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. Thank you. Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Most Great Name, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 04:27, 18 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)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Most Great Name, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. As I stated, this article has been incorrectly nominated. The placement of the tag is at issue. Please respond to this issue. And kindly do not accuse me of what I have not done. I have not changed anything in the article itself. I removed the deletion tag Nur110 (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

Where the removal of the deletion tag by any editor is allowed. Nur110 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's for a Prod, not an Afd. Please read and quote the correct section of the deletion Policy before you are blocked for your repeated vandalism of the Afd. Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Most Great Name, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 04:54, 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)