User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tikiwont. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Talia Madison

Hi, her article was deleted and salted because she hadn't done anything notworthy. Since then however, she has signed a contract with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling and competed at their biggest PPV of the year (Bound for Glory (2007). Could her article be unsalted? She has an article here at Wikipedia, but I would like to move it to Talia Madison since that is her ring name and the name she uses in public. TJ Spyke 03:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Where would be her article now? Thanks. --Tikiwont 08:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fail2ban restored

I looked through all of the October deletion review logs and could not locate an entry for this article. Would you please point out where the log for this page's DRV is? --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions can simply be contested ex-post and will then be restored in case of good-faith contentions without DRV discussion but rather with AfD being an option. The diffs are these [1] [2]--Tikiwont 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Click "show" to see my message.

What is meant to be and what is not...

Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia.

If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided.

All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. linca linca 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

IP Vandal 24.73.211.86

Hi, You said only one recent edit was warned but he was warned twice 3 days ago and one was a final warning and he vandalizes again and he isn't blocked? I am not moaning just curious to your decision. Thanks. Doyley Talk 15:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, with respect to anpnymous IP edits three days are some time. So in that sense I considered the previous vandalism stopped after the last warning, and the new edit on Uncyclopedia was rather silly and so far the only one. --Tikiwont 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK fair enough, thanks for letting me know. Is there a guideline on that or the suggested time before a warning expires that I can read up on? I have read a few guidelines on warnings and not seen anything about lengths of time. Thanks again Doyley Talk 15:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you may have read Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism but there are indeed few 'hard' numbers and I am myself still gauging things here. --Tikiwont 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Doke, thanks again! Doyley Talk 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste 04:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfDs

Just like I told Kurykh, thank you very much for cleaning up my trail of destruction. If you'd waited until this morning, I would have fixed them on my own. Cheers, east.718 at 15:06, 11/5/2007

Thank you for your support.

Especially coming after the kerfluffle started.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November?
Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007.
It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up

User talk:Daniel beggs Is appealing their block. Want me to review ? Pedro : Chat 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. You seem to know the story better...I merely blocked becasue i had seen a number of versions of the artcile form different accoutns before and thought I deleted the last one, then I blocked and noticed that my deletion attempt had had been preceded by your deletion and my block by your note..--Tikiwont 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Block upheld. Obviously..... :) ! Pedro : Chat 14:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

209.158.179.181 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Could you do me a favor and block this guy? It's getting out of control... JuJube 15:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Afd : Sharon Gans

Why did you change the main title of this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Gans (already deleted) to "Panacea (Band)" ?

Difference here: [3]

Just a wonderin....--Sc straker 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed a numebr of wrong headers that have to go inside the Afd closure for counting and just pasted the wrong header here. Fixed now. --Tikiwont 07:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Maurice Chavez

Hello Tikiwont. In the belief to be right, I requested speedy deletion for Talk:Maurice Chavez, as the article has been replaced by a redirect to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (in case you are so busy that you don't recall: you closed the AFD about an hour ago). However, the fact that you placed the recent-afd tag on the talk page made me unsure: Is the talk page really to be deleted, and meets the SD criteria? I thought it should, as the removal of the article sort of renders the talk page useless, and the article is "deleted". Sorry for bothering you, just need to know if i messed up in this case. :) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the article has not been deleted. Merge is a variant of keep in the sense of keeping content, even though not in a separte page. So also for the GFDL licences we keep the edit history and the redirect. There is thus no need and catually no case to delete the talk page. And thanks for volunterring for the actual merging! --Tikiwont 10:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood, now i know something more, thank you. And thanks for removing the speedy. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Motillism

Yesterday you deleted an entry which I made for Motillism on the basis that it was advertising.

How can I put this term on the site - I do need for it to be recognised widely and whilst it is relatively unknown at the moment (outside the parties that I mentioned - Pyramid Poster Pulishing, SonyBMG, Universal Music) it will very quickly become a more widely accepted term.

