User talk:Shadowlynk/Archive 1

In Soviet Russia, Discussion page create you!
Uhh...nt? --Spring Rubber 10:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mythology Article Trivia
With regard to your no-doubt well-intentioned admonition about my removal of content from the Wiki, can you please cite a specific example of inappropriate content removal? I have removed content that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Trivial content such as lists of games that feature a particular mythological entity do not constitute any meaningful or substantitive contribution, at least as I understand it. According to the trivia essay (admittedly, not a formal policy or guidline, but still a pursuasively argued viewpoint), the general approach should be that content be both interesting and important. I believe that all my deletions are well justified. Thanks for your interest and help. --BehemothCat 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw large scale blanking of content and was concerned it was vandalism. I checked all the related talk pages about the article and the edit histories and saw no discussion or reasoning regarding removing the entirety of trivia and popular culture sections. I was additionally concerned by the marking of the edits as "minor"... many vandals mark their edits as minor in hopes of them being overlooked, and removal of content is usually not minor. I'm very sorry that I interpreted your good faith edits as vandalism. That being said, "Interesting" and "important" are highly subjective terms, and especially on the basis of an essay, I would recommend using talk pages to discuss your objections before removing large portions of material other Wikipedians felt were worth including. Others may feel those sections ARE interesting and important, and will have explanations for why they included the information in the first place! As mythology isn't one of my interests I couldn't tell you if they are or aren't, so I won't touch any more of the edits, and if you'd like to redo the ones I reverted I won't interfere. I'm just recommending "be bold, but not reckless". -- Shadowlynk 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've raised the issue of Inane Pop Culture References over at the Village pump, so perhaps some clarification will ensue. --BehemothCat 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is trivial
Find the definition of trivia and you will see it can be interpreted many different ways. Remember what Zelda said my friend, be bold, but don't be wreckless.\

User such and such... (Risenfromthedead 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Perhaps interesting and important are subjective, but verifiability and original research are not. They are policy. You deciding that Stephanie Blackmore is the coolest kid in town is irrelevant; if it's to be included it must be verifiable, through a citation of a reliable source. I would recommend reading over those policies, along with this section of the NPOV pillar, before making future edits to Lindsay, Ontario. -- Shadowlynk 21:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Khakain Loves Shadowlynk
It can't be denied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.114.84 (talk • contribs).


 * Sorry baby, it's over between us. Has been for quite a while now. You just gotta pick up the pieces and move on with your life. Look at me, I have. I'm playing new games, meeting new people, stomping out new vandals. There's a big wild internet out there waiting for you! You can't let little old me hold you back... -- Shadowlynk 07:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How can you say you've found new things. If I'm to believe your userboxes, you haven't found a new hobby or interest in three years. 134.48.148.190 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My userboxes are much more indicative of what pages I watch on Wikipedia than the entire scope of my hobbies and interests. By the way, Tinister, I'm now tired of this circumvention of my outside decision to ignore you. Unfortunately, responding to you again isn't helping smooth over our relationship, only escalating the conflict by giving you opportunities to insult me. This is my fault for participating when I knew full well who it was and what might happen, and I'm sorry for that. Before this gets out of hand, I'm putting a stop to it again. No more personal discussions with random proxies or IPs that traceroute back to a certain Wisconsin college you attend. :\ If you have pressing Wikipedia business to discuss with me, then I'll consider it. -- Shadowlynk 09:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't the "not a battleground" thing intended for actual articles? 134.48.148.190 07:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a Wikipedia question to me, I'll happily answer. Nope, that rule falls under the "what the community is not" heading, which refers to talk page discussions and editor conduct. -- Shadowlynk 09:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah? How's life been? It's like old high school buddies discussing how their lives are, eh? =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.114.84 (talk • contribs).

Okay, we won't let you hold us back and keep on the vandalizing.--150.243.204.64 07:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sweet, I love whack-a-mole! -- Shadowlynk 07:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Khakain was like a drug to you that you had to kick? You're the one following us around. How are we the ones that haven't moved on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.243.204.64 (talk • contribs).


