User talk:Nashville Monkey/Archive1

Sogga afd[edit]

Ahh thanks for catching that. Silly mistake. --Phenz 07:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Nashville Monkey 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis insco 4 {count 'em, 4) g hits[edit]

Egg zackly! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creator removed the bloody speedy tag at least once. I figured I'd help him out. He may not be too happy with us right now. Someone blocked his user ID because it was . . . not a good choice. I'm content to leave the hangon tag in case there is some sort of notability derived from the bands the subject works with. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 08:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, you had to welcome yourself![edit]

let me give you a smile to make up for it.

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured I knew how so why not? lol. And thanks for the Smile! Nashville Monkey 07:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help[edit]

I am available to help; I've left the user a message about his behavior and will monitor the situation to take further action as needed. Essjay (Talk) 09:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! I'm never too busy to help users who need it. You should feel free to ask me for help anytime you need it. Essjay (Talk) 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little encouragement[edit]

I don't get to give this out as much anymore, but you definately deserve it. Good work at what you're doing, keep it up, and use this where necessary to keep the vandals in line. Essjay (Talk) 10:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate it! Nashville Monkey 10:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First see link of AboutUs.org in use[edit]

(just put on bottom of references) Hi Nashville.. Come back to AboutUs.org debate on deletion.. Visit link now on page showing use.. It's cool and we need to be proactive on Wiki- not of "The World is Flat" philosphy. --162.83.180.170 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked again, vote not changed. Nashville Monkey 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I resent the implication that by voting Delete I have a "The World is Flat" philosphy[sic]. My true philosophy is that articles should have value and merit. Nashville Monkey 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalduny[edit]

Hello, I nominated Kalduny for deletion mainly because I couldn't verify anything in the article. Someone has now taken the time to add two references to the article. The article still has problems such as weasel words (E.g. "Some people maintain it came from...") but I am changing my vote to Keep. I thought you might like to know. Johntex\^talk 15:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give it more time to see how they clean it up. Changing vote. Nashville Monkey 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, AfD's run for 7-8 days. They are sometimes allowed to run a little longer if consensus has not been found, if new information is being presented, or simply because admins have a backlog of work and they haven't gotten around to closing them all. They are sometimes closed early, but that is unusual. Generally, when they are closed early, it is because they are obvious "keep"s. They are sometimes closed early with deletion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. I don't think I have ever seen one closed early according to WP:SNOW. I think the feeling is to err on the side of caution. If there is truly no chance it will be kept, then seven days is not that long to wait for it to be deleted. Johntex\^talk 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information ! Nashville Monkey 22:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixity of species[edit]

I speedied it as a G4, since it was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linnaean Lawn, and is currently at DRV. It's actually the second recreation - Rama's Arrow speedied it previously. The other article was also deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchard Theory. Thanks for letting me know. Guettarda 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I suppose you already knew that, since you participated in the deletion debate ;) Guettarda 13:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yes...we just went through this yesterday. And I see it's already been deleted, yet again. Good catch Nashville Monkey, thanks for spotting the recreation, and thanks to Guettarda for good use of his mop. Also, welcome to WP; you've accomplished quite a lot in a brief time here : ) Doc Tropics 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the prompt replies. I do what I can... Nashville Monkey 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Bonaparte Brown[edit]

I've contested the Speedy Deletion of Napoleon Bonaparte Brown... I think I followed procedure properly (used the hangon tag, added some discissuions). You can review at your leisure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Uh yes, proceedure was followed correctly in placing the hang-on tag. Good day Nashville Monkey 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few changes and added lots of references. Please advise.--Paul McDonald 02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthogastropoda-stub[edit]

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. It is far from clear that your new stub type currently has the 60 stubs usually required for a separate stub type, and it is, in any case, currently covered by mollusc-stub, a stub type not yet in need of splitting. If it were to be split, then a higher level classification such as gastropods would be a better target for a split than a subtype of it. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stub was created in good faith. It is needed. And I was bold. The stub I created it from {{Mollusc-stub}} had no such notification in place. If I had known stubs had their very own guidelines I would have checked there 1st. Again, my apologies if toes were stepped on. Nashville Monkey 03:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caerwine's suggestion[edit]

I'd certainly agree with Caerwine's suggestion - as I pointed out originally, it makes more sense to split to gastropods that orthogastropoda, simply because it's at a higher level and therefore more likely to reach a populable level easily. It's also likely to attract more editors, since it's likely more editors will know about gastropods in general than a subtype of them. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (PS - I'm not a mollusc expert, though my s.o. knows a fair amount about then - though she's more intersted in cnidarians)[reply]

Well, officially it should go through Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion, but since you as creator of the stub type agree to the changes it can be speedied. I'll leave a note on the "discoveries" page, and if there's no objections in 24 hours or so I'll swap things over. BTW, is that what the "help required" below is for, or do you have other category problems that need help? Grutness...wha? 11:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the "help required" was for, I deleted it. Thanks! Nashville Monkey 11:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done for the evening, will pick back up tomorrow or the next day Nashville Monkey 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gastropod invite[edit]

Hi!

Thanks for the invitation. I'm on a WikiBreak at the moment for academic reasons, but I'll probably look in sometime later.

Best regards --Slashme 17:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalduny[edit]

I came across Kalduny/work during categorizing and I'm proposing a merger. Scarykitty 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. Nashville Monkey 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]