Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Skrepnek

I believe RickK protected this page because The Professor removed notice of this page's VfD status. RickK probably should have noted that fact on this talk page, but I'm very curious why Angela chose to remove RickK's protection less than ten minutes later. I would respectfully suggest that parties note their reasonings on this page. Cribnotes 06:57, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I explained it as soon as I unprotected it at

VfD. Angela.

07:17, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why I need to explain it here when the protected page link goes to a page which explains it. RickK | Talk 07:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't quite understand the VfD procedure. I'll leave the current notice on the page.

• Vanity. RickK | Talk 00:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete -- Cyrius | Talk 01:49, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Better than some I've seen, but still not quite there. Niteowlneils 06:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that Mr. Skrepnek is acting in bad faith, and has deleted notice of this VfD on the article page. Cribnotes 06:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I reverted and protected the page. RickK | Talk 06:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Angela has removed your protection. Note that no talk page yet exists for this article. Cribnotes 06:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • See
        Wikipedia:Unprotected page and Talk:Kevin Skrepnek. Angela.
        07:17, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • What does having a talk page have to do with anything? RickK | Talk 07:39, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • (a) Angela suggests that The Professor might be a new user, unfamiliar with VfD, etc. She has a point, but I think that makes it logical to offer him/her information on the talk page. (b) For the benefit of VfD voters, who may feel inclined to alter or add to the page, I believe a note might have been left on the talk page to explain the (un)protected status. Just my two cents, so I'll bow out now. Cribnotes 07:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)