 * I reverted one of your vandal edits out of the Recent Changes list at random, so you stop by my GameFAQs topic and start talking to me. And start inane talk page conversations. And vandalize my user page. And I'm the one following you around. Really now. -- Shadowlynk 07:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You expect us to believe you found our handywork at random? Also, we wouldn't be doing inane talk page and gamefaqs stuff if you were on aim. Lord knows I don't like setting foot in either place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.243.204.64 (talk • contribs).


 * How unfortunate. And you intend to believe I memorized your IP addresses and kept them stored somewhere for 2 years instead? -- Shadowlynk 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen you do it before... 69.76.114.84 07:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you have... -- Shadowlynk 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can prove it! 69.76.114.84 08:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't change the datestamp of earlier posts, the edit history page clearly shows it and it just makes you look silly. -- Shadowlynk 08:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Silly in the eyes of who? 69.76.114.84 08:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And this is why cheesecake is good, yar. 75.9.33.142 08:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alex Trebek
How dare you revert my edits of the Alex Trebek article. He is a very close friend of mine and I happen to know for a fact that his pubes are dyed, and he's notorious here in L.A. for noting the fact constantly. In the future I suggest you do some research before labling edits that seem silly as vandalism. Thank you. 213.140.19.119 09:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the future I would suggest you check the biographies of living persons policy. As the notice on the Alex Trebek talk page states, anything added to a biography of a living person that's controversial in any way that isn't strongly sourced "must be removed immediately". Even if he's your bestest friend who confides in you daily, we can't accept anything, especially of that nature, without a citation. In the unlikely case you can find a quote in a reliable source and cite it properly, you can add it back in. But until then, people will be reverting it. -- Shadowlynk 09:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt response. Please excuse me for not having read that particular Wikipedia Policiy; I'm quite new here. I'll encourage Alex to make the disputed fact in question known to the general public so that it can be included in his Wikipedia article.213.140.19.119 09:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. -- Shadowlynk 09:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Durham
Nicely reverted on those vandals on Durham. The IP has now been blocked (yet again), and the user account permamently locked as a vandalism only account. Ben W Bell  talk  08:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) You're too fast for me, every time I went to drop a warning on the talk pages you had it up and when I went to put a report on WP:AIV you had them banned already! -- Shadowlynk 08:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry :) I'm just efficient with them. Ben W Bell   talk  08:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as they're stopped. By the way, I noticed the message at the top of the IP's talk page about an abuse report being compiled. Judging from the edit history it seems a little outdated, would expanding it help in any way? -- Shadowlynk 08:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By all means, if you wish to spend some time in doing so then it would be helpful if anything gets reported to the school. Everything is good. Ben W Bell   talk  08:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yar.

 * Sets lynk on fire*LtK 07:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for vandalism, I stopped after you messaged me.

--198.102.159.206 08:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Magic Forums
Thanks for your message, however the text on the tag on the page in question reads "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Well, I believe that the page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and I did not write or create the article, so therefore the text quoted implies I can remove the notice. Perhaps the notice needs reworded if only admins are allowed to remove it? I have stated my beliefs on the discussion page of the said article and I apologise if I did something wrong with the notice. GWidley 12:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a bit misleading, I think. You're really only supposed to remove the tag if you've made a substantial change to the article that would make it no longer qualify for speedy deletion. Otherwise, you tag the article with and discuss your objections on the talk page. Which is what everyone's already doing, so thank you for that. :) -- Shadowlynk 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And... looks like it's gone, sorry to say. Yeah, like I said on the talk page, the important point in that case is the WP:WEB criteria. If the subject appears to not meet the criteria (a notable and independent publication or award, for example), the article gets debated and deleted. If the article doesn't even claim to meet any of those criteria in the first place, it gets deleted right away. -- Shadowlynk 13:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion:
Why exactly is it that you think Defunkitated needs to be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SlimJimmy (talk • contribs).


 * The exact same reasons given when the page was deleted before and on the article creator's talk page: it's a nonsense word made up by the article's creator with no evidence of notability from a reliable, verifiable source. There are numerous Wikipedia rules against this sort of article, such as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- Shadowlynk 09:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got to help me with this guy. He's tagging my pages with deletion notices (a.k.a. vandalism). I think he's a sockpuppet of Suthernreb, the original author. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That was the feeling I got as well. I wouldn't worry about it too much, the admin reviewing his speedy tags has already left a warning not to make bad noms and overturned the speedy nomination. The admins are usually pretty good about reviewing the speedy tags right, so if he keeps it up all it will get him is banned for bad-faith use of tags. -- Shadowlynk 10:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems like he wasn't doing it with malice, just a bit confused about it. So yeah, nothing to worry about. -- Shadowlynk 10:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Unbiased Wiki Droid
If you're in the mode, can you help me with something?

