User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Soul On Beatles

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Soul On Beatles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about previously discussed/deleted article Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead

Hello! A few months ago you were helping to clarify why an article I'd submitted was 'speedily deleted'. Since then, I have found numerous references to the film, though they do not specifically mention it by the final title the film was given. They do reference the filming of the movie and the director, Ted Schillinger. Would these 3 sources be sufficient enough to consider the topic "notable"? Here are the various links I have found:

1. http://www.worldscreen.com/archivenews4.php?filename=atlas052307.htm: "...Other films include Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead, which documents the friendship between impassioned pro-death penalty campaigner Robert Blecker and death row inmate Daryl Holton;...",

2. http://www.t-g.com/story/1252793.html: Robert Blecker, a professor of the New York School of Law and a death penalty advocate who's the subject of a documentary being written and directed by Ted Schillinger for Capital Filmworks Inc., visited with Holton on Sunday.

3. http://www.t-g.com/story/1255523.html Robert Blecker, a professor of law, is the subject of the documentary. While he's examined other cases, Holton's is most closely examined in the documentary. The program is to be 90-100 minutes long, Schillinger said. It's produced by Atlas Media Corp. The Manhattan, N.Y., based business has produced non-fiction for the History Channel, National Geographic's cable channel and most recently started a theatrical documentary division.

4. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117964841.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 ...the second theatrical on Atlas' slate, "Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead," will be much more cost-effective. Blecker is one of the most passionate advocates of the death penalty, and the docu deals with his 18-month interaction with an unusual death-row inmate named Daryl Holton, who is not appealing his sentence. Klein said Atlas may end up distributing the Blecker docu inhouse, adding that it lends itself to plenty of Internet cross-promotion, such as a designated Web site with links to organizations that both support and oppose the death penalty.

Would these references be sufficient enough to reinstate our listing?? If so, how do I go about doing that? Thanks for all your help!! Kc1981 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, three of the sources just mention the film, mostly as part of a portfolio. In general documentaries tell something about their subjects and will only have a separate articles if there is indeed substantial coverage on the film it self. For a good example see today's featured article Trembling Before G-d. Since "Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead" hasn't been seen yet and Wikipedians are generally wary of "Internet cross-promotion", we're IMO not there yet. If and once things change you can either create a draft in your user space and bring it up at deletion review or - especially in in case of substantial reviews or even awards - directly create the article in wikispace and if that would be deleted as well, contest that deletion at Deletion review. Meanwhile, Robert Blecker as the subject of a full documentary might well warrant an article here.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why delete a normal article?

I have reviewed the article and couldn't find any unsupported material. Please remove your deletion notice as soon as possible. Or let me know exactly what it is that needs attention. Specifically. Here is the article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Manukyan 12.34.80.98 (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that you've raised your point also at the deletion discussion that will determine whether or not we should have an article on Manukyan. I've nominated the article for deletion since there are rather general problems. Also according to my own search such there are not enough reliable sources or other indications of notability. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear sir or ma'm, I assume you do not speak Armenian or Russian... I think it would be impossible for you to determine the notability of a post-Soviet composer if you don't speak the languages of cultures in which he is most relevant. Would you please reconsider your nomination for deletion, while others are providing more supporting material? I say this with all due respect. It just seems unfare to delete the entire article on a living composer based on standards of notability with are met now and are likely to be more convincing as time goes by. Wild firebird (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to you and the composer: I'd like to take your word regarding his notability, but we're basing this universal encyclopedia on already published independent sources. The problem of possible bias is acknowledged, so if you are aware of any sources, critical reception, reviews, documented awards, also in printed form, in Russian or Armenian, put them forward at the AfD. While deletion may seem unfair, the deletion discussion (which is at this point, where others have come to a similar assessment, a community process and not a personal matter) may rather show that the article has been created too early. Until the time is ripe and given your interests in classical music and Armenian topics, you may be interested in the project countering systemic bias that tries to address definite omissions.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided more info backing the composer's notability at the deletion discussion. Pleae, have a look at it. I can't, with clear conscience, contribute to any Wikipedia projects when the article I have worked on the most is to be unfarely deleted. I am asking you to put an end to this discussion and remove the deletion notice as soon as you can. Let's leave that article alone. It will get better as time goes by and more sources are provided. Deleting it will only unjustly offend the composer and those who have been working on it.Wild firebird (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008

While that is promising, I'm personally not convinced. The idea of a having a deletion discussion for five days (which will be evaluated by a neutral administrator) is also to take into account that other editors may come to different conclusions. Sorry if this causes grievances.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now how long is that deletion notice going to stay up? It has been over five days, and the discussion seems to be moving towards positive.Wild firebird (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is actually a minimum of five days and there is currently a backlog in closing, in which case especially discussions that are less clear or have few participants stay around. So let me alert you that the discussion might even get relisted. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD/db

