User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 23rd June 2006

Jimbo Guy

Is User:Jimbo Wales for real? It seems a bit convenient to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparkling Goth (talk • contribs) .

What is your problem?

I am not vandalising, I am bringing a serious issue to your attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparkling Goth (talk • contribs) .

you made a mistake

you mistakenly moved an entry i wrote on Robert Henke, a popular electronic musician, to my user page, thinking i was writing about myself, which i wasnt. I am not robert henke, and i was just filling out a stub on him that I came across. can you please reverse the change you made and restore the entry?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyorei (talk • contribs)

Hi. Let me explain what happened here. The article Robert Henke was tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion, by another user. When I reviewed the article I concluded that it did meet the criteria for deletion - normally the article would then simply be deleted. However, because I felt that there was a chance that this article was about you - I decided to save the contents by posting it to your user page and notified you that I had done so. The message on your talk page was generated with a template message, which is common practice in such scenarios due to time constraints, but such messages may not always convey all the required information. In this case the template indicated that I thought the article was definitely about you, whereas I meant that I thought it was likely enough to go to the trouble of moving it to your user page.

The article was initially tagged for speedy deletion under the criteria 7 of the Articles Deletion Criteria. If you feel that, in its original format, it should not have been deleted - then you can raise the matter on Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, if you feel that it did meet the criteria for deletion, but that you can rewrite so that the deletion criteria are no longer relevant - then please feel free to do so and repost it. Cheers TigerShark 12:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and another mistake

why don't you ask people before moving articles? I created a stub for Sydney Kustu because she is a professor at my university that has accomplished a lot (I'm in the process of collecting that information), but you thought I was writing about myself and moved it to my user info. Please move it back and be a little more communicative in the future. --MM 00:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Let me explain what happened here. The article Sydney Kustu was tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion, by another user. When I reviewed the article I concluded that it did meet the criteria for deletion - normally the article would then simply be deleted. However, because I felt that there was a chance that this article was about you - I decided to save the contents by posting it to your user page and notified you that I had done so. The message on your talk page was generated with a template message, which is common practice in such scenarios due to time constraints, but such messages may not always convey all the required information. In this case the template indicated that I thought the article was definitely about you, whereas I meant that I thought it was likely enough to go to the trouble of moving it to your user page.

The article was initially tagged for speedy deletion under the criteria 7 of the Articles Deletion Criteria. If you feel that, in its original format, it should not have been deleted - then you can raise the matter on Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, if you feel that it did meet the criteria for deletion, but that you can rewrite so that the deletion criteria are no longer relevant - then please feel free to do so and repost it. Cheers TigerShark 12:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Buchanan

Alright, let's have this out. I've put it on AfD so that we may get rid of these tags once and for all. - Richardcavell 23:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Auckland

I don't usually check the unblock requests - it was mainly because User:PageantUpdater is on my watchlist and she uses the university IP.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion

TigerShark, could you please clarify what is notable vs. what is "non-notable"? You deleted a link to an article I had written regarding a secret society at Boston College, yet you leave untouched several comparable articles with little or no citations or available data. If notable means something that should be a house-hold name, then only 2-3 of the rather lengthy list should be there. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CuratorUniversalis (talk • contribs) .

LIUedu

blocked him - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnar Chicken & Flapjacks

Gnar Chicken and Flapjacks is Miami Beach's most famous band and definately deserves its own article. I trust that many people in my area will contribute to this article and give Wikipedia users a bit mroe of Miami Beach culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maxkirk1 (talk • contribs) .

Robo-Logan

Can you elaborate on why this article had it's Speedy Delete flag removed? The following is a quote from the article. That could not be a better endorsement for a vanity page deletion:

"Do not delete this page! Please! I need to get the name of Robo-Logan out there! People reading this article, and you like it, put a post in the TALK page for this article."

Kershner 22:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having re-read the content, I think you are right that this is a speedy. I see that it has already been deleted by another admin. Thanks TigerShark 22:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Zachary Nugent Brooke

Hi.

Slightly surprised at this. The reason this article came about was because I was looking at the page on Bradfield College and was concerned by the number of links in the Notable Old Bradfieldians section that were red; raising the obvious question as to how notable they really were.

So I started a process of examining each such entry, and searching both WP and Google to see if there were any references. In at least one case I found a WP article with a slightly different title and corrected the link; in a couple of others I found nothing on Google and deleted the link.

But in some cases, and Zachary Nugent Brooke must be one of them, I found enough evidence on Google to suggest notability. In these cases I created a stub, and commented that there was evidence on Google. I may well have added an extlink or a reference, but I cannot tell this because speedy deletion has removed all traces.

