User talk:Rasputin72

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Muck Sticky, 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 talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.  ttonyb (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 ttonyb (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there
I know why you contacted me, i know the article is innapropate and incomplete but I need support im still developing, I want to help, I want to show im not useless, im still learning, i want to be someone useful. Mickman1234 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(Corruption Eraser)Rasputin. Of course it isn't nice, but let it be for awhile. I'd like Simon P. and others to get a better glimpse of what they are doing by exaggerating their message for them just a little while using their own logic as to why that's OK. If you're on board for this little exercise in civic responsibility let me know, and I'll re-run the blurb. I'm curious to see how they respond to it. —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC).

Tapcent
You should've left the speedy template. Db-context/db-nonsense is the correct template to use for this situation. You've just made it more difficult by sending this to Afd. -Regancy42 (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, speedy is for non-contentious articles which clearly does not meet the criteria of inclusion OR it violates a key policy. Afd is usually used for topics that may be contentious and a discussion/consensus is needed. -Regancy42 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a pre-existing CSD template, do not replace it with an AfD unless the initial criteria is incorrect, or it is a contentious topic. Note that CSD is for specific circumstances, as shown by the list of options ie. db-bio, db-vandalism etc. Afd on the other hand is a more general option for deleting a page, for notability issues (which is not covered by CSD), and other problems. -Regancy42 (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:CSD for the list. -Regancy42 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Scott ko
Curious, you've deleted the speedy deletion template from Scott ko. What's the assertion of significance or notability in the article? —C.Fred (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are three types of deletion:
 * 1) Speedy deletion, for cases that require quick action (vandalism, attack pages, copyright infringement) or meet certain definitions (spam, non-notable biographies, empty pages).
 * 2) Proposed deletion, for articles that should be deleted but aren't eligible for speedy deletion, where the deletion is likely to be uncontested.
 * 3) Articles for deletion discussions, for articles where the deletion is contested and discussion is necessary.

In the Scott ko case, the article was tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7, a biography with no assertion of significant or importance. I speedy deleted it under criterion G11, spam.

Speedy deletions are, well, speedy. There's no discussion to be closed, and other than making sure the creating editor has been warned, little follow-up required. AfD discussion pages have to be closed when the article is created. That's also why speedy deletions are limited to very specific situations. (It also creates the situation where an article about a non-notable person can be speedy deleted, but an article about their even-less-notable book must go through PROD or AfD, because books aren't subject to criterion A7.)

By contrast, after an AfD is closed, the discussion page must still be cleaned up. (See WP:Articles for deletion/Scott ko.)

So, with an article where an article is tagged for speedy deletion and it's likely that an administrator will say, "Yes, that meets the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion," don't create an AfD discussion. You can always watch the page. If an administrator removes the tag (usually with an edit summary such as "decline speedy - A7 doesn't apply to books") but you still think the article should be deleted, then you can open the discussion.

On the flip side, if somebody's already started PROD or AfD of an article, but you think it should be speedy deleted, tag the article for speedy deletion and leave the PROD/AfD tag in place. If an administrator agrees, they'll speedy delete the article and override the other process; if not, the other process can continue (very important for PROD, where removing the tag has the meaning of contesting the deletion).

Hence my comment above. By removing the speedy deletion tag and starting AfD, you were saying, in effect, "I disagree with the speedy deletion of this article, because an assertion of significance or importance about the subject of this biography is made" and "I think we need to discuss the deletion of the article" in the same breath. —C.Fred (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Salvador Magluta


A tag has been placed on Salvador Magluta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an 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.  Kyle  1278  05:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the article and the supporting source, I'm not convinced that a person in jail for possessing false documents and bail jumping, who was suspected of other crimes but not convicted of them, is a notable person. —C.Fred (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Additions need sourced; accusations need airtight sourcing
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

The nature of the alleged notability of the person you added to the list could be considered defamatory. The biographies of living people guidelines require all information about them to be sourced. Some material can be allowed to stand in an article with a request for verification (a fact tag); however, some classes of material, such as accusations of marital infidelity or criminal activity, must be supported be a reliable source or else they will be removed. —C.Fred (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember that for sources to be reliable, they must be written objectively. Editorials are not within this scope—consider that most newspapers run a disclaimer on their op-ed page stating that opinions are those of the writers and not of the paper. (This issue is also why using a blog as a source is tricky.) Accordingly, the link you left on my talk page, which is to an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald, would be very difficult to use as a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Murphy martin
Rasputin: You inadvertently removed the speedy removal tag. I reverted to a version with it. I see it was inadvertent. Sorry for the warning - I'll remove at once. Regards. --Manway (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Laguna BelAir School
I removed the speedy tag that you added to Laguna BelAir School. The article was a copyvio, but I was able to cut it down to a stub that was not a copyvio. As well, all high schools are considered notable,and speedy deletion criterion a7 does not apply to schools. I also added Infobox school, which is a good thing to add to any article about a school. Salvaging a problem article about a notable topic is better than deleting it. - Eastmain (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Two suggestions
Please do two things- First, please be very careful when using undo; you can undo constructive changes in the same motion as you remove bad ones. Some edits are both constructive and destructive. Second, please read WP:CSD. The criteria for speedy deletion are very strict, and irrelevancy is not among them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried Twinkle?
I have seen your message about the nomination for deletion on the article AWING. Twinkle provides a much easier way to request speedy deletion on any new articles created, plus it already provides the message for you on the page creator's talk page with a more detailed explanation. So the next time you come across a strange new article you can request speedy deletion and proposed deletion in a much easier way by using Twinkle. If you're interested please let me know. Minimac94 ( talk ) 07:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletions declined
I have just declined two speedy deletion nominations made by you. I declined this one because you failed to state any reason for deleting the article. I declined to delete Chrismahanukwanzakah because speedy deleting an article as a recreation of a deleted article is only appropriate if the new version is substantially the same as an article that was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. Since it used to be an article and was recreated as a soft redirect to Wiktionary that was also an invalid nomination. Throwing in that you feel it was "stupid" does not strengthen your case. You may want to review the valid criteria for speedy deletion if you plan to continue tagging articles for speedy deletion. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet
You have been. (blocked by –MuZemike 17:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.