Newyorktimescrossword

Lecturing

You wrote:
Who the hell are you to lecture me on this site!Newyorktimescrossword 23:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• If this is in response to my welcome message; I noted you were relatively new and that you didn't have any messages on your talk page. A lot of the pages I cited contain very helpful information. Wikipedia can be overwhelming (it's massive) and I know from experience that new users often appreciate a pointer in the right direction. It was in no way my intention to come across as lecturing. If this was in response to one of the AFDs we both voted on yesterday, I'm afraid you'll need to be more specific. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Real Plane

• RealPlane page has been updated since your AFD vote. Tr9ccc 03:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Elwood Buchanan

Hi. You recently voted to delete the Elwood Buchanan article. I've since done quite a bit of work on it and wondered if you might like to give it another look. Thanks. Perodicticus 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen

Hi, you recently voted to "delete",[1] but judging from your comments, you actually meant "keep". Was that just a slip? Cheers. AnnH ♫ 11:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the article and given evidence, I move to Delete the article based on lack of notablity. Cheers. Newyorktimescrossword 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

May I ask what your other account's name is? Joelito 22:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just curious. Thanks for coming forward. Joelito (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Court of Appeal

Re [2] - I'm interested to know where do you want to have the page redirect to? The Court of Appeal is in fact a lower court to the Court of Final Appeal. The former is not part of the latter. — Instantnood 21:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Then merge it. Newyorktimescrossword 17:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What should be merged, and where should it be merged to? The two are different. — Instantnood 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Knights of Walpurgis

Since Articles for deletion is a discussion rather than a vote, I would like to hear your reasoning for voting delete (following a nominator who did a mass nomination without explaining his reasonings himself) when there's already 3 votes to merge. It can't hurt to move the info to its proper place, can it? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• And while I'm at it. You also voted delete on Lee Ingleby without any reasoning. Deleting a verifiable actor just because he was in Harry Potter is not on. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• check again. I made some changes. :) Newyorktimescrossword 09:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD

AFD isn't a Vote. Simply saying "delete" adds very little to the conversation. A better way would be to give a short reason why you think it should be deleted. "Delete per nom" or "delete as NN" are very short and provides a lot more to the discussion.

Thanks and good luck! ---J.S (t|c) 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• It gets terribly repetitive after there is a string of the same thing. If the point has been emphasized, one more contribution won't add anything. Newyorktimescrossword 09:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)