"

 HI! 

Yess its me Pralph, I was gonna authros some stuff last night after I got unbolked but I fel alseep i was kin of buzzed abut i'm all ressted now thank you good monring!!! 

 The Red Bedroom 

Lucky 6.9,
I noticed that you've speedied this (and one other) album while at the same time placing a brief comment on the user page.

Do you think that this was the best course of action?  I'd ask you to compare the message I left with yours, and also ask that you restore these stubs.  We want to encourage people to write good stubs, don't we?  Deleting it outright doesn't do that.

(t)(c) 

This came out bitchier than I intended, sorry.  With the ""no artist"" stubs (which drive me crazy) I usually find that the person who created them edits the artist's page just before or after, and often add the link in myself.  Thanks for restoring those, (t)(c) 

 Please 

Referring to the RfA nomination.   (talk)  

 THANK YOU SO MUCH 

For nominating me on RfA.  Have this beautiful jewel for my thank you.

Take care,   (talk)  

BTW, something went wrong.  Wikipedia:Requests_for_admminship/V._Molotov needs to be moved to fix the typo, but it can't be moved because there's an article in the way.  Looks like someone needs to delete Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/V._Molotov and then do the move.   (talk) 

 Your message 

Hi, you left this message on my talk page:
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 

It's difficult to tell whether you are being sarcastic or are mistaken. What experiment? I cannot find any edits or original articles of mine that you have reverted.

Regards,
 

It's a shame you felt it necessary to revert as ""experimentation"" what was obviously an article (albeit a stub). As you will see from my history, I am new to Wikipedia but have enjoyed creating and editing a number of articles about some fairly hefty topics. It occurred to me that someone who enjoys wikipedia (such as myself) ought to be referred to as a wikipedophile. A google search reveals no fewer than 132 instances of the word on the net. If other neologisms such as ""leet"" are to have articles, why not this one? Why not at least leave the article there for others to discuss rather than annihilating it unilaterally?

 

So, you deleted my article because you decided not enough people would be interested in it? That's as good an argument for keeping the article: nobody interested, nobody sees it; someone interested, someone finds it. No harm done. QED. Ah, but in that case, no self-aggrandising administrator satisfaction, and no opportunity to post supercilious mesages about the sandbox. It is easier to destroy than to create. Enjoy.  

OK, I will leave the subject - it is hardly a fair argument when one of us has the power to silence the other on a whim - but as an admin you will perhaps wish to know that you have discouraged me from contributing further to Wikipedia. My brief edit history will show me a valuable contributor, and I had been inspired by the ""be bold in editing"" tenet of Wikipedia. Alas, this spirit is evidently mired in the usual unaccountable, pseudopolitical hierarchies, fiefdoms and cliques that invariably beleaguer such online efforts. Adieu.  

The neologism is far from the point. I am reluctant to contribut