RasterFaAye

January 2009

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing. Cannibaloki 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you again remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing. Cannibaloki 03:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please see WP:PROD. RasterFaAye (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • From WP:PROD: "Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page." Simply going through a list of articles deleting prod tags without explanation is disruptive and against policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note this, also from WP:PROD: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore the tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

I agree that he should provide rationale, but if he simply contests it, let it go through AFD. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is NO obligation on me to explain why I removed a prod, removing a few prods is not disruptive. Do not make empty threats to block me. RasterFaAye (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, removing this many without reasoning is questionable, and if you keep going that would constitute disruption. Could you provide any just to be courteous? Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• • The ones I removed were carefully selected and were in no way random. RasterFaAye (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said they were random, but I was just wondering why you removed them. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For a variety of different reasons. I removed one added by Cannibaloki for an obvious reason, though not the others he did. Now what is wrong with these prods by Cannioboloki? [1] [2] [3] and [4] RasterFaAye (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have issues with Cannibaloki not providing rationale for their prod, then the correct thing to do is to raise the question on their talk page. Simply reverting their edits without any justification does nothing to solve the problem; it only exacerbates it. Please exercise better judgment when dealing with situations like this in the future. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is highly anomalous for a new user to do nothing but remove (a large number of) prod-notices. It is also unusual for a new user's second action to be a redirect (as this involves a degree of knowledge that one does not typically find in new users). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just because it's a new account doesn't necessarily mean Raster is a "new user". There are plenty of explanations for their prior knowledge of how things work around here. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

'Useful' not sufficient grounds

Wrt your removal of the PROD tag for List_of_Philippine_Presidents_by_previous_executive_experience, your one word objection, "useful", is not sufficient. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." (from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not).

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded; yet everything in it should be useful in some context. But just saying something is useful or useless without providing context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies" (from Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_useful).

In short: please provide more reasoning. - Wormcast (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, when I saw it I found the information it contained very informative, it was useful to have such information all together on the one page. Surely usefulness is an encyclopedia's prime raison d'etre. RasterFaAye (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• A telephone book, or a chart plotting GDP vs. STD rates may be informative and useful; neither belong in a stand-alone article in wikipedia. Are you simply a troll, or do just you fail to understand that not everything true and useful/informative (to someone) is encyclopedia-worthy?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that article. Please do send it to AFD though, if it offends you so. RasterFaAye (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amanda Riska

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amanda Riska, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Riska. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

advice

I seem to be generally considered as one of the Wikipedia administrators often unwilling to delete articles if they have any chance at all. But most of the articles from which you removed prods are totally unlikely to be kept. If you want to rescue articles from the prod queue, a worthy enterprise if done right, look for articles which either do seem to actually be notable or otherwise acceptable, or ones that can be readily improved to that status. And when you remove the prod, say something at least in the edit summary to indicate why, & make it clear that you are deprodding. Otherwise, the net effect is likely to be unproductive, for even rescuable articles that you may deprod without explanation are likely to very soon be deleted via afd, at the cost of considerably greater trouble for a considerable number of people. You have the right to deprod, but if it looks arbitrary or irrational, you will not be encouraged. You will do an enormous amount more good if you look for articles which merely need sources, are likely to have them, and then actually find them and add them to the article, and say so, before deprodding. Then you will find support for what you do. DGG (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above

... has me thinking of this page: WP:BITE. Please, I urge patience and a belief of good faith toward RasterFaAye. rkmlai (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Community Hospital School of Nursing prod

G'day! I seem to be the latest in a long line of people visiting your talk page asking about proposed deletions. I notice you removed the prod on the above article with the edit summary "likely to be notable". Unfortunately this doesn't give me much to go on. Did you have some specific sources I should be aware of for this school? Cheers, Basie (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not really, it just seems to me that a school of nursing that has been going for over 100 years is likely to be notable. RasterFaAye (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• That description applies to thousands of organisations, not all of which would make good subjects for Wikipedia articles. I am nominating the article for deletion. Basie (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrado Malanga

