Please do not use speedy deletion without responding on the talk page. A request was made for an explanation, but you did not elaborate.

First, thats not how speedy deletions work. Second, you are a crazy person. Here's what you wrote when I speedied your business...

How can wikipedia.org have pages like Ford Motor Company and General Motors and immediately attack everything else???? DO NOT tell me that Ford or GM are not large business entities! Get off your BIASED high horse and be FAIR. Do you know what FAIR means? If someone feels that this article is lacking something THEN ADD IT RATHER THAN DELETE IT. You are not providing a service by repeated BIASED CENSORSHIP! And yes deleting this INFORMATION is a form of BIASED CENSORSHIP.

In the future, please read some policy I don't actually feel like referencing, and welcome to wikipedia Cathardic (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You evil deletionist, how can you fail to see the essential and obvious similarity between Ford Motor Company and my new martial art that I invented last week? Guy (Help!) 20:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA, exactly. Guy, today I've finally stopped assuming good faith (which is almost essential to vandal-hunting anyway) and it's so much more fun. Cathardic (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not that sure how to use this whole talk thing (I'm sorry if I'm doing it wrong). I have been interested in LOMOcean Design for quite a while and was surprised that nobody had uploaded anything on to Wikipedia about them. I see the designs as notable and they show the versatility of the company. I chose these designs as I saw them as the most interesting of the designs that the company have done under the assumption that other people would probably see things the same way. I do admit that seeing as I either can't upload photos or are not allowed to or what ever that they seem less important but I think that they are. Thanks a lot for your feedback (Sorry again if I have replied to your questions wrongly) Mwin044 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Mwin044 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism! (And beating me:))--fetchcomms 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And illness! If you keep this up I might just give you a barnstar--fetchcomms 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, really? Wow. 500 edits is the guide, but I think any number with a clear demonstration of your knowledge of all the patrol things (deletions, vandalism, etc.) is good. I wan rollback too... but I hate RCP. It takes forever... and I can't use Huggle.--fetchcomms 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use speedy deletion for sourced articles, as you did on Nick Counter. Use Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion instead. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy that you added to Nick Counter. The person's notability seems clear to me. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cant understand why the article been remove again , after you remove the Speed deletion mark, the article been remove without note, comment or discussion less then 2 hours after i notice that for now everything is ok, , if can explain this to me i will be more then. i can i and i wanted to add proves, and remarks for the notable of the person, but this privilege been taken from me, why?? -- Zivoron (talk) 7 November 2009 at 23:52 (UTC)

Please make sure top use the correct CSD tags... you tagged "LOL like a lollipop" as incoherent gibberish, where as the words were actually spelled correctly and understandable even if the text meant nothing significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IShadowed (talk • contribs)

I am. I had entertained the (very, very vague) hope that he might reform. Next time he appears, especially with more crap about "niggers" I'll ask for him to lose the ability to edit his talk page as well. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did'nt know about that. Sorry--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathardic, I removed the warning you placed on User talk:Treli13, as I found it to be perhaps a little too antagonistic considering the circumstances, and the user had already received a final warning. Let me know if you disagree with my assessment. Regards, decltype (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok, I was Being Bold, and trying out new warnings, but they weren't as much fun as I thought they'd be. Cathardic (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my complete reconfiguration of the article. There are now links to articles for four of the five divisions, and references for the remainder. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cathardic. You just tagged the Kvorning Design & Communication article which I just created for being written like a commercial. While I appreciate your ambition to keep Wikipedia free of spam I don't really get why you did it. The article is (still) very short and as I see it provide nothing but factual information and is written in a totally prosaic language without any use of superlatives or vessel phrases - unlike a great many articles on companies around here. It doesn't even say that they are good at what they do. I can assure you that I have no connection with the company (and from the number and diversity of articles I have created I think that it is pretty obvious that I haven't) and just wrote it basause I say an artivle on the website of the Danish Architecture Centre which is a big, national and respected institution as well as in Denmark's largest newspaper. If anything I think I misrepresent the company since it may appear from the article as if they have only done two projects for the past almost 20 years but I was short of time and left it with this for now. So would you care to elaborate on what you find problematic about the stub or I will remove the tag. Regards.Ramblersen (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was nothing against you, I've checked ur history and it's obvious you have an interest in architecture. The problem was this line, from the first paragraph... "We do assignment]]s for government ministries, public and private organizations and companies" Cathardic (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, that was a mistake of course. Thanks for noticing and fixing it.Ramblersen (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popstation is not an advertisement. It's an online singing competition that helps unsigned artists break into the music industry without having to jump through all these hoops trying to get a recording contract the old-fashioned way, which costs money because to get a recording contract the regular way you need an agent, and most people don't have the money for an agent. So Popstation.com was created to make the struggle of breaking into the music industry less of a hastle. Also, if you look on their website they have a number, so yes they are true. Also, they have contest rules that prove what they do, and frequently asked questions section that explains it as well. They also have a "how it works" section to explain everything. Even though all of their services are free, that doesn't mean it's a scam or spam, and they have written evidence to prove their integrity. Morts623 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm sold, hollywood here I come!!!Cathardic (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]