User talk:Nur110

Re: Most Great Name
Please don't remove the AfD discussion template from Most Great Name. Once it's started, the process needs to continue, no matter the outcome. You've commented on the discussion page, which is the most you're able to do to save it. I personally haven't decided how I feel about the article, although if you look through its history you'll see that I had nominated it for deletion in the past. Best regards! Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comments on your talk page and in the discussion page of the article. The tag was placed there without the proper protocol for putting it there. Nur110 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You will note that I have cited repeatedly here as well as on your talk page that the correct protocol for nominating this article for deletion have not been followed. There is now more than one editor who has pointed this out. The article itself was vandalized by the editor proposing its deletion. The policy for deletion states,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
 * Copyright infringement
 * Patent nonsense or gibberish
 * Vandalism
 * Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
 * Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate)
 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
 * Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Articles about newly-coined words or terms (i.e. neologisms) not supported by reliable sources
 * Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * Inflammatory redirects
 * Redundant templates
 * Categories representing overcategorization
 * Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
 * Inappropriate user pages
 * Any other use of article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.

None of these criteria have been met in order for the article to be even placed in the proposal stages for deletion. Please respond to this and the fact that the article was vandalized by the proposer before hurling accusations at others. THank you. Nur110 (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As you yourself quoted, "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following". The fact is that any editor can nominate any article for deletion at any time if he or she sincerely believes that the article should be removed. If you feel that there was an error in this process, there are appropriate steps to take which do not involve disruptive editing. Kindly stop removing the tag. Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks and Talk Page Vandalism
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

I am an established editor with thousands of edits over the years covering various topics. This is a clear case of vandalism.

This is an attack page. I have notified the administrators. MARussellPESE (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nur110, if you created this SSP report with legitimate reason to, which I assume you did, then it isn't vandalism nor an attack page as MARussell says. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock report
Hi. I've corrected the malformed sockpuppetry report you've created, Suspected sock puppets/MARussellPESE. The suspected sockpuppets usernames should be included within the sockpuppet templates (like ). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)