Care to explain why that PROD was controversial? Yilloslime (t) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• He may well be notable, it's difficult to be sure though. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, is there any situation in which a PROD should not be removed? Yilloslime (t) 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Most prods probably shouldn't be removed. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what specifically led you to feel that the Malanga PROD should have been removed? Yilloslime (t) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have made quite a few publications, though these have been removed from the article for some reason. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Not uncontroversial"

I see you are continuing to do little but de-prod articles, generally with the very unhelpful generic boilerplate "not uncontroversial". Please explain why:

1. Deleting Wonky Pop is "not uncontroversial"
2. Deleting Northern Earth is "not uncontroversial"
3. Deleting Monster Sunday School is "not uncontroversial"
4. Deleting Retford family (bow-makers) is "not uncontroversial"
5. Deleting Corrado Malanga is "not uncontroversial"
6. Deleting Kill is "not uncontroversial"
7. Deleting Malcolm Hooper is "not uncontroversial"
8. Deleting The Gospel is "not uncontroversial"
9. Deleting Free market healthcare is "not uncontroversial"
10. Deleting Mark Trodden is "not uncontroversial"
11. Deleting Asantha Cooray is "not uncontroversial"

I would note that you have already had at least two of your de-prodded articles deleted at AfD, neither with any significant opposition (one "weak weak keep" in total), and that you didn't bother to comment on either of them. Your de-prodding appears reflexive rather than considered, and I would suggest that its pattern is itself "not uncontroversial". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I deprod any article I believe has a reasonable chance at AFD or any article that has previously been prodded or to AFD. I can assure you careful thought goes into each deprodding. RasterFaAye (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Then your idea of "reasonable chance at AFD" requires fine-tuning. Amanda Riska didn't stand a WP:SNOW-ball's chance in hell -- even its own creator ended up !voting to delete. It seems unlikely that any of your latest crop of de-prods that have been AfDed (Wonky Pop, Northern Earth, Monster Sunday School, Corrado Malanga, Malcolm Hooper) show any better chance of survival -- only one "keep" !vote between the lot of them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Time will tell on the latest AFD's. My record on non-procedural deprodding of articles at AFD isn't too bad. [5] [6] [7] [8]. Oh and Amanda Riska was primarilly deprodded because the prodder did not inform the article's creator of the prodding. RasterFaAye (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Amanda Riska was primarilly deprodded because the prodder did not inform the article's creator of the prodding" is a ludicrous excuse to de-prod. If you thought that informing the creator was so important then why didn't you do so yourself instead of subjecting the community to a completely unnecessary AfD. I see that you have taken to appending largely superficial explanations to your "not uncontroversial"s -- most of which appear based upon the mistaken belief that notability can be WP:INHERITED. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Northern Earth

An article that you have been involved in editing, Northern Earth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Earth. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Monster Sunday School

An article that you have been involved in editing, Monster Sunday School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Sunday School. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I thread about your edits.

Hello, RasterFaAye. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yilloslime (t) 05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Prodding

I see other editors have asked you the same thing, but when you remove a prod, saying "not uncontroversial" is not a good thing to do. The purpose of prodding is so that AfDs aren't bogged down with normally deletable material. If you personally don't think an article should be deleted, feel free to remove the prod, but give a logical reason, preferably with policy to back it up. Tavix (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Prodding is for uncontroversial deletions, in my opinion the article you prodded wasn't an uncontroversial candidate, so I removed the prod. I believe that AFD would be better for that article. RasterFaAye (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• But did you personally think the article was keepable if you saw it in an AfD discussion? Prodding is supposed to be an alternate to AfD so the workload over there isn't too heavy. If every prodded article ended up there, it would create a huge back-up. Tavix (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hard to say as I do not know about the subject. Maybe at AFD it will become clearer. Many AFD's should instead have been prodded and also a fair number of prods should instead go to AFD. RasterFaAye (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As these others have said, the idea of a prod is to see if its uncontroversial. If it lasts the week then it wasn't controversial, if it doesn't last the week then it was controversial. Secondly unless you know that something is notable you should not be removing the prod. All the prods you just removed because they might possibly be notable just defeated the whole purpose of prod to not bog down the admins and afd in deletion discussions that won't get a single comment or will get very few. -Djsasso (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It didn't last the week, so it wasn't uncontroversial. If there's a reasonable chance the subject is notable then it should go to AFD. RasterFaAye (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

