User talk:Forward planning failure

• It's not promotional Forward planning failure (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It has sufficient context. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to RentLaw.com. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. William Avery (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing a CSD notice isn't vandalism. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing a CSD notice isn't vandalism. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whereas those readding the CSD notices were only tag teaming so that's OK? Forward planning failure (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four different people telling you to stop doing what you're doing might be an indication that what you're doing is wrong. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if those people seem not to understand the CSD criteria, as you clearly don't. I sugest you re-read them. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this user is NOT vandalizing. Anyone may remove CSD tags except the creator. Repeatedly adding them is considered disruptive. However

WP:3RR still applies. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

A "brand new" editor whose only edits are to remove db tags is being disruptive. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an interesting experiment seeing how a New red link user is treated when they remove CSD notices in good faith. Seems they are labelled a vandal all too quickly, rather sad, though not surprising. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Quite so, now I wonder who you were before you started using the "Who then was a gentleman?" account? Forward planning failure (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages RobScheurwater (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did delete it under G11, except I used the default AfD deletion summary. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you really think it was a G11? It certainly didn't read like irredeemable spam to me. Forward planning failure (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did indeed, so I'm not inclined to restore it just yet. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

On an unrelated note, it's usually better for administrators to decline speedy deletion requests (just noticed this). Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What a strange idea that is Julian. Forward planning failure (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Enough. Whose sock are you? And don't try telling me you are an innocent good-faith user. You are

• You'll be blocking me for what exactly? Forward planning failure (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious sockpuppetry and disruption. Now tell me who you are. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What disruption and what sockpuppetry? Forward planning failure (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your readding CSD templates is disruptive. Forward planning failure (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for being a sockpuppet of

• Oh dear, now I'll have to just switch to one of the other 200+ accounts I've got. My what a hassle. Forward planning failure (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]