User talk:Gimme a reason to keep this

Why?
XD'd articles are already gone. Why bother prod'ing them? Friday (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * reply: Because more people are monitoring prod.

prod etiquitte
I don't know why you feel like you need to do your prod nominations via a sockpuppet (??), but anyway it's worth considering that many new users get their start in Wikipedia by creating articles that end up being deleted because they are inappropriate for some reason. There's no reason to make this process more painful for them than it already is. In particular I suspect that some of the prod reasons you've given might be perceived as condescending. Remember not to bite the young ones! Brighterorange 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * reply: OK, I'll be nicer when I'm tagging Special:Newpages.

Non-notable biography
A reminder that biographies that do not assert significance can be speedily deleted: WP:CSD. enochlau (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * reply: OK

Articles for deletion/Talibangelical
Talibangelical was already contested. It's now at AfD. NickelShoe 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * reply: Yes, please, please, send all my prodded-then-contested articles to AfD. You can find more near the bottom of this list.

Bots must be authorised
Above, on your talkpage, it says about this account: "It may even be a 'bot". All bots that run on the English Wikipedia must be authorised, but I didn't notice any authorisation at WP:BOTS. If it is a bot, get it authorised, else remove the statement "It may even be a 'bot", so people like me don't have to go around asking.--Commander Keane 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * reply: I removed it. It wasn't funny anyway.

Please stop
Please either do your prods under your real username, or start using this account properly. Continuing to edit while ignoring communications from other editors isn't good. Friday (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (replied via email.)


 * BTW, thanks for replying to this and your other messages. Sorry for being rude, I realized upon re-reading this that my tone was entirely too harsh.  My only defense is that I strongly feel that editors can't function properly unless they're willing to engage other editors in feedback.  Friday (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Gis.nww.co.uk
Hey - justt saw the heads up on the above article. I know it may fail WEB, but this site is part of the legal requirements of the construction and sub-contracting industry in the United Kingdom; I should know, I've been in it for five years!

For me to improve the site, what do you suggest I do ?

Regards

doktorb | words 12:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * reply: My answer is in WP:WEB.

Blocked

 * reply: This is not a public or shared account and I am not a banned user. My use of the account falls completely within Sock puppetry, such as "Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons."  I have a substantial history of valid contributions.  I doubt any of them is disruptive or vandalism.  I have never abused the account to sway voting or deceive, impersonate or circumvent policy.  Four to five administrators have seen and approved my work.  I respectfully request to be unblocked.  Thank you. --Gimme a reason to keep this

I've unblocked you, but I'd suggest that to get around the rather ambiguous "role account" issue, you do more than one thing with the account. Like, oh, I dunno, find the occasional article tagged for Cleanup and fix it up. Or make a couple article edits. Enough so that you get deeper into the gray area. FCYTravis 09:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)