User talk:Terrillja/Archives/05/2009

Nappy cake

Hi Terrillja, hope you don't mind, but I've replaced the vandalism tag with a notability one as from the link that was there as it looks like the product exists (tasteless but thats marketing for you). But it needs third party reports to settle whether it is an encyclopaedic topic. ϢereSpielChequers

I'm sorry, I missed that link. My mistake, I didn't see that and tagged it interpreting it as a hoax. At some point I plant to propose a separate tag for hoaxes from vandalism, as the reviewing admin has no way to know what you are trying to get at. Some day.

I just left a COI note with them too, the username and article title are eerily similar. Sorry about that one, I'm usually right on with my tagging.--Terrillja _talk 15:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, that's the advantage of having two people in the process. I agree with you re COI and very nearly deleted it as advertising :) ϢereSpielChequers 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And now twinkle has a separate radiobox for tagging hoaxes. Great things happen when you ask the right people!--Terrillja _talk 03:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

US Constitution Preamble

Heya, this needn't be made into a hassle for you. Consider my comments, and let me know if you need me to do anything further. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, obviously this is an IAR case, and I'm not sure if there is any precedent set for it at all. I think the way it is set up now makes sense, as for the protection level, well that is up to an admin. I don't see any reason why the text page would have to be edited more than...never, but if people would rather see it semiprotected, that's fine. Either way, I think that the current setup with some sort of protection is better than the way it was. If you feel that it would be advantageous to open this up to more admins, I can drop a note on WP:AN.--Terrillja _talk 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry

I didn't know that the edit would not do anything. --Abce2|Howdy! 04:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Employer Partnership Initiative

Thanks for your recommendation on rewriting the content. CADrews (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Cheryl

Heiress

If you read more of the article, you will find a source. Her inheritance was cut down greatly by her grandfather's decision to donate most of his estate to charity. She and her siblings still inherit a few million. Tarheelz123 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well she isn't inheriting the hotel brand, which was what your edit implied, since there is no hotel brand to inherit. And the sources don't say that she is getting a penny, just that he is giving 97% of his money to his foundation. No mention of where the other 3% is going. So the sources state that the potential for her to get a large windfall is no longer there, but make no mention of her getting anything.--Terrillja _talk 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to move this to Talk:Paris Hilton. Amalthea 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubrovnik

Sir, please validate the link: http://wikitravel.org/en/Dubrovnik#Sleep as an appropirate link. After all it is wikitravel and it IS already linked at: == External links == If you disagree please leave my == Tourism == section without link.

Best regards,

Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltun3 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Linking to wikitravel is a difficult one, since they are an open wiki, but they do have a lot of information. As such, a single link in external links is generally alright. On the other hand, your edit was very spammy. Something like how many tourists come to dubrovnik every year with a reliable source would be fine. Things like "In season Dubrovnik is alive with tourists." is spammy and original research. Keep in mind that everything must be written from a neutral point of view, and if you would like to add similar text again, I would suggest bringing it up on the talkpage first so that others can offer their opinions. --Terrillja _talk 19:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Allright, I do a bit reasearch. Well I have been one month in Dubrovnik in April this year, so should be hard do dig up some facts. I post it later on the talkpage.

Greets, Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltun3 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

I didn't want to call it a hoax in case the subject did exist. I changed it to spam becuase " This upcoming book will be released on October 12, 2009" looked like advertising. I accept your concern. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:Huggle

I think we both reverted at the same time. Oops! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 16:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hello Hello Hello Hello Terrillja Terrillja Terrillja Terrillja Terrillja

Please {{hangon}} to delete for five of those. Thanks.--Backtracks (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a week to address the issues raised in the PROD, hangon is for speedy deletions. See my comments on your talkpage.--Terrillja _talk 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok sir --Backtracks (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that you contested the proposed deletions, I changed all to A7 speedy deletions.--Terrillja _talk 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

Fair enough; I've deleted the article. In the future, it would be helpful if you explained such things on the article talk page or in the deletion tag so that us muddle headed admins can actually decipher what's wrong (as generally we don't have time to go around plugging in every single sentence of the copyvio into the original source) =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

G1 != G3

Hi, just a note about a recent page you tagged for deletion (Emil Nolde- The Prophet). You tagged it as WP:CSD#G1, but it didn't apply because the page was vandalism/attack, and G1 does not include this. Please read the critera, and keep up your work patrolling new pages. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it as g1 meaningless since it didn't have any worthwhile text on it, just a bunch of repeating nonsense. Could have gone for A3 as well, with no meaningful content. I can see now how you saw it as an attack, I looked more at the content and didn't think about how the title tied into the random junk there. Thank you for your feedback though.--Terrillja _talk 14:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aye, the artist is real, so I'm sure he wouldn't like his work being called rubbish. I can understand why you used G1, but I always think it's best to only use that if nothing else works (and of course, only if it applies ;D) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of them, but I'll take your word for it. I just figured it was some sort of childish vandalism, a la my friend bobby thinks he is the best but he sucks. Repeated 30 times for emphasis. Sadly no caps were used. That always helps get the point across if someone misses the same thing repeated 30 times. --Terrillja _talk 14:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse reports/173.89.48.219

Hi Terrillja. You tagged this one db-housekeeping; I don't keep up with abuse reports and don't know why it should be speedied. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Left the reasoning on the talkpage. It was an IP with only one block, abuse reports are for long term vandals, so I tagged for housekeeping since no action will be taken on the report.--Terrillja _talk 02:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I see SchuminWeb has declined the speedy, and I would have too. If there's a discussion among people who handle abuse reports, and you guys all decide to get rid of a lot of inactive reports, then I have no problem with deleting per db-housekeeping. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And now I've discovered that there is another place rejected requests are indexed. So this would be indexed there. Guess I will have to add cleanup/reorganize/make more clear WP:ABUSE to my to-do list, it's a mess now.--Terrillja _talk 04:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)