User talk:CygnetSaIad

deletion discussion
Your tagging of the article Sudan Tribune for speedy deletion has triggered an AFD. You may wish to join the discussion. Thank you, BanyanTree 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - CygnetSaIad 07:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, According to the closing admin, I began this deletion debate "to create a discussion that would embarrass CygnetSaIad and make a point to CygnetSaIad using AfD". I am obviously disputing this reading of the situation, but would like to make clear to you that this was not my intention and apologize if you had this impression as well. - BanyanTree 20:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please rest assured that at no stage have I've been given any reason to view you as anything other than an excellent contributor. I appreciate both the note here and your comments on Jreferee's talk, thank you again. - CygnetSaIad 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your note

 * Moved to User talk:Crum375

Crood Awakening
Ok, thank you for letting me know about the redirect for Crood Awakening. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sudan Tribune
Hi,

This is definitely a messy case. First thing, I'll tell you that your reading of policy was not "twisted": it was certainly strict, but perfectly legitimate (though, of course, not conclusive -- AfDs may always apply lenience, within reason.) Procedurally speaking, the big flaw here was John254's non-admin close: he's been doing many of those lately, and they've been popping up at DRV. Jreferee's reclosing was within policy and good attempt to avoid having another DRV rehashing the same problem. He closed the AfD without result for a technical reason (BanyanTree's nom. failed to state a ground for deletion.) There is no prejudice against another AfD. Jreferee closed the DRV also on technical grounds (mootness); there is no prejudice against a new DRV either.

My advice: a DRV on this case will not end up deleting the article -- the keep arguments were not unreasonable. A new AfD, though, with your arguments in the nomination, might do so. Note that I have no opinion on the article itself. I would recommend that you immediately nominate the article for a fresh AfD. If anyone questions this, you may link to this conversation or direct them to me, and I'll work it out. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually
I was responding to Tony's comment on my page, not your comment on his... I forgot to label it an edit conflict. –– Lid(Talk) 00:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok. Thanks mate. - CygnetSaIad 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Check-user application regarding status of this account

 * Moved to User_talk:Jehochman

Draft?
You can't keep a draft in Wikipedia space. Please either move your RFC/Durova into your own userspace, or remove the "draft" designation. As it stands now, it's neither a real RFC nor a real draft. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Sorry, I had understood that the first 48 hours of it's life it was intended that it be open for editting in a non-formal sense, prior to being linked to the main "User RfC" page. This seemed in fact to be the reason that grace period exists, otherwise it could simply emerge Minerva-like from the head of user space all ceritifed up and everything.  Thank you, - CygnetSaIad (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice
I have listed Template:FGwiki on WP:DRV at Deletion review/Log/2007 December 13. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check your email
I have mailed you in accordance with your stated offer. Thanks for making it. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: If you choose to participate
Thank you for your message. I have disengaged from the issue of spoiler warnings until December 22, 2007 so I will not be editing that subpage any time soon. Thank you though for your offer. --Pixelface (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)