Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Eastern Wyoming College's IP address has been the source of numerous blatant vandalism. In February 2008 it was blocked by you for three months. But now, this institution is back to continuous vandalism. So please do something to it. (Special:Contributions/137.86.130.18) Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comment on my page confused me. On Krazykev929's talk page you called what he did vandalism, When he put spculative information in the big brother page. But now, when he adds a completely speculative future elimination order, on the ANTM page, you say it's not vandalism? Just to remind you what you put on his page before:
This is your final warning. The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Big Brother 8 (US), you will be blocked from editing. Although your edits are probably accurate, they are a bit premature. Please review "Misplaced Pages is not a Crystall Ball, and wait until the event actually happens (which will happen on the live show Tuesday) before you make this change again. This is now considered VANDALISM as you continue to disrupt the BB page, therefore this is your final warning! Rjd006015:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted something that should have been kept!!! - Towns in RSK
Hello, you have disrupted a perfectly viable and just wikipedia page. The link is, http://en.wikipedia.org/Towns_in_the_Former_RSK . You seem to put some rational for its deletion there. However, if you even bothered to read the rational that you put, you will see many faulty things. That rational link that you provide shows clearly that the page should stay. The rational link agrees that the category should be deleted, and it was deleted a long time ago. However, it clearly says that the towns should be listified as they have been in that topic. Why did you delete this topic then? That talk/debate was about the category, and the decision was to keep it as a topic. You are disrupting wikipedia! Please put that topic back as soon as possible. (LAz17 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC))
Hi, Rjd0060.
I've restored the tag for the speedy deletion on this article Towns_in_the_Former_RSK.
Please, see the talkpage Talk:Towns_in_the_Former_RSK#Article_needs_to_be_deleted (it's the summary of the discussion on WP:CFD, see link there).
Keeping that article is ordinary evasion of the results of the discussion on the deletion of the category (category, created by the same user; articles were categorized, beside others, with few sockpuppets). Delete (15 votes), keep (7 votes), delete and listify (6 votes). 15 is more than 7+6. Please, we must respect the results.
Otherwise, what are we getting into? Towns in the former Third Reich?
I repeat again. When LAz17 saw that he's about to lose in voting on the deletion of category, he created the article. Kubura (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem?? It could have been marked as a stub. Why not just delete the other two as well, especially the Toronto one? Peter Horn00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it because a PROD when uncontested. I have no opinion on whether or not it should have been deleted. If Peter Horn had read the proposed deletion policy instead of going around calling me "disruptive" in various places, he would have noticed that PROD-deleted articles can be restored upon request. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You deleted Brick & Lace as an expired prod, and earlier another editor deleted a previous version. A new version of the article has been created which demonstrates notability through charting and tours. Could you please restore the history of the article, as it might be possible to expand the article with information from the deleted versions? -- Eastmain (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
deletion of "asynchronous procedure call" article
Can you point me to the deletion debate? Usually when a page has been deleted the template has a link to the discussion that led to the deletion.
Failing that, is there a way I could get a quick look at the article as it was before deletion?
I'd like to clarify now how you think WP:SPS does not apply to articles? Are you saying this article should have immunity to WP:V? What do you exactly mean? I'd also like to know why you only give one party an edit warring warning and not the other. Takes two to go to battle right? Are you also making a statement now that WP:BURDEN does not apply to GlassCobra? Tmore3 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
