User talk:Paranormal Skeptic/Archives/2008/September

Ghost Hunters
I removed one link because the MOS (aka Manual of Style) suggests one unique link per page, unless they are in different sections of the article – in this case you had a link in the Episode Title and again in the Investigation column and they are right next to each other. If you notice also, all the other links to specific places are set up under the "Investigations" column only, and not the "Episode Title" column. The later is simply my personal preference because I think a page looks like crap with links all over the place in an unorganized mess. I think it also avoids confusion because it might make it look like the episode has its own article page, and none of the episodes have that because they aren't notable enough on their own. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I wouldn't make articles for every location just because they appeared in Ghost Hunters. Keep in mind notability or else the place might not have a strong enough history to be included on Wikipedia. I'm sure many places have a rich history that's worth mentioning, but if not they could get deleted. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomlloyd1
I have asked you to not remove the page. Please do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlloyd1 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Morgan's ace harware
An article that you have been involved in editing, Morgan's ace harware, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Morgan's ace harware. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Grutness...wha?  23:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Vicon
Wouldn't this be db-spam? I think that it is obviously advertising, but what is your take?

TronixCountry
You're actually claiming that a page meets CSD:A7, that is "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" even though it contains several solid references, and the text: "firm in the controversial installment credit business," etc? Wow. God appeared to me in a burning bush and told me the company is notable, so it must not be deleted. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "The only references regarding your company..."
 * You have failed to respect [WP:NPA]. Do not commment on my talk page again unless it's first to apologize.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Texel Disaster
Thanks for the praise, always nice to hear from other editors - Dumelow (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tanner Corns
While I agree that this article merits speedy deletion, I believe you miscategorized it as an attack. It was merely a simple piece of fluff written by the subject himself. The difference isn't too significant on the article, but the warning posted on the user's talk page gives the wrong idea. As I look at user's talk pages, I'm more likely to report them for vandalism if they are engaged in attacks then if they are engaged in simple foolishness. Just a thought. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue Ribbon elementary schools
Lakewood just won a blue ribbon - And this Articles_for_deletion/Memorial_Drive_Elementary_School shows how an AFD case ended in favor of the school as it had a blue ribbon. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the Proposed deletion policy: So if you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, please use AFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore the tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."
 * Well, I will try to improve the article, BUT PROD is mainly for uncontroversial deletions (i.e. if no reason is found to save the article, it goes). Believe me, I will try to find some way to improve the article, but as per the Memorial Drive AFD I also believe that the Lakewood ES article is inherently notable anyway. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Princess and the Frog
Speedy deletion of Jennifer Cody? I am just having trouble editing the page for goodness sake, I am still learning about this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windstorm2009 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Eliteanswers.com
Thanks for taking the time to reviuew my page.

You were really quick on the draw:)

This is not the same page as i posted before, I have removed over 50% of the content due to what could be deemed advertising.

If you could review it and let me know whicxh sections specifically aren't up to snuff I'll gladly change them.

Thanks againYitzhaac Pesach (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Netop Remote Control
Just to let you know that the correct action to take when a user removes a speedy deletion tag from an article they wrote is to replace the tag and place a uw-speedy warning on their talk page, not bring it to AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben's Personal Site
Just as an FYI- this wouldn't qualify as G1.  jj137  ( talk )  15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)