Misplaced Pages

talk:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:54, 15 May 2008 editKarel Bílek (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,346 edits kind of stupid question: kind of stupid answer← Previous edit Revision as of 21:14, 15 May 2008 edit undoKarel Bílek (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,346 editsm kind of stupid question: typoNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
why are we going through this? some admin will decide that it's not notable enough and delete it. I understand that folks would like to have an article on this site, but as long as it keeps with the completely stupid articles on wikipedia editors, there is a selection of folks here who will not tolerate it. I'm mostly curious, as I do see a place for the article. --] (]) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC) why are we going through this? some admin will decide that it's not notable enough and delete it. I understand that folks would like to have an article on this site, but as long as it keeps with the completely stupid articles on wikipedia editors, there is a selection of folks here who will not tolerate it. I'm mostly curious, as I do see a place for the article. --] (]) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:I was little bit involved with the ressurection of the article but well, as I read the AfD, I simply cannot stop laughing. Yeah, it is not supposed to be funny, but it is. (but the most funny part is "you can have ED article, but in that article you can't have a link, because of ArbCom.") :I was little bit involved with the ressurection of the article but well, as I read the AfD, I simply cannot stop laughing. Yeah, it is not supposed to be funny, but it is. (but the most funny part is "you can have ED article, but in that article you can't have a link, because of ArbCom.")
:If it really got deleted again in AfD, I really don't see many changes for new recreation. --'']''. ] 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) :If it really got deleted again in AfD, I really don't see many chances for new recreation. --'']''. ] 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


== SPAs == == SPAs ==

Revision as of 21:14, 15 May 2008

kind of stupid question

why are we going through this? some admin will decide that it's not notable enough and delete it. I understand that folks would like to have an article on this site, but as long as it keeps with the completely stupid articles on wikipedia editors, there is a selection of folks here who will not tolerate it. I'm mostly curious, as I do see a place for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was little bit involved with the ressurection of the article but well, as I read the AfD, I simply cannot stop laughing. Yeah, it is not supposed to be funny, but it is. (but the most funny part is "you can have ED article, but in that article you can't have a link, because of ArbCom.")
If it really got deleted again in AfD, I really don't see many chances for new recreation. --Have a nice day. Running 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

SPAs

Would it be possible to indent the comments by IPs and new SPA accounts? its rather difficult to tell them apart from established editor comments at present. MBisanz 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be inappropriate, but feel free to tag them with {{spa}}, if applicable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

comment moved

I moved a comment that had been placed at the very top of the afd page, down to the end where it should have been placed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)