User talk:Tikitrav

Nonsense of Lupopotumus

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Lupopotumus, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Lupopotumus provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Lupopotumus, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cross posting objection to deletion and my reply

comment from user unhappy with speedy deltion

I also would like to protest a claim made by you on 15JAN2009 on article the Lupopotumus. I have a copy of the article, and it was definately perfectly coherent. Do YOU live in Sodus NY. Do YOU know about the local lupopotumus legend. DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR OF GOING TO THE SUPERMARKET? WE DO. Deleting this article was an abomination, especially for the reasons you gave. As you can see from this message, I clearly have the ability to write coherently. Don't edit things you know nothing about.

On reviewing this, I stand by my deletion. Looks like BS at best, vandalism at worst. In the article, you give an obnoxious psuedo Linnaean classification. Of course, there are no reliable sources for this. The article name looks like a portmanteau of someone's name and "hippopotomus," thus I suspect this is a thinly veiled Attack page. The sum of the content, in light of all else, makes me feel deleting this as nonsense rather than as vandalism or an attack page was fairly generous and open-minded. If you believe that this page does in fact serve as an Encyclopedia article, that the subject not only exists, but has WP:reliable sources with verifiable information then I suggest you appeal at deletion review. Bear in mind that this looks like an attempt to insult, denigrate, harass or humiliate a living person. Wikipedia has no tolerance for such. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 17:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said-- looks like BS. No prob. I'm just glad you weren't the type to send this to DRV. (I once had a similarly WP:BOLLOCKS article that was challenged by another user. That one went to WP:AFD.) That would have been a waste of time. Just be sure to spell the user id right. Dloh cierekim 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors spend a lot of time reviewing new pages and changes to articles. One of these saw the thing and applied a tag requesting speedy deletion. I reviewed the article, saw that it did in fact meet (more than one) of the criteria listed there and proceeded with the deletion. Dloh cierekim 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Dloh cierekim 16:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol and Recent Change Patrol

I read your comments at User_talk:Dlohcierekim#comment from user unhappy with speedy deltion. Are you aware of WP:New page patrol and WP:Recent changes patrol? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]