User talk:Maple Tree/Archive 1

Economic

Please explain why "economic disasters" belongs in the category "human extinction." Bit of a stretch, I think. Mjk2357 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the inclination to read a whole book especially one called "Doomsday." You're responsible for defending your edits. Give me a summary of what's in the book that justifies adding economic disasters to the category. Mjk2357 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Human extinction

Please don't add this everywhere. It's a highly limited category that belongs on a few specific articles; to apply it to top-level categories is quite incorrect. The vast majority of wars, for example, have absolutely nothing to do with human extinction; only a few articles (e.g. World War III or Nuclear warfare) have any relevance to it. Kirill Lokshin 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And for the climate pages too. Please don't spam William M. Connolley 08:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Extinction

I'll let your changes be, but I voted for delete. The whole thing just seems silly and overdone to me. --Karafias ^{Talk • Contributions} 04:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Doomsday

Well, whatever I have to say about this category was already said above about Category:Human extinction, which has a resounding vote for deletion. You should read Wikipedia:Categorization, and get a better understanding of how categories should be constructed here. Until then, please refrain from adding articles to categories. --Vossanova ^o< 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that perhaps Professional wrestling double-team maneuvers doesn't belong in Category:Doomsday. What is your reasoning for such a categorization? Likewise, Doomsday (demogroup) doesn't belong there, because it's just the name of the group.. the group itself has nothing to do with the doomsday event. --Vossanova ^o< 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic?

That is one of the stranger entries I've ever had on my talk page. Would you mind explaining what you mean, and what prompted you to post it? --Karafias ^{Talk • Contributions} 16:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please stop adding multiple requests to talk pages to help voting. This is unwanted on Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Spam. --Ligulem 22:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Please stop it now. Or I must consider a block. --Ligulem 22:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your report on WP:AIV and removing comments from your talk page

I read your report on WP:AIV concerning the edits to your page (specifically adding the topic above and then restoring it after you deleted it).

1. Thank you for reporting it rather than getting into an edit war over it. Those edits are not vandalism — in the future, this might be better reported at WP:ANI (Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents).
2. The original post is legitimate communciation. It does not fall under the definition of WP:Spam.
3. Don't remove these legitimate warnings from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. Separate from the AFD discussion, the message was left to let you know that soliciting votes is inappropriate.

— ERcheck (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your note on Jimbo's talk page

Jimbo's talk page is not the place to handle such difficulties. The situation seems to have cooled down, but in general re-inserting warnings into someone's talk page numerous times is indeed inappropriate as the user clearly got the message, so you are right that perhaps things should not have gone this far. It is true that leaving notes for the AFD on numerous pages is indeed also against common practice, however, but I assume you understand that already :). Anyway, if the problem continues, I would suggest a post on WP:ANI concerning repeatedly re-adding warnings to talkpages, but at the moment things seem to have calmed down. Cowman109^Talk 17:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)