13AD

Since you provide the reference for this one, I don't believe that it's anything but right to remove the prod. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

They got a couple of other mentions in The Hindu, but they were briefer. There might be more out there but 13 AD is a tricky search term, lots of false positives. RasterFaAye (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

De-prodding Bint

Hello!

I appreciate that you feel that "prodding" the Wikipedia article Bint is unsuitable. But there is already an entry on Wiktionary (see WIKT:bint) so there is no need for an article on the word Bint on Wikipedia, and that's why I prodded it.

I hope you take this into consieration. Thank you, -calvinps- (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries and PROD

Hi there.

I see that you are a new user, and getting involved in the deletion process already. This is great, but could you please read Wikipedia:PROD#Contesting a proposed deletion if you haven't already? I ask because I see that you have been removing a lot of PROD tag with the summary "Not uncontroversial, could be notable." I think that such edits are sort of against the spirit of the PROD system, since you haven't provided a reason that you think the article should be kept. The way that we determine whether or not to go through with a proposed deletion is based on whether anyone actually provides a counterargument that would means it would require a fuller debate on WP:AfD, not based on whether an editor thinks that someone could plausibly come up with a counterargument. Specifically, WP:PROD says "Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page." Without providing such a rationale, an editor could go through dozens of PRODs a day removing the tags and we wouldn't even know if they read the article or considered the proposer's words. It is also frustrating to the person who researched the subject and decided to propose deletion and then waited several days to simply see someone else remove the tag without a clue as to why. So, in the interest of politeness, could you please offer a specific rationale that addresses the concern of the proposer when removing PROD tags in the future?

Also, I see that you have made few edits outside of the deletion process. If you would like some help to get started creating or editing articles, let me know. There's a lot more out there. :-) Dominic·t 09:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your unprod of wavepad

Can I add my voice to the above? Driving everything towards AfD is a bad use of editor's time and effort. Please read the above criticism. In my opinion you are misusing the PROD process and so i am reverting your cancellation of the PROD again. Greglocock (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I remove a small percentage of prods and only if I think the article warrants the greater scrutiny that an AFD can give. Prods shouldn't be readded after they are contested. RasterFaAye (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

PROD should only be contested if you can actually fix the problem in the PROD. Miami33139 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are entirely wrong in that believe. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

PROD for Bint

Hi.

Just to let you know that the PROD for Bint has expired and therefore has been deleted.

-calvinps- (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

PRODs

While I agree with most of them, it seems like some of your prod removals are because you think someone will find them controversial, not because you find them controversial. This is not something you should be doing...remember that even if someone wants the article undeleted after it has been deleted via prod, all they need to do is ask...you don't need to play Devil's Advocate. Also, if you deprod an article because you feel it deserves some discussion or should go to AFD, you should probably go ahead and bring it straight to AFD yourself. That way, you're being helpful instead of obstructionist (I'm sure that obstruction isn't your intent, but appearances matter). Just some friendly advice. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I only deprod articles I find to be not uncontroversial. As for sending them to AFD that should be done by somebody who wants to see them deleted, and that's really not me. RasterFaAye (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  I'd like to poke my nose in here. Yukthivicharam, for example: prods should be removed if you have an issue with the thing being deleted. What is your issue with a magazine that shows no evidence of notability being deleted, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  Just procedural, a previous prod was contested [9], so it can't be reprodded. RasterFaAye (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing PRODs

Many hello's to you.

