Category talk:Candidates for deletion

The X Order
We have a page about the Royal Order Of the Holy Mackerel, and this page has been poorly put together, I started this discussion to find out what you think. --DipperPines12 16:21, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

there is already a search for the blindeye page no need for another one

Bear-O
I think the song is enough and way more necessary. I was thinking about it like I explained, but no. Well unless it appears in other shorts, episodes, or media. Sounds like another one time, copied thing like the Hide Behind, Candy monster (creature), Mailbox (creature) etc... I was really hoping no one would make this page. Topdarlingwh (talk) 02:16, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Bear-O sort of made a major appearance in that short, even if he wasn't the main focus. And as for creatures like the Hide Behind or the Candy monster or the Mailbox, they appear once and are focused on, same thing with creatures like the Gobblewonker or the wax figures. Sure there's a difference between a short and an episode, but I prefer to just count a short or an episode as one thing (ex. The Legend of the Gobblewonker is even with Candy Monster), thus they'd be deleted too.


 * Thing is, we keep on opposing these deletions [as we disagree to them], even though you keep on starting up new ones that are basically for the same reason. I'm surprised we're not allowed to just close this and keep it, but Top, this is really why I started the vote for you to be demoted, you've been quite overreactive lately, and the ways you do it is quite a way to bother us. Sure, I've caused drama before. I've gotten bans and warnings before, thus I've had my part on it and it's over, but you are a higher level on this wiki and thus, if I were your level, I would of gotten demoted the same way I think you should.


 * I'm sorry that most of this is unrelated to the topic, but thing is, this is just more overreacting to me, considering you're trying to delete something for the exact same reason as three other pages in which we decided to keep, and all of this has to do with shorts. So please, if you mind, I'm just sick and tired of life right now, so really, this is my vote: I oppose. ~Bill Cipher 02:27, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Sigh you deleted me comments on the demotion vote because they were unrelated but now you look what you did, very odd. I won't erase this but I'll take it to your wall we all need to talk.Topdarlingwh (talk) 02:46, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Trying this again
Forgot to add this. Reason why it was, insulting and a continuation of the prank, I also have no idea why it was re-opened if I need to talk to the user I will NO arguing but will figure something it out. Topdarlingwh (talk) 02:53, January 7, 2014 (UTC) Honesty I don't see this as continuing the prank. I'm getting worried about Mf99k's mental health though. 03:31, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Help Bill Cipher
Against the new "one sided" rules IN MY OPINION SO DON'T GIVE ME A WARNING. Topdarlingwh (talk) 02:53, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * What "one sided" rules? 03:22, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * The new rule about closing blog, etc... I mean that could have clearly used a vote. "IN MY OPINION SO DON'T GIVE ME A WARNING." or other argument provoking wall posts. Topdarlingwh (talk) 03:25, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * You are able to delete because you have imagecontrol rights. We the admins did not know you could actually delete blogs and pages.  Thought you could only delete images.  I still don't see how that rule is "one sided"... Also I don't understand what you're yelling about a warning.  I gave you a warning to not delete anything but images because (1) you weren't meant to be allowed to do so and (2) you shouldn't do so anyway.  03:30, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Does not violate any rules. Just a dumb blog. 03:31, January 7, 2014 (UTC)