User talk:Kathycha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Kimkins controversy. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Dureo 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kimkins controversy[edit]

A tag has been placed on Kimkins controversy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ArglebargleIV 03:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It would help a lot if you would actually take the time to write an article, instead of posting two sentences and a bunch of links. Thanks, NawlinWiki 04:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry - I'm brand new to Wikipedia and fumbling a bit. I have edited with new content which I hope is sufficient as a start. Kathycha 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Kathycha 21:38, 4 October 2007 (CDT).
  • Just completed a substantial edit including references to credible primary sources which I hope will be sufficient to remove the DELETION tags. Kathycha 08:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


    • Yes, the article did look better after you expanded it. I'm not going to overrule another administrator, but if User:Bumm13 doesn't respond to you within a day or so, you should make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Let me know if you do that and I'll support your request. NawlinWiki 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)\\
  • Geni, looking forward to your feedback! Kathycha 06:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the questions you asked me on my talk page:

  • The #wikipedia channel (and all other IRC channels used by Wikipedia, as far as I know), are on Freenode, irc://irc.freenode.net. (Note that it's usual for admins to be contactable via their talk page; the way bumm13 phrases the request, it implies that they're more often on IRC but still ought to read their talk page from time to time. Note that users aren't always online; for instance, this is why I didn't respond to you earlier.)
  • The deletion summary used by the admin is a now old-fashioned term referring to a conflict of interest. I'm not sure if something like that happened or not, because I don't know all the details. It is, however, not a reason to delete without discussion; if the admin in question believed that there was a conflict of interest problem that was sufficiently bad to require deletion of the article, they should have opened a deletion discussion rather than just deleting the article. I agree with NawlinWiki that a deletion review request would be reasonable. (You can ask at the review for a copy of the deleted article to work on, if you want; such requests aren't always granted, but in a case like this where it seems reasonable (although not guaranteed - I'm not perfect at guessing the outcomes of deletion discussions!) that the article might be undeleted altogether, such a request would seem likely to be accepted.)

Hope that helps! --ais523 08:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC )

Kimkins Controversy article deletion discussion[edit]

A neutral article would be acceptable however attempting to use wikipedia as a soapbox would not be.Geni 11:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous version of the article appeared to exist solely to promote a certian position. Given that a future article would have a different style and different content I do not thing a deletion review would be required.Geni 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kathycha/Kimkins (draft)[edit]

I userfied the article to User:Kathycha/Kimkins (draft) per this request. -- Jreferee t/c 20:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)