Jump to content

User talk:Coredesat: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Darbyrob (talk | contribs)
Darbyrob (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 130: Line 130:


Hello. An anon user replied to your deletion and redirect ruling but could not reply to you on your talk page because it is semi-protected. Just thought you should know. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thematic motifs of Lost]]. -- [[User:Wikipedical|Wikipedical]] 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. An anon user replied to your deletion and redirect ruling but could not reply to you on your talk page because it is semi-protected. Just thought you should know. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thematic motifs of Lost]]. -- [[User:Wikipedical|Wikipedical]] 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

== Breaking Laces ==
Hi Coredesat, thank you for replying. I updated [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] as you suggested. And as that page suggested, here is the tag they said to put on your talk page:<br />
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{2|Breaking Laces}}}|deletion review]] of [[:Breaking Laces]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. [[User:Darbyrob|Darbyrob]] 08:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:58, 12 August 2007

This is the talk page for leaving messages for User:Coredesat.

  • Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them a descriptive header. I will usually reply on your talk page unless there's a need for me to reply here.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.


My user talk archives
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8
9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16
WPTC Newsletters

Corey Smith

I find it troubling that the page for Corey Smith (Musician) has been deleted so many times. He is a very well established musician in the southeastern United States and is gaining notoriety throughout many of the rest of the lower 48 states. He has released 3 studio albums and has played countless concerts, many with crowds nearing 10,000. These distinguishing facts rival the reputations of many other personalities that have been allowed to say on Wikipedia. Should a notable personality be banned from biographical and factual recognition just because he hasn't signed with a major label yet? You may say that I am a hard core fan that just wants publicity for this artist but I am in fact not even a huge fan at all. I'm just trying to do what's right. Taking his article off of Wikipedia would be like removing articles depicting minor league baseball players or fresh Hollywood actors. While I understand that Wikipedia isn't a marketing or advertising tool, I think that notable personalities that are well known, even if only to a specific culture of people in a specific region (in this case about 7 states), should be recognised at least biographically. kookamunga187


Ben Stewart

Ah, sorry about that. Thanks for taking care of it, thesublime514talk • 03:55, July 7, 2007 (UTC)

UFC 77

Hi Coredesat, you were the closing admin for a recent AfD nomination that I started. I believe that salting is inappropriate for this article as it will be verifiable soon, most likely in under a month or so. If the article keeps getting recreated with subpar content, it can just be G4'd. Will you please reconsider your salting? Please reply on my talk page. east.718 at 19:09, August 4, 2007

Sounds good. east.718 at 20:46, August 4, 2007
Reliable information is starting to get released in mainstream newspapers, [1] [2] [3] as well as industry sites. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Could you please unsalt the page? east.718 at 14:55, August 10, 2007
The only blog source I provided was UFC Junkie, which is authored by Dann Stupp, a sportswriter for the Dayton Daily News (discussion on WT:MMA). Sherdog has been a reliable third-party source for years. Excluding Stupp, there is information on a date, venue, main event, and three other confirmed matches, which I feel is enough to merit an article. east.718 at 18:45, August 10, 2007
Thanks! east.718 at 19:18, August 10, 2007

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 3, Issue 32 6 August 2007 About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you deleted Vulcan when it should have simply became a redirect. As Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands says: "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect". Can you please restore it when you read this? Thanks. Mathmo Talk 20:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for realising it when I pointed it out and your speedy response. Mathmo Talk 23:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just noticed the talk page was deleted too. Where there any comments or anything there? Mathmo Talk 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just wanted to check. Memory not perfect, can't recall everything that was there! You can recreate it as a redirect or just leave it as it is, I don't mind at all. Thanks again for checking. Mathmo Talk 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saige Thompson

I think you meant to say "the result was delete". There is no way this person satisfies any criterion for inclusion. Why was this article not deleted? Valrith 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Saige Thompson. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Valrith 22:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocks

I saw your block of User:Badassbassist. I'd like to point you to WT:U, where there's a discussion going on about the fact that blocking is being used as a first resort for all questionable usernames, instead of a last resort or a quick way of doing with blatantly inappropriate usernames, as the policy says.

I think you should have made a request on the user's talk page, since "Badassbassist" in no way indicates that the user obviously meant to disrupt Wikipedia. If you want to defend the idea of blocking as a first resort, you should do so at WT:U. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For s-protecting LiveJournal. Kyaa the Catlord 04:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a request to move the article back into main space. During the AfD discussion, User:AndyJones requested that the material be userfied so that s/he could work with it for a different article. In good faith, and following consensus, you deleted the article; however, you did not userfy it and did not give a reason for not doing so. I just wanted to ask why the article was not userfied, as I thought that articles at AfD which are not copyvios or BLP vios are generally userfied by the closing admin if somebody requests it (if this is wrong, please do let me know!) Please do not take this message as disagreement with the decision to delete. I voted to delete the article and my mind still has not changed. I just wondered why you denied User:AndyJones's request. Oh, and I've been todl in the past that I can be blunt in user comments in these cases. This is really just my personality when it comes to these things, so please keep in mind that, if this seems a little blunt, its not me trying to be uncivil, but merely me being a bit socially bumbling :) CaveatLector Talk Contrib 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice this page has been protected since June, no discussion has taken place in several weeks. Would you mind unprotecting? I'm not looking to make any edits, just figure a page shouldn't stay protected longer than needed. Thanks. VxP 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA removed

Please don't delete removed RfAs, they are generally archived and placed at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. Andre (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you specifically did not userfy per the request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermes in popular culture. User:AndyJones has a small constellation of these deleted pages in his userspace. Would you mind if I userfied it to join the others, or is there a policy problem I'm missing? Cool Hand Luke 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm part of this consensus. I doubt many of these could be improved, but it's at least work giving AndyJones a shot. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovio

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slovio. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Michael Howe (headmaster)

I see you deleted this article and wondered if you would mind explaining why you came to that conclusion. I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks Archifile 01:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the single purpose accounts? Archifile 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Hehe, I won't clog your talk page with unwanted templates. Just this simple post. I'm sure 6 or 7 other users will do that for me. XD Cyclone1(01:59-12-08-2007)

Thematic motifs of Lost AFD

Hello. An anon user replied to your deletion and redirect ruling but could not reply to you on your talk page because it is semi-protected. Just thought you should know. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thematic motifs of Lost. -- Wikipedical 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Laces

Hi Coredesat, thank you for replying. I updated deletion review as you suggested. And as that page suggested, here is the tag they said to put on your talk page:
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Breaking Laces. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Darbyrob 08:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]