There's an issue with Khakiwiki and I haven't seen any documentation of the problem. All the help areas are a bit deserted. If you're for the promotion of proper wiki use or whatever you're obligated under some code or oath to help, but I hope you do it because we're still special friends.--Archdeco 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am for the promotion of laughing at really bad Wiki edits and then deleting them. I could care less about "proper wiki use". I've also been known to see how many |topical rules quotings I can cram into one reply when people squirm and freak out when I remove their bad jokes.
 * As if our previous khakain history wasn't bad enough, I don't see why I would be super special awesome friends with someone who thinks I'm a Nazi and makes disgusting vandal changes to my pretty userboxes.
 * Beyond ALL that... I don't know a thing about the Wiki software itself. You'll just have to be patient and wait for the technical people to help you. -- Shadowlynk 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So you've seen Yu Gi Oh Abridged?--Archdeco 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand a word you just said. Try speaking American, it's the only language I understand. -- Shadowlynk 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Women's frocks, suck my cocks, etc. :)

So, you seriously were just clicking around the recent changes at random and found ours completely by chance, and then followed us around? Forgive me if that just seems really unlikely.--Archdeco 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose it wasn't COMPLETELY random, there are tools that help pick out possible vandal edits. I don't remember if I was using them at the time. Trust me though, if I had known I would've left it to someone else. I'm not sure if you guys have gotten the hint yet, or even are capable of getting the hint, but I'm not particularly interested in being associated with you guys anymore and I don't like being bugged by you.


 * As for the "following around" part though, I'm not quite sure where you're getting that. I've gone over the Contributions from the khakain conversation above and the only random edit I can see I reverted was the Bear one. Everything else is someone else or an edit right under my nose: of course I'm gonna see edits to my own user page, and of course I'm gonna use the history page to see the vandals' talk pages and use the generic template warnings for those edits. I'm not gonna intentionally follow your every edit if you don't bug me all the time, but if you use anonymous IPs to vandalize there's a decent chance I might see it and I'm not gonna know until I've already reverted it. If the others would register, though, well... I'm not exactly gonna touch an edit by someone named Tinister, am I? -- Shadowlynk 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'kay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But you're being a mule about the "yar no moar khakain evar" thing.--Archdeco 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a message board, not a Pact with the Devil. Well then, it's your fault for letting me sign the Unrestricted Free Agent contract instead of the typical Pay With Your Immortal Soul variety. -- Shadowlynk

Then you're a creepy, got-less-funny, introverted mule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.173.40.254 (talk • contribs).

Pickelbarrel
congratulations, you took the bait I laid to make a point.

really look at pickelbarrel's contributions. The guy spent his time posting pictures of pierced cocks on people's talk pages and trolling Jimbo's talk page, yet was treated like an errant puppy who widdled on the rug.

guys like him (whichever current alias he's using) go unchecked because they know better than to do anything that alerts a vandal bot (as I did, intentionally), yet they're the biggest problem with this whole project.

look closer A. Swearengen 09:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are legitimate channels to deal with problem users. Warn them for making offensive edits. Ask an admin for help. Request mediation or arbitration. DO NOT vandalize. Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point just doesn't work, so don't do it. -- Shadowlynk 09:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because channels are legitimate doesn't mean they're effective. Most admins are a joke, they don't want to do a damn thing unless they reckon every single admin, bureaucrat and higher would support them. They're eunuchs. Mediation and arbitration makes the current Congress look speedy and cutting-edge. Sadly, WP:POINT is around just to provide a justification for people to shut down the only effective and policy-changing actions undertaken in the past 4 years of wikiness. The WP:POINT I'm making is that this guy, Pickelbarrel, made more clearly disruptive posts in a short span of time than any 10 people who simply blanked a user page, but because his changes weren't highlighted on a RC bot, the guy got away with murder. There is a sickness at the core of Wikipedia. He is a symptom. So am I, by choice. LOOK CLOSER. A. Swearengen 09:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, I'm not interested in conspiracies and cabals and the Much Heralded Dying of Wikipedia. I'm the janitor: I see the mess, I laugh if it's a funny mess, I mop it up, I give the mess creator a stern lecture right out of the handbook. If you really feel the user has been causing trouble, revert his problem edits, give him the proper warnings, and when he's racked up enough warnings, report him. I don't feel like getting sucked into some vein-popping, trauma-inducing spiral downward to arbitration, so if it can't be handled that way, I don't care. Take your crusade to someone who does. Just don't blank any more pages with personal attacks so you don't pop up on my radar again. -- Shadowlynk 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You see that thing flying up there?! Just above you... to the left... there it is! Damn, you missed it? THAT was the point!