Any advice that you can give would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsinart (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Answered here. --Tikiwont 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Format of AfD discussions

Thanks for that; I thought I'd done it as I followed the instructions on WP:AFD. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Isle of Mann article

Tiki, please understand that my edits to the referenced page are no more than those of Theisles, who is also engaged in an edit war with me. I have attempted on both his/hers and my talk pages to 1) undestand his/her point of view, and 2) resolve the points underlying the edit war. His/her assertions are no more superior than mine. If I am to be blocked, both of us should be. Thanks, in advance. 216.143.251.162 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Same rule applies: I warned both of you and would prefer to block neither. The best place to discuss is the articles' talk page. --Tikiwont 20:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DBs

You know that bit in Unforgiven where Clint Eastwood shoots the unarmed guy, and Gene Hackman says, "you shot an unarmed man!", and Clints says, "He shoulda armed himself"? Well, in my humble opinion, those piece of crap demo album pages should be speedily deleted, rules or no rules, as spam if nothing else. SolidPlaid 09:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Db tags on Demo Tapes etc

Hi, as I received your message I was just reading through the criteria once again to be sure. You are right, I will remove the db tags from any albums etc in the future. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD debate over Polyglot (webzine)

It would appear that the strongest arguments against the notability of this article are being made by people who are most intent upon removing any attestation to notability in that article. They are deliberately manufacturing a lack of notability in order to make the article deletable. The article has many, many more references to third party sources than do most other articles about webzines, including many articles about "real" newspapers and magazines that are printed on paper; there are no "extremist" sources and there is no original research here, every word in the Wikipedia article can be traced back to a source that is either in one or more of the external links at the bottom of it and to a reference in the article's "notes" section. By the logic of the two individuals who are alleging a lack of sources to this article, one cannot write an article about a publication that cites that publication as a source; that makes no sense.

I maintain that the article is notable for the following reasons:

Numerous important news items in the game hobby industry were reported in the newsletter and are mentioned in the article, each with references, some with references to third party sources.
The largest companies in the game hobby and computer/console game industry regularly post press releases and other marketing material to the webzine; the webzine itself is cited as a source on this (where else can you get that information, quite frankly?).
Figures in the game hobby industry have posted on their web sites and in their e-books recomendations that other companies in the industry use Polyglot as a marketing outlet.

I understand and appreciate your desire for more consensus on this topic. So far, all we have are two people who are deliberately singling out this one article that is far more referenced, and far more notable (it is about a webzine with over 10,000 readers), than many others in the same category. The door is already wide open for material like this in the English Wikipedia and it is most curious that two people who are saying essentially the same things at the same time are going out of their way to change the article to make it less notable, and then argue that it should be removed for not being notable. — A lizard 19:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing an article before or under Afd may sometimes cause misunderstandings, but we should always try to assume good faith and I certainly do not see people intent on removing attestations of notability. As far as I see other editors had two issues with the list, first that it was overly long and detailed, which has now partly been addressed, secondly that it may underline usefulness or importance within the industry, but not notability in the sense of wikipedia. You do indeed seem to not fully appreciate this concept and I can only invite you to study it in more detail, whatever the outcome of the current discussion. (Other webzines are unfortunately not necessarily good examples.) What people expect are good third party sources about the webzine itself and not its content. Of your three points above, only the last goes somewhat in that direction, but not sufficiently. -Tikiwont 08:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Various Article csd

For the article(s) I tagged with speedy deletion, shouldn't they give an English citation, and something more then the word 'professional'? I understand if professional would mean the only or first team, but I don't think it's the best choice of a word (I'm trying to inquire, not argue). Wolvereness 09:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations are not yet needed to avoid speedy deletion, but the articles were short and not well worded. But it seemed to me that they all are about basketball teams that play in the respective first national leagues (my keyboard is letting me down sometimes and I needed to rm the tags quickly), maybe some European competion, and have sometimes articles in interwikis. So if after one or two such pages, we see a pattern, it may be better to check what is behind it. --Tikiwont 09:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Screenager Presents:

Why did you delete Screenager Presents:? --Jay 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it was IMO correctly tagged as an almost empty article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7). Ideally either the editor who tagged the article or myself should have left you a note, but unfortunately we didn't. Good general links for such a case are Why was my page deleted? and WP:BAND.--Tikiwont 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography

Greetings, I am a voluntary editor of Virtualology sites. I have spoken with Mr. Klos recently about utilizing his Appleton's content to add and improve biographies in Wikipedia since quite a bit of famousamericans.net text is in Wiki postings but do not cite Virtuaology as the source. Mr. Klos thought it was a good idea to add new information and where needed an entire biography for a missing historic figures in Wikipedia. My question simply is, If Mr. Klos agrees can these biographies be utlized to expand Wikipedia by adding missing biographies and thereby give your contributors a base to work from? Can this be done with a computer program rather then manually since there are approximately 25,000 biographies to review? Damslerset —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damslerset (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Very quick question

When warning someone on their talk pages (e.g. vandalism) is it best to mark the edit as minor? Thanks in advance. Scarian ^Talk 15:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, marking edits as minor is mostly useful for main space. In my opinion it doesn't apply to warnings, as you actually want the user to take heed. You would just mark an edit in talk space as minor if you correct your own spelling or links etc. --Tikiwont 15:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks very much! :-) Scarian ^Talk 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Hi-Fighter entry?

I'm sorry if I didn't do something correctly; this is my first attempt at creating an entry.

The reason given was that the band had no importance, but I beg to differ on the grounds that is an up-and-coming side project to another band who is signed to a major label AND has an entry in Wikipedia.Jhoovadamaja 14:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, 'up and coming' doesn't seem to be a good reason to have an encyclopedic article. As in other such cases, I'd suggest to create a section 'Side projects' in the other band's article. Once it becomes notable in its own, it can be split off.--Tikiwont 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.Jhoovadamaja 14:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the recreated article. The content is still in the edit history.--Tikiwont 14:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: National Grid Service

In fact I deleted it because the text was an excerpt from http://www.grid-support.ac.uk/content/view/247 (Copyright © 2007 National Grid Service Support Centre) and was still too close from the original source. While I can't encourage this user to continue writing about his company, I personally think that the article had its merits and at first glance it was not spammy. I have read the article again and I don't understand how I saw the copyvio... I must have been on an old revision or something, the article is okeyish (not perfect, but not enough for a G12) even copyright side. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

IP

You blocked 64.251.48.132 about 10 minutes ago, but he is still able to edit. Do you know how? jj137 (Talk) 15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked users generally can still edit their own talk pages, e.g. to request unblocking. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that edit on my talk page, I forgot to remove the deleted page. --Victor (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead (film)

Hello! I'm following up on a comment about this recently deleted entry. I understand the reasoning why my first entry was deleted (no notability, references, etc.) but I tried today to relist it as a 'film stub' andt it was 'speedily deleted' as well. I am new to wikipedia and still learning so I'd appreciate any info as to why the stub has been deleted - is it for the same reasoning as the previous entry? I thought stub pages could be left more loose, since they are not considered part of the 'encyclopedia' of wikipedia until elaborated upon and made into it's own entry. thanks in advance! Kc1981 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Scourge (Warcraft)"

Could I see that article at least one more time ? I was interested on reading it, and I did not find it in anywhere else —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinkzs (talk • contribs) 13:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome log

Just a test, a mistake from pywikipedia - welcome.py . Dorgan (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Watt

Dear Tikiwont

I wondered why the Michelle Watt page had been deleted in October?

