User talk:Roxineous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Scarefy
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Scarefy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kesac (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Scarefy
I have nominated Scarefy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarefy. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kesac (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A note on Scarefy
It would be appreciated if you didn't add junk like that to Wikipedia. Yes, you can put it in. Yes, you can delete the "proposed delete", and force an Articles for Deletion discussion, which takes up the time of about five people who have to clean up the mess. But it's a junk article, and you know that. Write something good. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hmmm...
Sorry for your trouble. I didn't think writing about a word like scarefy would cause such a commotion. I quess I kind of thought that if someone could make an article about a Thwomp from Super Mario Brothers then I could make my article about something interesting like scarefy. I read through some of the articles about writing your own, and they said to be bold. I guess I wasn't bold enough in my proper explanation of the word scarefy. I was going to write an article about myself in the beginning, but it said not to and I got the feeling that I probably wouldn't be contributing very well. So I decided to write an article about a widely used word. I thought that that way I would be writing something educational. Does the word have to be in a dictionary? I know Thwomp isn't. Thwomp isn't in an encyclopedia either, except for wikipedia. But then again, I guess you can find it someplace. But from what I understand, God is in Wikipedia, and so far, I've yet to see him. I'm not trying to bash you or Wikipedia or anything like that. I'm just trying get a justification as to why my article is being deleted. It's a commonly used term. I bet the word discombobulated isn't used as much. Scarefy is a real word. It has a real meaning. Once again, sorry for the trouble and sorry for this really long comment (if you even get it). Before I go, though, I've always wondered why there's a page for almost every single number. You know, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It all seems like a bunch of junk to me. It kind of scarefies me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxineous (talk • contribs)
[edit] P.S.
What does Per Nom mean? Sounds kind of made up, like the word Wikipedia. MAC BZ A.K.A. Roxineous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxineous (talk • contribs)
- For the same reasons as given by the nominator. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Togglator
I have nominated Togglator, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Togglator. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy
Neither article was remotely near meaningful enough for an AfD debate. I have speedily deletd. Please post on uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia dramatica in future. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