 * Considering the particulars of your largely derivative quoting of what those more concerned with creating rather than enforcing rules than yourself, I have to wonder why, God, why, any free-born free-living man inside the confines of this illustrious world of free-enterprising opportunity would choose to tender their services gratis upon a group of ungrateful and ignorant... er, fuck it. Few people will read this other than yourself, and I'm guessing the cultural and literary references this paragraph incorporated will be understood by the primary recipient.


 * I hope that janitorial staff in the virtual world is compensated as handsomely as those janitors in the real world contending with a lifetime of back problems is. I don't even know why I'm posting on your Fritzian page anyway. Enjoy RC patrol, I'm sure if you hit that lever a couple more times the food pellet will be forthcoming. A. Swearengen 10:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm chewing on that food pellet (bullet number 1) right now. Tastes like... humorously over-serious overreaction. :) A little bit of Rice Krispie treats too... no wait, that's aftertaste from my midnight snack. -- Shadowlynk 10:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dammit, after that, you're amusing me. I can't feel disdain. You have rendered me powerless. Go forth and janitorialize. Just let me encourage you to take part in policy creation rather than just policy enforcement. Peace. A. Swearengen 10:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Evidently the high schoolers at "team blurr" didnt appreciate my prod of their article. Thanks for watching my user page. :) Resolute 17:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

re: User:210.0.81.185
Thanks for the notice on his talk page - I would suggest that a few people watch this IP for blocking as I think he/she will do more vandalism..etc --Mikecraig 00:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly, and I will be keeping an eye on him, but you might also want to watch how you phrase your comments. Uncivil comments and name calling just goad vandals into behaving worse. It's why I stick with the warning templates. -- Shadowlynk 00:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry about that (will be mindfull in the future)..was getting sick of this persons comments..etc --Mikecraig 00:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a warning template for that too. :) In fact, I just used it. -- Shadowlynk 00:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Alaska cruises
I was just trying to improve User:Steve356's article about Alaska cruises. I, too, agree that it may be too close to an advertisement to be in Wikipedia, but that should be a decision of an AfD review, don't you think? User:Lucky 6.9 seems to have a very aggressive deletionist agenda, and he doesn't seem to care for proper policy (such as deleting my comment on his Discussion page, and then chastising me on my own). --JossBuckle Swami 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I only tagged the redirect because I saw it redirected into a deleted article, and then removed the tag when I saw the article recreated, so I'm not familiar with everything that's going on. I'd be willing to wager that as an admin, Lucky probably knows the rules and procedures pretty well, but I'm sure if you discussed it with him calmly and non-confrontationally you might be able to change his mind. Other than that advice, though, I don't think I should get too involved in this. :) -- Shadowlynk 03:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy Make Me SICK!
Hi. Just wondering what exactly would I have to do to make this page assert its importance more? I do belive its well known as many a large number of people have seen it, and it has been on YouTube for a few weeks now and does deserve coverage on Wikipedia.

Thanks --Doyler 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It has to be more than popular on YouTube for a few weeks; it has to meet the criteria for web content listed in WP:WEB. That means it either has to have major media coverage or an award from a major group separate of YouTube. That's what the article has to show evidence of. -- Shadowlynk 20:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this have to do with the Fall Out Boys from the Nintendo Fusion Tour? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WiiVolve (talk • contribs).


