User talk:StormCloud

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

youngamerican (talk)

Ray Royer

I'm sorry, but I wasn't the one who closed the Ray Royer discussion. User_talk:MBisanz made the decision, so he might be more use to you. Happy editing! HeureusementIci (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith protection

Sorry; I can't see any inappropriate edits, much less libellous ones. Could you be a bit more specific? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dr Who Writers

Hi, aside from the fact that the show is called Doctor Who, not Dr Who, and 'writers' should be lower case, Category:Doctor Who writers was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16#TV writers by series because it was overcategorisation. This new category is exactly the same and I am therefore going to speedily delete it. AnemoneProjectors 22:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the result was actually to lisify, which is why we have List of Doctor Who writers. AnemoneProjectors 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a rude. No chance to debate the issue (Doctor Who has *far* more writes then most series), just a quick put down and delete every thing.

Well, if you like you can go to WP:DRV and request a review, but I deleted it because it had been previously deleted by consensus, which is a criteria for speedy deletion. AnemoneProjectors 11:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint is the *way* my work was removed and not why. No comments like "Sorry this had been tried before" just a put down about naming conventions and a delete so swift that it's gone before I have change to say anything. No chance of a compromise (like linking the list were its can be easily found) or discussion - other people should not be intimidated out of contributing. If you want to quote Wikipedia conventions we can start with "Assume good faith" Stormcloud (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our speedy deletion policy is very, very clear, I'm afraid. Good faith doesn't make any difference; if an article meets one or more of the criteria, it is deleted, full stop. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 08:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I am annoyed not because of what was done or even why, but the rudeness of the way it was done. Is talking to somebody first so much to ask?

The CSD policy was followed to the letter. There was nothing to ask: what would the question have been? If you disagree with the policy, propose to change it. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 10:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's start with why I thought it was a good idea, which leads on to what's an acceptable alternative. It comes down to compromise. As I say I am annoyed not because a deletion it it's self, but no attempt was made to communicate what was going to happen. All I got was a couple of the high handed about the terminology I used after the event.