Huh. Some kind of sabotage is going on. The edit history for that article shows that you did, but your contribution history shows that you didn't. And I see from the rest of your contribution history that you're an upstanding member of the community. Sorry for the mistaken accusation. You'd better see if anything else is being done in your name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if it's in my edit history it must be right, but I don't remember doing it. I recall making several other re-directs to the breast article, including "ying-yangs" and "wopbopaloobops" (which were later debated on the discussion page), but I don't know anything about "devil's dumplings". Still, as I said, if it's in the history I guess must have done it, so sorry anyway.--Heslopian (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You unblocked him?! Well, if you're satisfied ... I mean, it isn't as though he hadn't already been blocked once before, and then warned a bunch of times about his later behavior. But anyway, there is still a block notice on his user page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I looked for a discussion itself just to be sure. Ordinarily a deletion log entry will say if a deletion was a consequence of an Afd consensus, and that wasn't the case here, but you were claiming db-afd, so I double-checked. Deletion from a previous Afd is the only condition under which that kind of subsequent speedy deletion applies—it means that the matter has been decided with finality, so we don't need to go over all of it again to justify redeletion, unless conditions have changed (for example, a formerly non-notable topic has hit the headlines) or the freshly submitted article has been rewritten so that it no longer has the flaws that led to its deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators" per se. It has unregistered users, who can edit most articles; registered users, who can edit the relative few articles the, because of vandalism, have been protected against unregistered editors, and who can create articles; and admins, who can delete or protect articles, block users, and perform various maintenance functions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Simons
The page was deleted?? With no reasonable excuse?? So how do you keep a page on the Wiki without some faceless cretin deleting it just because they've never heard of the person involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best (talk • contribs) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know before you go engaging anyone else: Wikipedia requires civil discussion (WP:CIVIL) so you ought to avoid calling editors "faceless cretins".
Wikipedia does provide for speedy deletion of articles under a variety of circumstances, such as blatant attacks, copyright infringements, and sheer nonsense. Being about someone about whom the article gives no clear and credible indication of notability is one of them (see WP:CSD A7).
I was surprised that the one user tagged the article for deletion, because I thought evidence of notability was reasonably well established, but I assumed that when an admin came along to review the deletion request, he would see that in this case notability had been indicated, and would remove the tag, so I'm extra surprised that the article was speedily deleted. Users are asked to show some restraint when an article is new and has just a few sentences, not enough for us to know whether the author has finished saying what he has to say about the article's topic. On the other hand, yours was quite a full article already, so perhaps the tagging user didn't feel any need to wait to see how it turned out. In any event, while I can't swear that the article would have survived a full deletion discussion (see WP:Articles for deletion), I don't think it merited speedy deletion.
Yes you're right, thank you for reminding me. It had been a while since I last edited wikipedia and I guess my grasp of policy has been slipping. Anyway yeah, I'll keep that in mind next time. Thanks again for informing me.--Sunny910910(talk|Contributions|Guest)02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