I am running through your contributions and I can see that you are STILL removing PRODs without a good summary.

I am going to send a message to Flaming Lawyer about your constant deletion of PROD tags from articles that should be deleted.

One way or another, you seem to be searching for prodded articles, and just removing the tags to your heart's content.

I am going to make one last plea: PLEASE STOP REMOVING PRODs UNNECESARRILY! Thank you, -calvinps- (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• No prod I remove is done unnecessarily, each one is removed because I believe the deletion is not uncontroversial. Please note that these removals make up only a small percentage of any days total prods. Please also note that at least 50% of the articles I deprod are kept at any subsequent AFD, so clearly they shouldn't have been deleted. RasterFaAye (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Raster, it would help if your edit summaries were more readable and explicit. Instead of "prod no good." use "Procedural de-PROD. There is a previous PROD in the edit history so please use AfD." It would also help if you let PRODs sit for a few days. PROD is 5 days long. Let a PROD sit for 4 days to see if someone else removes it. This removes some of the heat from you. You might also consider the circumstances when doing a procedural de-PROD. If something was removed from PROD by the original author, and has been ignored by everyone since, it is probably just as well to let it go.

Please consider these criticisms, particularly about edit summaries. Miami33139 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I will endeavour to be clearer in my edit summaries. I really don't mind the heat that deprodding can bring. RasterFaAye (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You might not mind the heat, but if the wrong admin gets ticked off about it you will end up blocked. I complained to you earlier, though I now understand what you are doing (I still disagree on many.) Consider letting PRODs stay on articles longer to see if someone else will de-PROD. It is not a race. Miami33139 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then at least I will have the comfort of knowing any such block would be completely incorrect and abusive. Surely the admin core are always correct and never abusive? RasterFaAye (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive admins on Wikipedia? Oh, never, ever. Miami33139 (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope that's not sarcasm you're exhibiting there Miami, admins don't like that sort of thing you know. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Please also note that at least 50% of the articles I deprod are kept at any subsequent AFD"Greglocock (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you could trawl through my contribution history, if you're really bored that is. RasterFaAye (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I had assumed that you had some credible evidence for that statement. You do seem rather good at creating work for other people. Greglocock (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't my contribution history credible? or do you mean you can't be bothered to check? Personally I think people who prod carelessly are creating work for other people. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

YOU made the extraordinary claim, not me. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary proof, as they say. If you claim a 50% success rate justifies your actions then I'd say you need proof. Oh, but thanks for sorting my AfD out tho I still don't know why it broke. Greglocock (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You find the claim extraordinary? I thought it rather lacking in extraordinary qualities. Now if I'd said 80% of the articles subsequently survive AFD, that would have been somewhat extraordinary. To be honest I haven't a clue what percentage were kept, maybe I'll try to work it out. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just realised I've unwatched the ones that got deleted, and they also wouldn't show up on my contributions history. Still, not counting the ones removed for procedural reasons I'd guestimate about 50%+. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you have a reason why a PROD is "not uncontroversial" perhaps you could avoid some AFDs by not not keeping the reason to yourself. My mindreading skills are sadly lacking. Your current process leads to a lot of AFDs that could be totally unneeded if you'd just give a reason. --Miss Communication (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD is exactly the sort of scrutiny this article needs. RasterFaAye (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Again I remind you that I can't read minds... if you explain what this scrutiny will find, rather than vaguely suggest it could theoretically find something... that would be useful. Otherwise it's just a timewasting process. --Miss Communication (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because hopefully peolpe who know more about this sort of subject will participate. A well written article like that with a fairly lengthy history deserves an AFD. RasterFaAye (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It deserves an AFD when someone has a reason to keep the article, as far as I'm concerned. You apparently don't have a reason so much as a hope that someone might have a reason. --Miss Communication (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I just like to give a well written article about a possibly notable subject a fair crack of the whip. As opposed to the stealthy death by prod. RasterFaAye (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

