User talk:Ceyockey/OldCriticism

Moldovan Song

Surely notable if and only if the other Eurovision 2007 entries are? 131.111.250.142 07:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight (song)

I've removed the merger and notability tags from this article, as it placed in the top 10 (not 24th, as you've suggested to the anon who queried it) in the largest competitive music festival in the world. Precedent, furthermore, has been that any song performed onstage at ESC is eminently notable, due to the fact that it represented a country in an international competition. You're welcome to discuss this further on my Talk page if you want. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Case of the Constant Suicides

1930s book never had ISBNs this is either a modern edition or a retrospecitively added (and not historically significant) addition. but thanks anyway! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hxseeker

I'm restoring the sockpuppet notice for Hxseeker. Next time I'd appreciate some sort of comment somewhere before or at least after such a notice is removed. Thanks. --Ronz 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangaria

I don't understand your change from speedy to PROD. Being a hoax is certainly not a criterion for speedy deletion, but I didn't nominate for speedy deletion because it's a hoax, I nominated it for speedy deletion because it's non-notable. If the hoax non-criterion trumps the specific CSD criteria, wouldn't it be true that any article that meets the other criteria could exempt itself from the reach of speedy deletion merely by adding a fake source? PubliusFL 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the criterion I nominated under was A7. But I guess the claim about the Lonely Planet guide, although false, could plausibly be construed as an assertion of notability. PubliusFL 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Closure

I strongly disagree with the closure of this AfD. While I am, obviously, not exactly an impartial observer, it seems to me that there is clear consensus against this article. Most participants made the perfectly cogent, policy-based argument that the article is just a trivial list, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia (WP:FIVE). --Eyrian 17:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Morse code in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Eyrian 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of speedy delete tag for Inga Liljeström

Hi, I am not sure why you removed the SD tag on article Inga Liljeström and converted it into a redirect to Inga Liljestrom; as you can see from the lead of the latter article, Inga Liljeström is the correct name (see also the singer's website and the album covers) — as such, the redirect should go the other way round, which is exactly why I tagged the article {{db-move}} in the first place. What did I miss ? Schutz 07:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xhet

May I ask why you suggested that Xhet be copied to Wicktionary? The word is clearly fake, not only does Google come up with nothing (nothing english at any rate), but according to the article, the word was created this very day. -WarthogDemon 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amzeglouf

Are you calling me a liar? The Internet has almost no coverage of rural towns and villages in Africa ask anybody so its not surprising google doesn't pick it up. Africa is so poor in parts that putting their village on a website is the last thing on their minds. I've just checked the Phillips World Atlas again and it lies approximately 40 km north of Zaouiet Reggane in central Algeria. Swearing the honest truth. but if there is no info as yet best to mention it in the Zaouiet Reggane as being nearby rather than a seperate article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 12:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its amazing how the Internet cannot pick up tone of voice!!!. Spouting bile? Hey aside from the first few words this was friendly. Why should I be worked up about a one line stub? I am agreeing with you about it - its just the "no evidence there is such a place" (whilst partly true on the Internet) makes me look like a prankster. I'd suggest a redirect to Zaouiet Reggane. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 13:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me anyway. Its a shame that there is very little information on Africa. I have added prod templates many times to entire province articles which covers thousands of sq kilometres in Africa yet only have a two line stub. Then you get a tiny shopping mall in America with a full length article!!! Even for the African capital cities there is not really much online information to go on. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The only thing is whilst the detailed map shows up many of these settlements there is quite truthfully zilch info to go on. Should wikipedia be a reference point to say where something is or should it provide information about that place? In my view it should do both and provide at least some basic facts. This is where the fundamental problem lies that wikipedia despite its global reach will inevitably be biased because of the uneven distribution of information. If you see anymore geo stubs with no google hits -I'd strongly suggest a merging into List of towns and villages in ... Province or Algeria etc... ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 13:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I guess its what wikipedia means to people. There are those who think it should collect any given topic under the sun and those who believe much of it should be filtered out like a formal traditional encyclopedia. I created those stubs over a year ago I think - i haven't done much work on municipalities for a very long time. My work on wikipedia is now chiefly involved with Films and actors, Tibet and Cambodia with the odd artist/writer article rather than geo stubbing. Ah never mind -you can't say I didn't try. In reality many of these villages in the desert are not exactly of global significance anyway are they!!! but I was trying to cover land more evenly. Regards and keep up the good wikiing. I appreciate your're efforts ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:P* tasks and deletions

