Cdcon

speedy tagging

Can you please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion when tagging speedies and use criteria set down there? "spam" is an unclear reason to delete! --TimPope 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for confusion. I'm quickly running through new articles and about 50+% of what I find is what I consider "spam" or "garbage". For example, one type that comes up a lot is an article written by someone about himself, usually full of juvenile content. This is user page material, not article material. Glad you asked about it though. If you disagree with a speedy delete that I make, you're welcome to revert it.Cdcon 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I think they are all good tags, the ones I have seen at least. It just makes it easier if I see a definite criteria :) --TimPope 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everyonesacritic.net

Hi Cdcon, Since your vote for delete on this AfD, I have since cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and provided evidence of Notability. Also, please note that the newbies that chimed in were not doubles of the author, but people coming over showing there support of the site and it's validity. There was no bad faith on their part and AfD guidelines welcome newbies to chime in, even if their "votes" won't be considered. Could you please change your vote to keep?

Thanks,

Dave

• What you demonstrate, by fighting hard on your AfD, willingly changing its contents to satisfy common voter demands, and on top of all messaging me personally about the situation, is that you are making a good-faith effort to improve the article. I will retract my delete vote. Cdcon 21:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Nine Inch Nails covers

In the List of Nine Inch Nails covers AfD discussion, you voted:

Merge. There is really one basic issue here, and it is listcruft. If there is any notability to the elements of this list, the NIN article itself should be able to reveal it. Also, what importance does this list have?

Each page for individual Nine Inch Nails recordings already has a list of groups which have covered the song (see Head Like a Hole, Closer to God, etc.). All notable elements of this list are available on these articles—in fact, almost every link to the list comes from those pages already. Therefore, the list isn't directing anyone to new information, and seems to fall under the prime definition of listcruft: it exists solely for the sake of having such a list. In light of this, would you consider changing your merge vote to delete? - Rynne 15:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• That means the information is redundant, and should be deleted. Good call. Cdcon 16:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert M. Bowman

The article is expanded and does have citations from sources other than Bowman himself, not sure if you want to change your vote or stick with delete, I imagine an admin will close it soon. Schizombie 07:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Changed vote.  Cdcon  05:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Naked Short-Selling

Your contribution to the talk page of naked short selling was most appreciated because the two editors primarily involved (someone else and me) are fairly new and obviously neither of us had given much if any thought to the issue of sourcing.

Your suggestion on the solution -- one section for each POV -- was a good one, but apparently nobody has the stamina to actually implement it. Right now it's been left alone, and we're wrestling with whether to add a chunk of material that I believe would be verboten because of the sourcing policy (original research with an unsourced comment).

If you could spare a moment to examine the text in question -- which is posted on the page and concerns "grandfathering" -- any thoughts you might have would be appreciated. --Tomstoner 20:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for your response on my talk page! Again, your contribution is enormously helpful.--Tomstoner 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I am writing to inform you, and many others, that an AfD in which you voted delete, List of automobiles that were commercial failures, was already unsucessfully nominated a short time ago, but under a different title. This was not noted in the nomination. Please read the opposing arguments here, and reconsider your vote, because it is important that the opinions of previous voters be considered. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Template

Thanks! I tweaked it to add the user to Category:Wikipedian actuaries. Although, our life and pension bretheren may get jealois -- Avi 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)