Cassavetes
July 2008
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Kyle Schickner has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Caiaffa (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I nominated the article for deletion, and somebody removed it with no explanation. Cassavetes (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Kyle Schickner constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Caiaffa (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am assuming you are not User:Schatzberg, User:LonChaney or User:Ebfilms and that you just happened to come across Kyle Schickner and decided that your first edit would be to agree with the above users that this article should be deleted. The reason for the previous deletion request can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Schickner. At the same page you can review why other editors thought the article should be kept. If you have any reasons that counter the reasons provided to keep the article, present them on the talk page rather than renominating at this time. Jons63 (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've come across many pages which i think need deletion, and I happened upon the Kyle Schickner page, and I too think it should be deleted. Do you think everybody that thinks that the Kyle Schickner page should be deleted is the same person? Is that how you are when different people nominate other articles for deletion? You always suspect that different people can't agree on the same thing? That's kind of odd thinking. I gave my reasons, and I also thought that if a page is nominated for deletion, the discussion is supposed to last 7 days. Instead, somebody removed it from deletion. I read what the others had to say, and I agree--their consensus seems overly biased, because everyone is too caught up in their "sock puppet" theory, instead of discussing said article for deletion. How about letting it play out, like you're supposed to. Aren't those the rules??? Cassavetes (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
