Chairboy

Revision as of 19:15, 31 January 2007

Revision as of 19:15, 31 January 2007

Line 220:

::::Hey all, for some reason I have Chairboy's talk on my watch list, and I noticed this and I thought I'd chime in. While it is true that it might have been "nice" if Chairboy waited a little longer for the explanation from you, HouseOfScandal, there isn't, in fact, any reason why it is necessary to wait if the article clearly satisfies the criteria for speedy deletion, and I agree with Chairboy's assessment that it doesn't meet [[WP:WEB]]. If, however, this was the first or second deletion of the article I might be inclined to undelete it myself and send it to AfD. However, this is the ''sixth'' deletion of the article (one of which was reversed), and the ground was actually salted for a couple months, so it was clearly understood that it shouldn't be recreated. Your behaviour doesn't add to my desire to undelete either, HouseOfScandal. So if you want a second admin opinion, I give you one: Keep it deleted. _└&nbsp;^{'''[[User:Osgoodelawyer|<font color="blue">OzLawyer</font>]]'''}&nbsp;/&nbsp;_{''<font color="black">[[User Talk:Osgoodelawyer|talk]]</font>''}&nbsp;^┐ 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know about previous version of the article. The article had [[WP:V]] and [[WP:N]]. Even spammy, unWikified crap goes to AfD. To just press a button an eliminate a substantial article that someone had obviously created in good faith is very, very wrong. It was undeleted yesterday because, as the admin stated, it was undeleted in error without looking at it. What is the "hangon" template for if it can just be ignored? No different that either of you, I am a volunteer here. I work very hard fighting vandalism, creating and editing articles, and improving Wikipedia. If in my place, ''How would you like it?'' [[User:HouseOfScandal|House of Scandal]] 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)-

:From the {{tl|hangon}} template itself: "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon." I understand your frustration, but casually ascribing malice to things you disagree with isn't a good way to get things done. If you still disagree with the speedy delete criteria used, I encourage you to use [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] to pursue this. If you feel my actions have been in any way improper (which your text suggests), I encourage you to request external review at either [[WP:AN]], [[WP:AN/I]] or via the [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] procedure. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)