I noticed you added a deletion section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Opentasks/Detailed task listing. There is a separate page for that, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, also accessible as WP:P*/D. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD nominations

The notice you added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free Software would have been more helpful if it said something more that "24 Jzip". But thanks. RossPatterson 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 01:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and Drink deletions

I did not know your intention, if that was the intention there is a spot on the projects main page for listing articles for deletion. I am of the opinion however that it is better to list the articles under AfD as the issue gets dealt with in an expedited manner. Otherwise the tags may never get noticed as there are so many of them, I constantly see articles listed on our project that get ignored. That said, if you'd rather use WP:PROD, I think it is better to put the articles on the main page under the section already created for it as putting it on the bottom of the sorting page as it can get lost under all of the AfDs on top of the page.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John McGrady

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John McGrady. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this the wrong way, I have no doubt you are acting in good faith. The reason I didn't attempt to discuss it with you first is that I wasn't aware of the AfD result until today for various reasons, and I can't imagine you suddenly deleting the article three months later based on a discussion here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

responded at User talk:One Night In Hackney --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions at USRD

If you are going to update USRD re PRODs, then please post one notice for each article. Don't put a section that never archives. Also, please inform USRD even if it is a state highway article. Thanks, Rschen7754 (T C) 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book article deletion warnings

Hi. Thanks for posting the notices regarding book articles up for possible deletion. Just a reminder that a page has been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Articles-Images in danger of deletion where these warnings are supposed to go (in order to reduce clutter on the main WikiProject Novels discussion page). Cheers! 23skidoo 04:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meet me in st. louis (band) deletion

I didn't understand clearly the cause of deletion "Article about a band that does not assert significance; no overt assertion of notability - an EP release alone is not sufficient.".

The discography included two EPs and an LP, the LP had it's own page and links to reviews from several important publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleakstk (talk • contribs) 05:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)

What's the point of putting a redirect at a title that has zero incoming links (save for its inclusion on two automated lists of prod pages and disambig pages, respectively) and that nobody will ever spontaneously try to visit? Propaniac 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that disambig pages are not supposed to have incoming links is completely inaccurate. A disambig page with "(disambiguation)" in the title must be linked from another article, or it is very, VERY unlikely that anybody will ever visit that page. Links to disambig pages are typically placed at the top of the article most commonly associated with that term; these are called hatnotes. For example, if I enter "sheep" in the search box, I am redirected to the article Domestic sheep, because that's probably what I'm looking for. But there is a link at the top of that article to Sheep (disambiguation) (as well as Lamb (disambiguation)) in case, for example, what I'm actually looking for is the sheep zodiac sign, which is at Sheep (zodiac). If there were no links to that disambiguation page, the only way I would ever access it is to type "Sheep (disambiguation)" in the search box, which the vast majority of WP users would never think to do, or to do a search for "sheep", which circumvents the point of having a disambig page for the term in the first place. It's for this same reason--that there is no reasonable means by which someone could be expected to access anything at the title "[X] (disambiguation)" without an internal link to that title--that placing a redirect at such a title is pointless.

Specifically, there was no point in adding a link to this particular disambig page at the top of the Euclides da Cunha article because there was only one other existing article that could maybe be confused with it, and thus as most there should be a link to that one article and not to a disambig page that links only to that article. As I explained in the prod reasoning.