Thanks for that, I realised just after I'd put it on that it should've been speedy and not regular, but it was too much of a hassle to change it. Barry m (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect 'Waxwings'

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 'Waxwings', by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 'Waxwings' is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 'Waxwings', 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) 12:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Articles cannot be deleted by their creatures

I guess my mind must have still been in the Doctor Who forum! lol. Thanks for the advice, its always welcome :) - TheProf07 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Zhitkovitsy

Regarding this, please note that disambiguation pages should be created for entities that share the same name, not have similar names. Please consider re-prodding, since the information available in the article does not make it possible to resolve the ambiguity. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, disambiguation pages should disambiguate that is avoid ambiguities and with respect to geographical entities we have pages that list places with different full names that may have the same short one, but I may indeed here not be familiar enough with Russian names, so I see your point. My starting point, however, was that as Zhitkovitsy seems to be actually listed in some maps , a disambiguation page as placeholder, especially with your comments on the talk page, would also convey that no place Zhitkovitsy exists, and might thus be more useful than a redlink. I'll try that out, if you're still not convinced, I'll restore the prod.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Zhitkovitsy" (with no modifiers) is indeed listed on some maps; I have no idea why. I have an official full list of all inhabited localities in Pskov Oblast, and "Bolshiye Zhitkovitsy" and "Malye Zhitkovitsy" are the closest matches; "Zhitkovitsy" proper is not included. Perhaps some maps combine these two villages into one (they are rather close to one another), but that assumption, of course, is nothing more than a speculation I can't source. What are your thoughts on this? I'd prefer not to have a dab page which only lists two entities with the titles not even matching the title of the dab, but since the places are so minor, I don't see a huge problem with this approach either. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a weak dab page and wouldn't create it as such, but I'd tend to rather document the state of our knowledgeable or lack thereof with the two redlinks and a page with talk part that doesn't say anything wrong, but gives the next editor or bot coming along and possibly looking for or linking to Zhitkovitsy, because seen somewhere else, something to work with. If there was a list of villages we could simply redirect to it. But having looked also at related articles at AfDs, we shouldn't spend too much time. So if you would insist I'm tempted to delete it myself to not also bother others. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. The places are so minor that the only information I have on them is their locations, postal code, and that a few years ago some guy in one of these villages shot his brother and committed suicide :) Hardly worth the trouble. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of John Paul Higher Secondary School

You say "This is clearly a stub about a school"

From WP:Stub

Any registered editor may start a stub article.

When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted. Your initial research may be done either through books or reliable websites. You may also contribute knowledge acquired from other sources, but it is useful to conduct some research beforehand...

It seems to me that this one-line 'article' falls below the stub radar. Okay, it's only existed for a couple of hours, and maybe it will be improved upon shortly. However, if not, and you consider the name of a building and its location to an acceptable encyclopeadic article, albeit a stub article, then please explain why you think this.

However, I do not like, what I consider to be, your dismissive and superior use of the word 'clearly'. This implies my edit is wholly inappropriate and that I haven't given proper consideration to my actions, which I don't believe to be the case. This is not conducive to assuming good faith. Regards. Mannafredo (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, that was both in content and tone indeed not a good summary. I was trying to say that the context seems to be clear enough to identify that the entry is about a school and therefore not to delete it per CSD#A1 taking into account that we do not speedy delete articles on schools, in general. While I don't have a link handy, we let them fly somewhat deliberately under the radar. I then also added a stub label and added an edit summary in a way that conflates those two issues and even sounds dismissive. So sorry once more. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Regards. Mannafredo (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why removing a new link ?

I have contributed to the netlabel page, but you removed my link, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravity1001 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems just to be yet another netlabel related site with promotional aspect( .."be able to share ALL your netlabel releases, and, by the way, get an additional exposure to the mass."), thus not in line with or External links guideline. I didn't notice that you are a new user, but Cobaltbluetony has also posted you a welcome message with some more information about contributions. Happy editing!--Tikiwont (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Does the talk page need to be redirected as well?[1] Tyrenius (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question; I am not sure if or where we have a guideline, but in general (apart from moves), I don't do it, since it seems neither necessary nor helpful in most cases. In examples as above, replacing the rather trivial talk page with a redirect doesn't do harm, but there are others such as [2], where there is meaningful content including references to merge or reasons for a redirect or to a previous AfD that might be useful to see if anybody wants to undo the redirect. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also commented at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Deleting_talk_pages_of_redirected_pages.3F--Tikiwont (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Tyrenius (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Pickled church

