to improve it any way possible. Can you give me any pointers?

TY!!!
I would like to thank you and BillC for deleting every single fucking article I made and every single edit, even though I was the prime topic of each edit...

Tomahawk (Axe) - The tomahawk in modern times
The original article was nothing but blatant advertising for American Tomahawk Company. His own edit made the article sound as if no one else makes tactical tomahawks and no one else supplies the U.S. Military and the specified units with other types of tomahawks. By adding the NSN number, he is advertising his specific product (VTAC) for sale to any government agencies, when in fact other manufacturers also have NSN numbers.

Also, in his original edit, he had American Tomahawk Company linked to nothing. I added simple information about the company's history and when it was started and by who. I added information under discussion that proves the claims. I also added other manufacturer's of tactical tomahawks and their specific names as did the original article (VTAC, "Vietnam Tomahawk"). I also was adding simple information about the other manufacturer's which can be found online with a simple search on google or any other search engines which explains their products as did American Tomahawk Company and was not advertising any products. If this information cannot be added to articles, then American Tomahawk Company's information on their company and specific tomahawk in the article above should be deleted as well. B Raines War

Speedy Deletion of American Tomahawk Company
The original article, "Tomahawk (axe) - The tomahawk in modern times" was nothing but blatant advertising for American Tomahawk Company. His own edit made the article sound as if no one else makes tactical tomahawks and no one else supplies the U.S. Military and the specified units with other types of tomahawks. By adding the NSN number, he is advertising his specific product (VTAC) for sale to any government agencies, when in fact other manufacturers also have NSN numbers.

Also, in his original edit, he had American Tomahawk Company linked to nothing. I added simple information about the company's history and when it was started and by who. I added information under discussion that proves the claims. I also added other manufacturer's of tactical tomahawks and their specific names as did the original article (VTAC, "Vietnam Tomahawk"). I also was adding simple information about the other manufacturer's which can be found online with a simple search on google or any other search engines which explains their products as did American Tomahawk Company and was not advertising any products. If this information cannot be added to articles, then American Tomahawk Company's information on their company and specific tomahawk in the article above should be deleted as well. B Raines War

Speedy Deletion of Fehrman Knives
The original article, "Tomahawk (axe) - The tomahawk in modern times" was nothing but blatant advertising for American Tomahawk Company. His own edit made the article sound as if no one else makes tactical tomahawks and no one else supplies the U.S. Military and the specified units with other types of tomahawks. By adding the NSN number, they are advertising his specific product (VTAC) for sale to any government agencies, when in fact other manufacturers also have NSN numbers. His own original article made it sound as he manufactures his own product. I added Fehrman knives to the article to show the manufacturer of their product and added simple information of the company and not their specific products. The information that was added can be found online at American Tomahawk Company and Fehrman Knives websites.

Also, in his original edit, he had American Tomahawk Company linked to nothing. I added simple information about the company's history and when it was started and by who. I added information under discussion that proves the claims. I also added other manufacturer's of tactical tomahawks and their specific names as did the original article (VTAC, "Vietnam Tomahawk"). I also was adding simple information about the other manufacturer's which can be found online with a simple search on google or any other search engines which explains their products as did American Tomahawk Company and was not advertising any products. If this information cannot be added to articles, then American Tomahawk Company's information on their company and specific tomahawk in the article above should be deleted as well. B Raines War

How do I become a patroller guy?
Just wondering but how do I become a wikipatroller? Hurry up and wake up sleepy :)

Two Loons for Tea
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Two Loons for Tea, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

TV II - Multimedia Speedy Delete
You deleted the first article I submitted, because, quite frankly it was a bit commercial. However, the second one I based pretty much on your American Media Article. If the TV II article is too commercial, then so is the American Media one.

There seems to be a lack of consistency here.

Chuck Ransdell

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckransdell (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability Tag: Jack Malebranche
In December, according to the history, I think you tagged Jack Malebranche for "notability." At the time, this was totally justifiable, as the article hadn't been developed and there were very few citations.

However, I have done a lot of work on the article, and have provided several legitimate newspaper, journal and online sources discussing the author's book, which is moderately controversial. I'd assert that at this point minimum notability requirements have been satisfied.

Since I am new to Wikipedia, I thought it would be polite to ask you to review the article and remove the tag if you agree, or specify why you believe the article still does not meet requirements. (I've seen MANY other articles of more dubious notability, with fewer legitimate citations, on Wikipedia.)

If there is no response in a few days, I'm going to assume it is OK and remove the tag myself.

Thanks! Hazchem25 (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

FISH TACOS
FISH TACOSxx=0, what is the value of x

FISH TACOS
FISH TACOSxx=0, what is the value of x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.229 (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Shelf - Sexual Health Service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelf_(sexual_health_service),_Peterborough

Hi, I have spoken to another administrator about sorting out the page with citations, references and generally putting it up to encyclopedia standard - could you please review the page and guide me further for anything else I can do to get it off the deletion list? Our other editor (J Milburn) has said that it should be ok now. Thanks!

--Aaistrup (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)