User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-14

This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on August 28, 2007. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Photoshopping

I see after you locked the page that you rightly undid your content change as a violation of your admin duties to not abuse admin powers for edit warring purposes. User:Arthur Rubin, however, has proven himself to be unconcerned with such abuse. It would be a good idea if you undid his blatantly biased edit. The problem here is that we're supposed to have discussion, yet Arthur Rubin and Dicklyon clearly are not interested in discussion, as they simply ignore it all and force their version upon the article despite what they clearly saw the decision was both months ago and recently. I fear that if it's going to be locked waiting for discussion that we will have the same nonsense as on Photo editing itself, where they simply do not discuss and simply continue to put bad info in there despite all comments to the contrary. Now that the page is locked, admins most definitely should not be editing the page to protect *their* version, and I would hope that if the Photo editing article is going to be on the "wrong version" we can at least put this page on the "right version" so as to encourage discussion... if both pages are locked the way these edit warriors want then there will never be any reason for them to discuss, or try to make compromise, or listen to reason, or follow policy. DreamGuy 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he has edited again to what HE considers the last "acceptible" version... he's still picking and choosing what he considers the right version. DreamGuy 16:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get involved in this. I am not about to wheel war with Arthur Rubin about what the right or wrong version is upon which the page should be protected. If it's The Wrong Version™, so what? I undid my own revert because it's generally inappropriate to revert and then protect, and I realized after reverting that protecting was the better option between another revert and a protect. I undid not because I had abused the system, but because I did not intend to do anything of the sort in the first place. Other admins, with whom I double-checked my actions on IRC, will confirm this. I do think that the version to which I originally reverted was right, but the point here is to discuss the problem, not get caught up in debates about admin mucking. I'm slightly disappointed that Arthur Rubin did what he did, but there is no point whatsoever in reverting further. Discuss it, and if they aren't listening, you have all the dispute resolution processes upon which to fall back. Nihiltres^(t.l) 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too was disappointed, in both of you admins, because this kind of slip up just gives DreamGuy the fodder he needs to focus on to create distractions instead of facing his issues as well documented in the current conduct RfC. But no big deal, we just work around the noise. It is a bit hilarious to see DreamGuy accusing Arther and me of refusing to discuss, after he "banned" us from his talk page. That's life. Dicklyon 00:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hellfire Sermons

Dear Nihiltres, I have to contest your speedy deletion of 'Hellfire Sermons'. The Hellfire Sermons are still playing and recording, they garnered significant critical intetrest in their day, their music is widely available. The article was up for over a year before you chose to delete. Please re-instate the article or at least give me a forum in which to defend my article. Yours Andy Ford 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that the band meets WP:MUSIC, I will gladly undelete the article to allow you to source it well. You can also recreate the article without consulting me, although you must realize that the article can and will be speedily deleted again if it does not assert notability through sources. Good luck, Nihiltres^(t.l) 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Greatrex

can i please ask why this was deleted, it was a profile about a friend of mine who i believes deserves recognition for his charity efforts. it is also valuable for people researching the charity for possible voulenteering but the page is NOT for advertising the charity, it is purely for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My nirvana is you (talk • contribs) 03:27, August 17, 2007 (UTC)

also if you could recommend how i could make it so it can stay then that would be appreciated, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My nirvana is you (talk • contribs) 03:42, August 17, 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know which article you mean: could you please clarify and give me the exact title? To review exactly why I deleted it I'll need to check the summary and perhaps the content, and I can't find it. I do too many deletions to remember them all. ;) Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the title was "Nick Greatrex". thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My nirvana is you (talk • contribs) 05:08, August 17, 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. There has never been a page at Nick Greatrex, unless the page has been oversighted beyond mere admin power. I need to know the name of the article to be able to help you. Nihiltres^(t.l) 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the title as "Nick greatrex" which means it must have been oversighted, does that mean it cant be restored? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My nirvana is you (talk • contribs) 21:45, August 17, 2007 (UTC)

Aha, no. It's the capitalization there that counts (there has been a Nick greatrex, but never a Nick Greatrex), and I must have missed it while checking through the list of my most recent deletions. I deleted it because it did not assert his significance as a person. We have standards for inclusion for people, which didn't seem to be met there, as linked from the links in my deletion summary. Further, since you say that he is a friend of yours, I must point out that you have a conflict of interest, and should be aware of the conflict of interest guideline. I don't think it's worthwhile to undelete the article, but if you want to recreate it, you are free to. Be aware, however, that unless any new article meets the usual criteria, it's likely to be deleted. Good luck, Nihiltres^(t.l) 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help, is there any chance you could copy what was in the artical to my profile or something so i can edit it to meet the standards. thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My nirvana is you (talk • contribs) 22:27, August 17, 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a problem, so I undeleted it and moved it to User:My nirvana is you/Nick Greatrex. Nihiltres^(t.l) 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify the reason for deletion

Hi,

Im unsure why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/litmos was deleted. The article referenced an elearning platform in a similar manner to many other platforms listed in wiki.

If it was truely deleted for advertising reasons i believe there are many other pages that should also be deleted.

Please provide a reason for the deletion or be fair and delete the other pages which give information about elearning platforms in a similar nature.

ie,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_%28e-learning_platform%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromedia_Authorware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANGEL_Learning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Captivate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FirstClass

There are many more....

