User talk:Dona tracy

welcome and Angelo Plessas
welcome and welcome. check out welcome and WP:TRI for opposite intros to the backchannel here.

Thanks for your comments on Angelo Plessas. The article had been tagged for deletion based on Conflict of interest, since a user:Angelo Plessas had created the article. Creating or editing an article about yourself is not encouarged. I doubt it will be deleted at this point.. which is fine by me considering the relative neutrality of the content.

Feel free to drop questions my way.. stick around ;). &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neen art
Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neen art (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 07:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Please refrain from vandalising my user page. Thank you. Frigo 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Neen art
Please do not modify a closed Articles for deletion discussion. First of all, few people read the already closed debates, and secondly, that's not the way to change the outcome of that particular discussion anyway.

Your comments have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Neen art. However, complaining there is not necessarily the most productive thing envisioned. Here are better suggestions:
 * If the article deletion leaves too much doubt, there's always Deletion Review. However, this is only about the deletion process; if a flaw in deletion procedure in these causes is found (I can't find any glaring flaws in the process myself), the article may be restored and subjected to another deletion debate.
 * Rewrite the Neen article with good sources, making sure the notability and sources leave no doubt, as discussed previously in Articles for deletion/Neen art and Articles for deletion/Neen. If the issues raised in these discussions aren't addressed properly in the new article, it's just likely the article will just be deleted again eventually.

But either way, please refrain from modifying this already closed deletion debate. It's unlikely to get your points noticed that way.

And judging from the comments on the talk page referenced above, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at assuming good faith and doing no personal attacks. Just because someone else is annoying you is no excuse to start ranting.

Finally, a technical comment - you appear to be signing your posts as "User:Dona Tracy". Since your user name is actually uncapitalised (User:Dona tracy), you should link to that page, because that's your actual user name. If you want to sign as "Dona Tracy", you probably want to set your signature as Dona Tracy - this will link to the correct user page while having your preferred text. You can change this in your preferences. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Worth repeating...
...considering what you did yet again here. Please do not modify already closed deletion discussions. If you have questions about this particular rule we have, or any other question regarding the deletion policy, please don't hesitate to contact me via my talk page. Thank you. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)