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

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pickled church, 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) 16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Seasick Steve

Evening- I see you have deleted the article I did (albeit limited) on Dan Magnusson- I included the fact that he drummed with Seasick Steve (and referenced the link)- on both his first and his upcoming album. Seasick Steve is an artist who is getting considerable exposure at the current time in the UK, as well as of press as well as record sales. Please can you therefore explain how one of his co-musicians is not notable, especially as I provided a link, via which you could use to verify the same? rob77 —Preceding comment was added at 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all the link looked red to me since it was "He performed on Seasick Steve's first album." Now, Seasick Steve may be notable, but drumming for him by itself is still not a strong claim of importance, if the coverage is about Seasick Steve. BTW, if you have any additional sources you may want to add them there first, maybe they warrant mentioning the drummer there. For further info, please have a look at our guideline Wikipedia:Notability (music).--Tikiwont (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the clarification- the album was in fact by Seasick Steve and the Level Devils- of which the drummer was (and still is) a member. The album is in fact jointly credited- so he is in fact a member of a group which produced the CD: which is, I believe, doing quite brisk business at the current time in the UK. While I appreciate that commercial success may not of itself be meritous of an individual entry, there are plenty of members of other bands who do have entries (Meg White of the White Stripes jumps to mind). Would you recommend establishing an article about the Level Devils first? (I am not being deliberatly obtuse here, but clearly you have greater familiarity with the current editorial policy, and I am not inclined to write something if it is likely to be deled straightoff). Many thanks. Rob (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Level Devils and whether or not they would be notable enough for a separate article. So I'd suggest a graduate approach focusing initially on the collaboration by improving (with references) the existing articles about Seasick Steve and Cheap (album). If there is enough material you can still split off an article about the band (and have something to fall back to in case it gets deleted). Same then later for individual band members, where the threshold is not necessarily success as solo musician but rather individual notability.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Cheers. Rob (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing ??

Hi do you keep on removing my bandsa profile ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MurderManifest (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Because we don't publish 'profiles'. Please have a look at your guideline WP:MUSIC.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

podcasting

hey, i just added a link and some good information about a new way to listen to podcast with voip technology and you remove it. You are hiding information to people who want to know about podcast and ways to listen to them. why?

i will add the info again, do not remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonko34 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer on the article's talk page and also post a template message with useful links on your talk page. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Major General Sir Edward Louis Spears

Sorry but this has got into a right mess! I think that the page has been deleted. In any case, he was always known by the name Louis. In making this point just now, I may have recreated the page. Pse delete it. I will continue my contributions to the existing page, Louis Spears. Renewed apologies. Mikeo1938 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) OK I've just seen your recent edits to the article. As it stands, the title is now fine. Mikeo1938 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry; nothing has really happened. As I understood you request, I deleted a redirect with trivial edit history at Sir Edward Louis Spears, 1st Baronet at moved the article about the person there. Sir Louis Spears, 1st Baronet is now a simple redirect. You, me or anybody else can undo the page move with the move Tab as long as the remaining redirect isn't modified. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll need the fix all the broken redirects and double redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/Sir Louis Spears, 1st_Baronet. It's a bit of a mess, I'm afraid. Leithp 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question is whether to undo the move or if the new name is indeed correct, rather fix the double redirects (which can also be done by anyone including a bot). As far as I see there are no 'broken' redirects, but this is a question for the article's talk page, where I'll copy this conversation. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(This is a copy of what is on the Discussion page of Sir Edward Louis Spears) The page currently says "Sir Edward Louis Spears, 1st Baronet" and it should be left as such now. I have included a note in the article saying that he was known under the name of "Louis". Hope that you can sort out the muddle. Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I undid the last move, anyways, as it isn't clear to me whether its is consensus. If you think it still need to be done, discuss on the article's talks page. Sorry if my above remark looks as if i want to leave tidying to others, but all I wanted to say is that avoiding double redirects does not need admin rights once we're sure what the right target is. The self redirect wasn't created by me but by another editor who probably was confused by the move. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Copy of note on the discussion page.) I sorry about this dog's breakfast! I now believe that the article should indeed be entitled, "Sir Edward Louis Spears, 1st Baronet". This was his full name. However, I have included a note saying that he was known as "Louis". What do others think? Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Your signature is not linked, BTW. Littleteddy (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah weel, i copied that commnet from the preview pane...--Tikiwont (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Notorious Online

Most of the facts are sourced from my website so if i add that will it qualify as an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoriousonline (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, if you study the links that I provided on your talk page, you'll conclude that you could use your website to fill in some uncontroversial info, but it isn't sufficient to construct an encyclopedic article nor are you in a good position to do it yourself. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So what your saying is when writing an article give just the facts well ive put how many were involved about the raid etc. And ive got other sources e.g bloggers to quote from so its basically give facts that can be backed up and not stuff said - Twist

