User talk:BrianJDonovan127

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, BrianJDonovan127, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Field-to-Pump

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Field-to-Pump, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Almost-blatant advert, doesn't seem encyclopedic, seems like most info is actually covered in other articles.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. roux 01:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Field-to-Pump

I have nominated Field-to-Pump, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field-to-Pump. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. roux 16:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove deletion notices.

Especially when you're wrong. If a prod is removed, the article can indeed go to WP:AFD. See: "Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached."

If you think it should be kept, by all means argue at the AFD, which is linked from the article page. //roux 16:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a he, not a she.
It's not improper; I feel the article should be deleted.
It is also not vandalism.
If you think the article should be kept, the correct venue is the discussion page for the AFD. Stop removing the deletion notice--that will only get you blocked as a vandal.

//roux 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Field-to-Pump. 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. Rnb (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Field-to-Pump, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nominating an article for deletion IS asking for a discussion. Once again, please go to WP:AFD and PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION. If you remove the AFD notice again, you WILL be blocked. Is that perfectly clear? roux 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roux,

You state, "Nominating an article for deletion IS asking for a discussion." If so, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion. Please answer my previous questions.

19:48, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (What specific issues are you trying to raise? Why do you believe the Field-to-Pump article is merely advertising? At this point, why don't you request a consensus? Simple: delete or don't delete!)

17:26, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (Vandalism under the guise of an improperly proposed deletion is still vandalism. If Roux would be specific, I would be happy to address any issue she raises.)

16:44, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (Improper Procedure: Policy states, "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again." Deletion requires notice and discussion, not baseless opinion.)

11:55, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (The proposed deletion is without merit. Field-to-Pump is not an advertisement. This article addresses the most recently developed strategy, employed by the Louisiana Legislature, to produce ethanol.)

Again, your proposed deletion is without merit. If it does have merit, please answer my questions or request a consensus. Is that perfectly clear? BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here. Go there to discuss it. This is the last time I will explain this to you. //roux 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field-to-Pump

Would you please declare any interest that you have in the company involved or the State of Louisiana or any other interest that you have in the 'Field-to-Pump' strategy. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field-to-Pump

You have been asked several times to stop reposting material that does not belong on the deletion discussion. If you wish to reference other discussions, please link them, not copy-paste. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this way, I may be forced to block you from editing temporarily to prevent further disruption. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]