Thank you

Paulkerr123 (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Watt which is also indicated in the deletion log.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Introduction

Edits to Wikipedia:Introduction should not be indetified as vandalism, unless they edit the part that says don't edit. That page is sort of like the sandbox. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the hint and the proper welcome to the user, I wasn't really aware and somehow managed to not notice the hidden invitation.--Tikiwont 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hidden invitation"? *LOST* - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant the hidden text "" that I had never noticed. But time to pack things for today before my thinking and talking gets even fuzzier.--Tikiwont 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Go away!

Would you go away from Bushman and Dickwonder im being annoyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenpanther (talk • contribs)

Open Your Eyes (Unreleased Victoria Beckham album)

Hi, I can't find the deletion discussion of this, can you point me to it? Thanks, peace, delldot talk 09:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's linked on the article's talk page--Tikiwont 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, duh, sorry bout that. Peace, delldot talk 10:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What the Hell Man?!

Skream is not a notable person in the music industry. You should delte his page. It was created by himself to make himself look big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King bob rules (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case, but King Reece rules has not only applied an incorrect deletion tag but also added an insult.--Tikiwont 13:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Samui channel

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Samui channel, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Samui channel is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Samui channel, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Aargh!

We had an edit conflict on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Keene. Luckily we had the same closure. I had already redirected the article and put the {{oldafd}} tag on the talk page, I came back to close the afd page and edit conflict! Oh well; great minds think alike. :) James086^{Talk | Email} 13:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, after closure I noticed that you already had done the mop part...;) So there seems to be a minor difference in the order of performing closures.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ekotren

No sources, album not released yet, label is a redlink -- just saying the magic words "national tour" doesn't do it for me in light of these other factors. Feel free to reinstate the article if you think I'm overreacting. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl Oehling Stub deletion

The Stub “Carl Oehling” should be restored (or an article with the same title should be permitted in the future), and should not have been deleted to begin with:

IT WAS A STUB. All of the reasons given for deletion would be appropriate if this was the best that could be done for an article. This was a stub about a Michigan politician that was available to compliment the more general article, “Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006.” To exclude this participant in that election, and not all, appears to violate the NPOV policy in spirit if not in word.

Upon viewing the deletion log, I noticed a recreation and G4 had taken place on the same day. So I was not going to bother wasting my time like another editor apparently had. A stub on this Michigan activist should be permitted to be given a chance rather than being deleted before an article can be written.

--198.111.56.128 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The above comment, "Carl Oehling Stub deletion." was mine. I forgot to log in. It is important to attribute this to my user name since the IP is that of a community college and shared by many users.--Redandready (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have already brought this to WQP:DRV#Carl Oehling, so we can sort things out there.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting of article Upendra Singh

Thankyou for deleting the following page "Upendra Singh". I agree that it was not important in any way whatsoever. Next time I will abide by the rules, Thanks, Toya Singhal, Canada ( 9/12/07)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Toya.singh (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to continue my USER PAGE

My page was deleted on my request; however, I would like to continue. Sorry for the bother.Bill Spencer (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the whole history and reverted the last non blank one, but you have now access to all versions via the history. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--Bill Spencer (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gwladgold

I am a little confused as to why you could not speedy this page. It was created by a contibutor to the Gwlad article who was obviously annoyed at the proposed deletion. The article title has no relevance to the subject, and was initially created simply to continue an article that could potentially be deleted. Other editors have stepped in an changed the page to a redirect to the article that is being considered for deletion. I see no point in this, Gwladgold has nothing to do with the actual article Gwlad, and to save a lot of hassle (and prevent Gwlad being recreated here if it is deleted), then I see no problem in just getting rid of the redirect page now....Nouse4aname (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't obvious to me from the tag 'implausible typo' and the edit history. I might have understood if you had first posted at the RfD as you've done now. In general we stay with redirects and their criteria on the safe side, not least since they will more or less automatically deleted once the target is deleted (per R1 and with the help of bots). So redirecting duplicates is a common practice as it helps to bundle the discussion at one place (in this case the AfD, where the duplicate has also been mentioned). While well intentioned, I am not even sure if this has actuallty saved us any hassle. Cheers.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)