Thanks,

Richard

It did seem to be quite promotional, and while I am unconvinced that those others you mention qualify for speedy deletion, you can always propose that they be deleted. I have already put such a proposition forward for ANGEL Learning. You can also remove or fix promotional language whenever you see it. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still cant see how all of the adobe products are allowed then? They are packed full of promotional type text, heading such as Features are an obvious give away. Even if i propose these pages for deletion i know it is highly unlikely that a high profile company like Adobes pages will be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.141.85.57 (talk) 01:14:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Then remove any text you find promotional, or change it so that it isn't promotional. No one will stop you from removing anything remotely spamlike. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 01:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leprefarts

How dare you revert my page! I worked so hard on it. If I had the privelidge, I word delt yas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poserlkg (talk • contribs) 04:24, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

It was obvious vandalism. I just gave you a 3-hour warning block to stop your rampant fart jokes and other nonsense. Have fun, Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a page

Hi. I do a lot of tagging for deletion of pages. There is one titled US Channels DirecTV Needs , which I nominated for deletion. This person keeps removing tags. I even started a discussion about the deletion on the articles' talk page. I suggested it be added onto the DirecTV page. Then the author placed a comment towards the top of the page that says that some people think it should be merged with the DirecTV page, but it was before and it kept getting deleted. So I'm confused as to what to do. I went to the admin list and picked you at random. Obviously this information is not necessary and not wanted on wikipedia, as it has been deleted from the DirecTV page before. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. - Rjd0060 20:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created an AfD discussion for it, it seems to be entirely POV. You can comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Channels DirecTV Needs. Simply explain your reasoning, and we'll try to come to a consensus about what to do with the article. Hope that helps, Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks a lot. - Rjd0060 23:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should block the author of that page. He has deleted deletion proposals several (4+) times now. He was even warned if he did it again, he would be blocked by another user (see the author's talk page) - Rjd0060 23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a last, friendly warning, and he doesn't seem to get it. He hasn't been pointed to WP:OWN yet though, so I'll give him a ridiculously short block of... three hours, and give him WP:OWN to read. If it doesn't stop the problems, it can be extended. Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted)[reply]

3 hours...Very nice of you. I have a feeling that he will be back though. Good luck with this one. - Rjd0060 00:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wikidudeman. Nihiltres^(t.l) 23:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a little short

But at least it had some info on it... You goon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Broken jay will fly again (talk • contribs) 18:45, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Insulting me will get you nowhere. On the other hand, that's the first time I've been called a goon.
The article qualified for speedy deletion, and I indicated exactly why it did in the deletion summary. I do not delete pages without a valid reason.

If you have anything else meaningful to say, by all means... Nihiltres^(t.l) 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

I appreciate you looking into my vandalism warning and removing it. Thanks Unlikelyheroine 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - just remember, it was an honest mistake to begin with. Nihiltres^(t.l) 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson family murders

Please unprotect this page so that it can be created; it was deleted without following Wikipedia deletion policy. Thank you. dcandeto 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the strict biography of living persons policy applies here for the deletion, and I trust the judgement of Phil Sandifer, who deleted it in the first place. If you have a problem with this deletion and protection ("salting"), please take it up with Phil Sandifer, who deleted it in the first place. I executed the salting merely to help him since he was unfamiliar with the technical details of protecting a deleted page - I'm not familiar with the nature of the problem that caused the page to be deleted in the first place. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BLP policy applies, but since all the information in the article is verifiable, and the subject of the article is notable, speedy deletion isn't among the things allowed by Wikipedia policy. dcandeto 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So go tell that to Phil Sandifer. I'm considering my salting of the page he deleted to be his admin action: I did it merely because I was familiar with the technical details, while he is not - we are both administrators with the user rights to make the actions. As such, you should discuss the deletion with him, since admins undoing each others' admin actions is generally considered inappropriate. Oh, and I made a mistake in the link to his talk page: I forgot that there's a space in his username (it doesn't exist in his IRC username, where he asked me to make the action for which you are talking to me). I copied your comment to the right page. Nihiltres^(t.l) 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UcoZ

UcoZ Just some facts:

Web-Service UcoZ was this true phenomenon of the Runet.

Over 100,000 “live” websites with over 2,000 new users registered in the system daily.

Included in the Top-15 Russian Sites by alexa.com

--E-Kurt 12:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't question the notabity of the site when deleting it - I noted that I deleted it as overly promotional. If you want to recreate it in a neutral point of view, you are certainly free to. Nihiltres^(t.l) 12:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But why, in particular, Freewebs, Bravenet, Google Page Creator is`t overly promotional? I simply do`t see the difference --E-Kurt 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are questionable - you can always prod them, though. Nihiltres^(t.l) 17:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me

Hi, thanx for arased the "/member", i wanted to created a wiki project, but i couldnt. When i try to create the WikiProject Nicaragua always ends up as an article not a project.. What can i DO? Can you erase this article and this one? Because i dont know how to do it.. :( --- Alex 22:45 Pacific Time August 25 2007

You need to include "Wikipedia:" at the beginning of the title to place it in the Wikipedia namespace. The title you're looking for is Wikipedia:WikiProject Nicaragua. I deleted the pages you requested. Hope that helps, Nihiltres^(t.l) 03:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrullah Khan Marwat

HI, can you tell me why my article Nasrullah Khan Marwat was deleted? it says advertising but it was an article i wasn't advertising him for something. Explain in detail.

If you meant by the photo that was not advertising that photo was used in his election campaign in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basik (talk • contribs) 00:28 and 00:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was highly promotional. Wikipedia articles are supposed to follow a neutral point of view, and we have very tight rules about spam. Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which part of it was promotional, do you know something about this person? if so tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basik (talk • contribs) 00:56, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Well, all of it. It describes only things which would be promotional of him, does not make any references to third-party sources, and is not very coherent. Further, it does not describe his notability, as others have noted on the talk page. In addition, please stop recreating the page with identical content: that will not solve the problem, and it may result in a need for the page to be protected against creation. Nihiltres^(t.l) 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll edit and improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basik (talk • contribs) 01:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)