User talk:Grace Wayne

Can you find more references for your article? -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  23:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD nomination of Margrit Kennedy
A tag has been placed on Margrit Kennedy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. 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. LittleOldMe (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. LittleOldMe (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's. LittleOldMe (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * No, it wasn't vandalism because anyone can tag an article but as the creator you shouldn't remove it yourself, even if the article is valid. -- Menti  fisto  00:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Clear vandalism can always be removed, and I identified the edits (by a person who mostly seems to be a revert-warrior, btw.) to be clear, plain vandalism and disruption, given the fact that the article clearly established the notability of the subject, contained a reference and had articles in several other languages including major projects like German and French (hence, the only correct procedure would be to nominate it for deletion, not tag it for speedy deletion). Also, I pointed out this on the talk page, but the user who attacked the article with bad-faith speedy templates refused to discuss his edits. He should be banned for disruptive revert-warring. Grace Wayne (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are obviously referring to me as the editor who has wronged you, and whom you wish to report. I was the first editor to tag the page for deletion and three times re-instated the tag which you removed. I also placed messages on your talk page inviting you to use the tag. After reverting for the third time I left the article alone so as not to be guilty of contravening the three revert rule. Only then did you add anything to the article's talk page but you did not bother to use the  tag. The only communication you had with me was to place a final warning on my talk page. And you may call me a revert warrior if you like, I am proud to bear the title. LittleOldMe (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I was dealing with plain vandalism, it was better to just remove it since the speedy request was obviously disruptive and without any merit or justification, and no sane admin would ever speedily delete the article. If it had been a good faith request, I would of course used the hangon template instead. I was not willing to treat it like a good faith request since it appeared to be a bad faith request, at least after you began revert-warring. Grace Wayne (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If your actions were justified, why are you the only editor in the entire exchange to receive a block? It seems that some insane administrator got involved. I'm sure that once your block expires that you'll be able to right these wrongs. Good luck! LittleOldMe (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because I've better things to do than hanging around on the Wikipedia IRC channel, constantly revert-warring, and recruiting friends to support me in harrassing a contributor (me)? Grace Wayne (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am pleased that the Margrit Kennedy article survived. At the time I tagged it the only reference it had was to Magrit's own web page. I made a judgement call and got it wrong, I do not deny that. However, Grace, you should accept the fact that by your edit warring and petulant final warnings on talk pages you managed to get yourself blocked. Had you placed a tag on the article as a first step, rather than repeatedly deleting the tag and behaving like a vandal, you would still be free to edit on Wikipedia. I would have been proved wrong to tag the page and you would have been the hero. Also, can you please try to accept that I do what I do in good faith. You might consider what I do trivial, but without people willing to do the trivial cleanup work, Wikipedia would be a mess and people like you, dedicated to writing articles, would be so busy cleaning up the mess that you wouldn't have time to write articles. Let's call a truce and work together as a team. LittleOldMe (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy request was declined (of course)
I see the disruptive speedy request was now declined (of course). I'm going to open a request for comment on certain users when this illegitimate/abusive block expires. Grace Wayne (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, as Mentifisto was saying, anyone can tag an article for speedy deletion (even if it's a valid article -- perhaps they've never heard of this person/place/thing before) -- but as the creator of the article you shouldn't remove the tag yourself. Someone putting back a speedy deletion tag that the author removed isn't vandalism. -- T'Shael  MindMeld  00:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was vandalism and disruption, and the users involved needs to be banned. Users who don't do anything constructive (like writing articles), and are only revert-warring in a disruptive way to sabotage the work of other users who write articles, are damaging Wikipedia. Grace Wayne (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read this. The speedy deletion tag itself even says " do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add: ." This seems pretty clear to me. -- T'Shael   MindMeld  00:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That only applies to good faith requests, and is certainly not without exceptions. If someone added a speedy template in the article on Barack Obama, anyone could revert it as obviously disruptive as well. The article in question did not fill any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Grace Wayne (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)