Goodnight123

A tag has been placed on Goodnight123 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. John254 03:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Directions to eating people

A tag has been placed on Directions to eating people, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Mentifisto 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

February 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jake Long. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —slakr^\ talk / 00:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

I'm sorry, but I've closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you've only got 22 edits on Wikipedia; while edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards that they judge RfA candidates by, there was no chance that the RfA was going to pass.

I'm sorry about this, and hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I'm confident that you could possibly run a successful RfA in the future. You may want to consider submitting yourself to Wikipedia:Editor review for feedback on where to get some good experience, and when you're ready for RfA again, there's a great Wikipedia:Admin coaching program for you to use, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! GlassCobra 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your late RfA

While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, to be an admin requires a certain level trust in the community. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with < 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Noms with < 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful.

• Please read WP:Admin
• Please read the admin reading list.
• Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, noms returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Noms need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
• The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Noms will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
• Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution.
• My suggestion to any nom with < 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the expereinces of others. Many noms have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review before submitting their RfA.

Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Dlohcierekim. Although I'm not trying to disappoint you, being an admin is a hard task. You need perhaps a couple years experience especially in many areas. I myself am not an admin, even though I've been here since last summer, and I'm nowhere near going for a RFA. Well I hope you'll one day attain the epxerience you need and become a great admin.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted

I deleted Keith Hogan. The "source" was clearly fake. Do not create nonsense any more...further disruption may result in a block. — Scientizzle 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)