You might want to withhold both your disruptive edits and your condescending little remarks--why, yes, I CAN read through strikethroughs--until you understand the basic principles of how Wikipedia is navigated. Propaniac 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the top of WP:DAB#Links to disambiguation pages, which you so kindly linked me to:

There is rarely a need for links directly to disambiguation pages—except from any primary topic.

Emphasis added, since you seem to require it. I'm genuinely boggled at your inability to acknowledge this, and how you've managed to transfer your misunderstandings about disambig pages to redirects. I probably will nominate the redirect at RFD, since I'd be curious about what kind of benefit they may be able to find for someone who types "Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)" into the Wikipedia search box while looking for the article located at Euclides da Cunha. Even if they manage to find some possible case that could technically exist in which this would happen, I personally feel that this benefit is outweighed by the drawback of adding yet another stupid, illogical thing to the world. Regardless, I doubt there's any need for us to converse any further. If you want to give me another link to a WP policy that indicates in the first sentence precisely that I am right and you are wrong, or if you want to call me uninformed again while advertising your own weak grasp of the concepts, I'll assume you're trolling. Propaniac 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't realize this, but striking out a comment so that it reads as "You should know that--oh, wait, but you don't" doesn't come across as any less nasty than leaving the original sarcastic comment untouched. It's true I didn't scrutinize the edit history on my Talk page to deduce your intentions.

The reason I didn't edit the affected pages myself is because there is no point in the disambig page existing at all, given that there are only two existing articles that could possibly need disambiguation (and it's still not clear that the municipality ending with Paulista would reasonably be confused with the author's article). Since there's only two, and the author is obviously going to be the more common target, a hatnote going to the only other article is adequate. I mentioned that there were no links going to the disambig page not because I thought the existence of such links would make the disambig page viable, but as supporting evidence that the page was useless, ignored and likely only existed because nobody was aware of it.

As I said above, I come from the school of thought that if something is stupid and impractical, it should be deleted whether or not it actually incurs negative impact by existing, and a disambig page that nobody needs and nobody could reasonably be expected to visit (without deliberately directing people there unnecessarily, as in the current hatnote) is both. If you fundamentally disagree, we're at an impasse, and I'd be happy to take the thing to AFD (where, I think, people may tend to be more practical than RFD). If it's voted to be kept there, that's fine. Propaniac 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely appreciate the RFD link you left, although I still don't think it's precisely relevant since that redirect was the result of a page move (and the redirect still went to a disambig page). After being off WP for a few days due to work, I really don't care that much anymore, but for the sake of completeness I am planning to throw the thing up on AFD and then they can do with it whatever they want. Probably it'll become a redirect again, and nobody will ever, ever, ever, ever gain any practical use out of it, but whatever. Propaniac 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD/AfD

Hi,

Disambiguation pages typically go to AfD, since they're in the main namespace. In this case, I've just redirected. If one is in doubt about deleting a disamb., redirecting is the thing to do: anyone who desires deletion will then end up at RfD, which sees its fair share of pages ending in (disambiguation) also. I closed the debate because I didn't want it to devolve into a five-day discourse on procedure. When regulars see a type of page that they are unaccustomed to, it can cause heads to explode! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 13:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian political parties

I'm sorry, but why did you merge them? They are separate political parties, parliamentary. --PaxEquilibrium 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar Ibrahim