I notice that you have chosen to leave the redlink in the list of notable people at Bradfield College, which I find somewhat inconsistent. And I'm left wondering how to procede in my quest to resolve questions about notability of entries in that article. Your suggestions would be much appreciated. -- Chris j wood 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked my Google searches and found that Zachary Nugent Brooke has many references as an author and researcher. Now that in itself is not sufficient to guarantee notability, but that is irrelevant because lack of notablity is not an acceptable criteria for speedy deletion. I would contend that several pages of google is sufficient to say that this was not a case of an Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages, which is what I must assume was the criteria you used. Even in that case, WP:CSD states if the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. I would therefore request that you reinstate this page, and if you still believe it to be appropriate, list it on AFD. We can then test the notability there, and if the consensus is non-notable, reflect that decision into Bradfield College as well. Thanks. -- Chris j wood 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. Thanks for your note. The reason that the article was tagged for speedy deletion by another editor, and the reason that I deleted it was that it did not "assert the importance or significance of its subject". As you correctly state, non-notability is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion; but the absence of a reason why the subject could be notable is. This criteria is describe in more detail in Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. I don't have a strong objection to recreating this article, and I wouldn't try to stand in the way of you doing so yourself - but I think that if it is just recreated in its old format, it may quickly get tagged and deleted again. Can I suggest that you recreate it but add something that rectifies the issue described above? To make this easier I have copied the deleted contents here. Cheers TigerShark 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Having seen it again, I have to admit that was rather minimalistic even for a stub. One of the disadvantages of speedy deletion is that it removes all the evidence (or at least hides it from me). I've reinserted the article, and added some more detail, which should at least inform a decision on notability. As I indicated above, I'm only really doing this as part of a tidying up exercise on another page, so I don't expect personally to add more to this article. Hopefully there is enough there to keep the stub article (and hence the link) open until someone with more of an interetst in 19th century historians comes along. -- Chris j wood 16:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

Tigershark, just a little note to say that I very much respect your openmindedness in reconsidering your original decision to close the AfD on FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together by deleting it. Not so much because I think the article should be kept (which I obviously do), but because it is a very good and positive sign that you take your adminship responsibilities very seriously. Kudos. Agent 86 23:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:ButtonMoon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ButtonMoon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadullah Khan

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article Sadullah Khan for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated.

I think I was supposed to put this on your page first. No slight meant, just an imperfect familiarity with the ever-changing rules of AfD and deletion review. LotLE×talk 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Comment from Supercow (mascot)

I deleted your comment because the information contained was no longer true. I would expect the same from you on my comments.

On a seperate note, how many people need to know a subject before it's notable? Apparently there weren't enough for Supercow (2,000+ people) Mark Skovmose 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished AfD?

Hey Tigershark, I noticed you deleted "Learncasting" per this AfD, but you didn't close it or delete the other nominated article, "Podagogy". Maybe you were interrupted? Anyways, I closed the AfD and deleted "Podagogy". --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda think that's right... the comments in the learncasting afd did state 'delete both' or 'delete per nom'. I'm not sure that it needed extending for podagogy, so it's being deleted is the right thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proto (talk • contribs) .

Hi Guys. Yeah, a bit of a mistake with not closing the Learncasting debate - I definitely started doing it, but must just have previewed it, got distracted and then not saved it. This was probably because I was creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Podagogy at the same time, which I did because I wasn't 100% sure that all of the original editors had commented on both articles. That is also why I didn't delete the Podagogy article. I was probably erring too much on the side of caution, and I have no concerns about the fact that it has been deleted. Deathphoenix - As you deleted Podagogy, would you mind if I left the closing of the Podagogy AfD to you (just for consistency)? Cheers TigerShark 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I speedy-closed it. Happy closing! --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello TigerShark, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my User page. RasputinAXP c 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editting

Can't quite recall commenting, but both I and my PC are liable to error.--Anthony.bradbury 23:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been in talk page.--Anthony.bradbury 00:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Just a case of simultaneous action, is it not?--Anthony.bradbury 00:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lindsay on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeff Lindsay. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've gone on a recent drive to inform closing admins of deletion reviews. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's working, too. I've noticed a couple of nominators going to the trouble of informing the admin of the DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Reverting Vandalism

It was just now that I noticed in my user page history that on May 30, 2006, an anon made two edits that were reverted by you. I checked to make sure what you were reverting was vandalism since admin-rollback doesn't provide a detailed summary. I saw the you reverted it within the same minute the the anon vandalised my page, which is why I'm thanking you. As the hidden text that's visable at the top of my page when editing says, I will report it on the vandalizer's talk page. I went to do that until I saw you had already been kind enough to report it. Once again, thank you.TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User message posted to template

Please be aware that you on 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) posted a user message to User:Exir Kamalabadi/Welcome, affecting all users who have this template message on their user page, causing what I would call... "some confusion".

This is the actuall text of the message:

==Dissect Medicine==

You have recently created the article Dissect Medicine. This was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate the article: if you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. TigerShark 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your message from Exir Kamalabadis Welcome-template. You may wish to add it to his talk page instead. - Damsleth 07:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]