 * Well, it more has to do with a non-notable internet video about someone who hates them so much they'll force themselves to puke while their music is playing just to prove their hatred, but yes, it is the same band. -- Shadowlynk 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ten:20
We miss you. ;_; LtK 07:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been a little busy and a lot sick, but I'll be back soon. :P -- Shadowlynk 08:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah... Hope you get better. I've had an extremely bad sore throat myself. LtK 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've begun chanting 2 minutes before 10:20 GameFAQs time in order to summon you.LtK 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm working on another big project. Unfortunately it's finals week. Hang in there, I'll be done soon. :) -- Shadowlynk 06:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yay. :D Good luck. Are you feeling better? And Mimic says to tell you that he " hasn't fixed the phase distorter yet." LtK 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am feeling better, and make sure Mimic's time loop waits for me to come back before it collapses. I need to be there to "I told you so" him when he's got 40,000 Phase Distorters in his lap. :) -- Shadowlynk 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd tell him that but he already went to bed. *Clicks shiny blue Phase Distorter link* LtK 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it soon yet? LtK 11:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I still look for the topic every day. <,< LtK 06:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Medina is lonely. x_x 71.111.80.78 05:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I officially declared 10:20 dead a couple months ago. You guys will just have to move on. -- Shadowlynk 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Steven Pardalis
Even after your warnings, the creator of this article continues to delete the nominations.

TheRingess 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He's been reported to WP:AIV, it counts as a three revert rule violation. -- Shadowlynk 07:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
I understand why you think that WiiVolve should be deleted, but I request that you reconsider. I don't want to be in-your-face with the "I told you so" later on when it becomes more important. Read the discussion for the WiiVolve article and the actual article again. I didn't have much time right now, but I'll be making that a full page soon (maybe tomorrow).

-- WiiVolve 11:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all you've improved the article since I first tagged it with a notability claim, which is why the admin rightly moved it to a deletion discussion. You can participate in that discussion with the link at the top of the article, because the decision to delete is not mine to make, it's everyone's. However, it's not so much about if the site BECOMES important later, it's if it's important NOW. If it's important later then you can write the article later. :) Make sure you can cite something that will allow the article to pass the WP:WEB criteria. Oh, and one last thing: we try to interact with each other as civilly as possible here, so if you feel the need to be "in-your-face-I-told-you-so", please try to restrain yourself. :) -- Shadowlynk 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest me to cite? Are you talking about the Biohazard game? Because I spoke with the developers and they are sending me a couple model renders right now for me to post. They say they are done with the character models, weapons, and the sky and water (they are working on the terrain right now). Until January 2007, WiiVolve is the only official sponsor. After that, another site called Gamers Media Network will share sponsorship with WiiVolve.


 * -- WiiVolve 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll find your answer in the WP:WEB criteria. You need a citation of either an outside published work about the site (news story, magazine article, web or print or whatever), or a notable award the website has won. I'm not really sure running ads as the sponsor of a game necessarily counts, but if it does, you'd want to cite the partnership with whatever company is making the game. -- Shadowlynk 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm going to go on and cite this, but its not done yet. http://bio.wiivolve.com/ The developers have yet to give me the exact information and the model renders. The rating is also pending at ESRB. We sent them a DVD containing all of the harshest content so we can receive our proper rating. If only I had more time =( I don't want all the Wiki work to go to waste. How many days do I have until it gets deleted?


 * -- WiiVolve 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 5 days from the date of nomination, assuming consensus is to delete. You can always keep a copy of the page's text in a text file on your computer for reposting if you feel it'll be ready for mainspace later. -- Shadowlynk 09:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the info, but I think I can get that site finished before that. Tonight or tomorrow morning, I'll ask them again for the renders and actual information so that I can get it done. Then, do you suppose, will the site be notably assertive enough?


 * -- WiiVolve 12:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea, we'll have to see the citations and check them against WP:WEB. -- Shadowlynk 22:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

¡Gracias!
Many thanks for undoing that vandalism on my talk page. Keep on truckin', Dar-Ape 23:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notifications
Hi, thanks for the work you're doing on identifying candidates for speedy deletion.

Please would you consider also notifying the creating user by copying the template to the user's talk page. The template is created for the purpose of notifying users and can be found in italics at the bottom of the speedy deletion dialogue box. I realise that it is not your intention, but failure to notify new users is considered newcomer biting.

Thanks LittleOldMe 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)