I contest the Prod. I was not even notified. Being a "press Secretary of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan" is enough to make a person notable. -- Cat ^chi? 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

you provided a comment on my talk page - permalink version

This article was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan by me; I strongly prefer to notify groups with knowledge and interest rather than individuals. As a matter of my personal opinion, I have little sympathy for people who decry the fact that they were not personally notified when an article that they are interested in (or began) is being considered for deletion. However, that does not mean I won't act on your request. I will undelete the article and take take it to WP:AFD based on your contesting the PROD ... I'm also of the opinion that the 5-day period shouldn't be used as a hard and fast rule, that time doesn't run out to contest (well - if a year passes ... perhaps then ... reason comes into play then). If you do not have the article on your watchlist, please add it; if you have it, but were away or not in a position to contest previously, I understand. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deal with far too many articles. My watchlist for the most part is useless for me. It is generally accepted an extra step of good faith and civility to notify the creator. This is typicaly expected from the nominator. {{prodwarning}} exists for a reason (it is displayed on the prod template itself as well). All that aside, I see 2,400 hits on Google establishing notability (IMHO). Mind you this is the English spelling. I do not know the spelling in the Azerbaijani language or in Cyrillic script (used in Azerbaijan). I am not really interested in expanding the article as I know very little about the man or Azerbaijan. I merely encountered his name while writing Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari. He made a statement behalf of the Azerbaijani government in response to the 21 October PKK attacks. I created a stub for him in the hope that it would be eventually expanded. -- Cat ^chi? 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a plane on a conveyor belt.

You speedily deleted this article for because it was a recreation of a previously deleted article. I question this decision because the new article specifically provided what the previous talk page required for a future consideration for a posting of this article, specifically Notariety. The new nomination for deletion was for a completely different reason, and was currently being discussed how to fix it. Per suggestion from Baccayak4H I would like the previous article restored and moved to my own talk page for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sao123 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate deletion of 'Jacques Dallaire'

Hi, I'm just curious as to why did you delete this? I hereby request that it be re-instated, or that you at least provide account for your deleting of such. Dr. Dallaire is a poineer in human performance and has contributed much to the NASCAR and F1 communities over his long career. Please advise and thank you. redfive77 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT

Hi Ceyockey, I have noticed you have been adding the DEFAULTSORT template to articles recently. Just to let you know that this feature is a magic word and not a template, and the correct construction is {{DEFAULTSORT:Sortkey}} rather than {{DEFAULTSORT|Sortkey}} or {{defaultsort|Sortkey}}, using ":" instead of "|". The template was created to prevent confusion and shouldn't be used. Please ask if you have any questions. Thanks, matt br 15:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I was just about to fix them. The template provides the same functionality as the magic word, so it still works as intended, but just creates an uneeded dependency on a template. It shouldn't really exist, but it does. Cheers, matt br 16:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Stop

Why did you re-delete the article I restored and PRODDED. There is an assertion of notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and is a candidate for speedy deletion. Once an article is speedy deleted (which this one was) it is not appropriate to then recreate and relabel the article for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. If an article is put on the PROD path beforehand, that's fine, but not after the article is already deleted.--Alabamaboy (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, where was the assertion of notability? I didn't see a holdon tag or anything raised on the article's talk page before I deleted it.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no once deleted, forever deleted. What I object to is you not following the PROD guidelines. As it specifically states at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, articles that "Have previously been undeleted" are not candidates for PROD. So once you undeleted the article, you should not have placed the PROD template on it. Anyway, are you opposing the deletion? If so, then the article is again not a candidate for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and should be immediately brought up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I'd support recreating the article for an AfD. Otherwise, if you don't object to the article's deletion, I stand by the fact that this is a candidate for speedy deletion. So do you want to do an AFD on it? --Alabamaboy (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm not trying to start a fight over this, but as it states at PROD "Appropriate alternatives such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion take precedence" over PROD. But I'm happy to bring this article up for an AfD if you want.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this issue out for other people to comment on. Getting a consensus on the issue will clear up the murkiness around the issue. BTW, after looking at the edit times on the article it appears you sent it back to PROD at the same time I was examining it for speedy delete. Since I didn't refresh my cache at that point, I didn't realize you had changed it to PROD. Hope there's no hard feelings here b/c I think the whole situation was a simple disagreement over procedure. Hopefully this discussion will clarify the issue. Best, --Alabamaboy (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]