PROD can and should be undone as soon as someone has an objection, within 5 days or 500. It's actually less stealthy than an AFD... try to overturn an AFD after 5 days just because you didn't know about the AFD. I'm pretty sure you'd have no luck. You might actually be doing people a disservice by sending articles like this to AFD... if it gets deleted now, they'll need to say a lot more than "it's not uncontroversial" to get the article back. But again, it is uncontroversial... to be controversial, someone would need to provide an actual reason why it should be kept. All you've raised so far is procedure. --Miss Communication (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally when an admin undeletes a contested prod they send it straight to AFD. It's deletion is controversial as MUD's generally are hard to source, a google news archive search is pretty useless. I hope people who know more about the subject will participate at the AFD and give greater insight into whether this MUD is considered notable or not. RasterFaAye (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If an admin actually did that I would argue for a speedy keep, unless the admin actually had a reason to delete the article. AFD is about reasons to delete or keep... not vague guesses that someone might have a reason. The latter is just a waste of time because very often nothing ever materializes. --Miss Communication (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just the one admin then that automatically sends undeleted contested prods to AFD. RasterFaAye (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed you removed a prod because the article was 7 years old. It doesn't matter how old an article is, it can still be prodded. You need to find a better reason than that. Tavix (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I consider that an article that has been on Wikipedia for so long at least warrants an AFD, a perfectly reasonable expectation I'd say. RasterFaAye (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was too harsh above. Recent events have reminded me how annoying endless criticism of very defensible actions can be. My bad on the above exchange we had. --Miss Communication (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

PROD of Moebius Ring

Raster, your summary when de-prodding this article is unacceptably brief. 'Seems notable' conveys no information. Please explain in what way an article largely WP:OR and WP:MADEUP, based on a mention in a single obscure anime episode, seems to you notable. From the comments above, I am sure you need no further reminding that any de-prod is required to give a rationale in the edit summary or talk page. In fact, had you read the talk page, the first post would have been sufficient to convince you of the MADEUP nature of the article.— Kan8eDie (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

at the very least say specifically that you are deprodding it so people can spot the edit . It's true one can deprod for any reason, but if you explain yourself, it's much less likely to lead to an afd. That is the point of removing a prod, to avoid deletion. That's why you're doing it, so try to be convincing. DGG (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The article has been redirected to Möbius strip, which is probably the optimal solution, and no AFD or other process has been required.— Kan8eDie (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Unprod of Rolling ball clock

In direct contrast to the messages above, I thank you for removing this prod tag. If "recent change patrollers" are allowed to effectively follow users around and prod anything they touch then I see nothing wrong with you following them around and deprodding overzealous prods. (In specific, I question whether this article would have been prodded had I not bothered to improve it.) Thank you for your contributions! – 74  00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thank you. RasterFaAye (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

STOP REMOVING PRODS!!!!!!!! Thank you, -calvinps- (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You got the message.

• NO! RasterFaAye (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:calvinps. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -calvinps- (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• If idiocy could be personified calvinps..... RasterFaAye (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Nintendo characters

That AfD is two years old and doesn't factor in that a category exists to do the same thing as the list, with the exception of a random listing of characters with no merit or value. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one commend your actions

Everyone seems bent on just deleting legitimate articles that are stubs, just because they know nothing about the subject.

The articles Costume design and Costume designer were a complete mess with spam advertising and even admin stepping in and warning designers to stop adding their names to the External Links. The pages were badly written and a confusion of unrelated terms and definitions not encyclopedic in any way. The article Costume coordination was begun as a stub to clarify confusion and add a needed article about a true and legitimate job that I myself have held a number of times as well as Costume Design. Thank you for saving that article. Good work!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Green fundraising

I have nominated Green fundraising for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green fundraising. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)