User talk:Eileivgyrt

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Daniel Malakov. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eileivgyrt (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Username

You're still pretty new here and I apologize if my response to you was snarky and bitey...

My username is a pun on the city I live in, Nashville that the Nashville Predators used a few years back in some promos. The "Bonk" link for my talk page is a little tribute to Radek Bonk, one of the Preds players. --Smashville^BONK! 20:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Long comments can be removed from deletion debates if they are so long that they are disruptive to the proceedings. For example, here. In DRV, the nomination is understood to be an argument to undelete - excessive comments that do nothing but assume bad faith on the part of DGG and myself are absolutely not necessary. --Core desat 23:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per Wikidemo's comments on the DRV, it might be a better idea to wait and see what the consequences of the case will be before writing an article on it. The case isn't entirely notable right now, but it could become notable later. Consensus on the AFD and on the DRV seems to reflect that. --Core desat 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion...

Why don't you write an article at User:Eileivgyrt/Murder of Daniel Malakov? Reference it properly, wait for the outcome of the trial, find some background info and move it into the mainspace...Daniel Malakov himself may not be notable, but once the trial is held and has an outcome, the murder itself could have enough sources over a long enough period of time to be kept...That way people could also help you write it without you worrying about deletion (userpages tend to not be deleted if they are genuine works in progress for the mainspace). --Smashville^BONK! 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Malakov affair: New data

I'm sorry, I don't really see what the significance of this news article is. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Malakov was that a murder victim, notable only for being murdered, really isn't a proper subject for an encyclopedia article. This is all well-covered in Articles about people notable only for one event and section 5 of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 24 endorsed this opinion. Now, the trial of those accused of the murder is proceeding, as it was clearly going to, but I honestly can't see what's different about the situation now in terms of relevance to an encyclopedia? --Stormie (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Cabinets

Thank you for your contributions to Kitchen cabinet. It is clear that you have strong opinions on the use of solid wood vs. particleboard and the like in the construction of kitchen cabinets. However, Wikipedia is not the right place to express such opinions. We strive for a neutral point of view, that is, a fair reporting of reputable, reliable sources on topics. The current version of kitchen cabinet sounds more like a sales brochure for an American cabinet builder competing with European cabinets. That's not appropriate on WP. Could you please work with me to make this article NPOV? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]