You're certainly moving in the right direction and your latest attempt has so far at least not be nominated for speedy deletion. There just doesn't seem to be enough to work with since blogs, wikis and forums don't count here as independent rleaibale sources. And all this usually works better if you wait till e.g one of your listeners writes the article. Meanwhile you may want to consider to write or improve something where you're the neutral specialist, say in Music.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Note that you have not given the slightest reason for supposing that Laurence Boyce is not a sock-puppet. No IP's are mentioned. I do not expect an answer from Cometstyles, Laurence Boyce, Snalwibma or any one else, certainly not with self-same IP's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulangu (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but it is up to the requester to make a convincing case with detailed evidence before we get into checking IP's.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No reason is given by you re Rawlins' banned autobiography. No one ever expected one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulangu (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if that wasn't clear, but speedy deletion is for cases which obvouslty fail to assert any importance. Why would you sya it si an autobiography or that it is banned? --Tikiwont (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is noted in the Talk page of the Rawlins autobiography that it consists of quotations from Rawlins' own web site. This is obvious, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.232.26 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the actual sourcing leaves to be desired, but speedy deletion isn't the answer to that problem.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.232.26 (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe, editing and sourcing according to WP:NPOV, if necessary seeking dispute resolution and cutting out the silly stuff.[3]--Tikiwont (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for intercepting Holy Hydra's crusade to expunge Rawlins. A regular internet Fahrenheit 451, H. H. spends his days incinerating error and vandalizing sites of heretics. Note his March 6 mutilation of the Rawlins Talk page which coincidentally suppresses the link to H. H.'s plea to Cutler Cleveland to snuff the sinner for him. It will be wise to keep an eye on the Rawlins biography and talk page, since H. H. will stoop to anything to vanquish evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.192 (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama Sr.

Hello Tikiwont, I have a question for you. There's a requested move to have the Barack Obama Sr. article moved to Barack Obama, Sr.. In doing a little digging before performing the move, I found that the destination had been redirected as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Hussein Obama Sr, which you closed. The new article was created about 2 weeks after the discussion was closed. Should we just redirect the page to Dreams from My Father, or do another AfD for it? Thanks for your help. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are several issues here, so I'll write a draft opinion here and then post this at WP:RM or implement it myself. First of all, the move request itself seems to me rather uncontroversial with respect to naming conventions. Second, the new article is actually only of March 4 as it was a redirect before. Third, the old AfD already had no consensus to delete nor did it exclude later recreation and the new article has more sources than the previous one. Consequently, I'd treat this as any other good faith attempt to flesh out a redirect into an article. Practically this means to perform the move of Barack Obama Sr. to Barack Obama, Sr. by merging the non overlapping histories and open up a discussion on the talk page whether the new draft stands up in light of the old AfD or should be reverted to the redirect or (what I personally doubt) deletion is still an option. Doing the merge has the additional advantage that the new draft shows up on the watchlist of editors interested in either version.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had no objection to the move in the first place, it was only listed in the controversial/incomplete proposals because it wasn't listed correctly initially. No, it doesn't appear to be anything other than a good faith attempt to create an article by someone who wasn't aware of the previous AfD. If you look a little closer, you'll see the current location was a redirect to a third version, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., which was created on 30 January, but it's not really important. I've moved the page to the suggested location, and we can start the discussion relating to the AfD. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems we conflicted, somehow, as I also tried to do the move.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think what happened was I moved the page first, while you were in the process of moving the page. When you moved the page, it actually moved the redirect I had just created to the desired location. It should be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cory Bold Article Deletion

You deleted this artist's page for lack of sources. You may not be aware of this but his name is in each artist's album booklet that he stated under his discography. He has enough notability as you mentioned and his sources are existent. I am not sure what must be done to restore his page but I assure you the sources are in fact there. If there was a fax number, it would have been faxed over in minutes. Please get back to me and tell me what must be done to get his page restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.177.72 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Bold. Please have a look at our guidelines on reliable sources and notability. In that sense, album credits are not sources about the person. In any case, if you can come up with something more substantial, you should create a draft in user space and ask for recreation at deletion review--Tikiwont (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

It will be interesting to see your proof that Rawlins has not broken the Wikipedia ban on vanity pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Autobiography does not amount to a ban. If you think, the article is being edited by person close to Rawlins, bringing it up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, would be more appropriate than writing this into the article itself.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to bring back the Cory Bold immediately

Please take a look at my discussion page I have added for "Cory Bold" page. When and Why can you delete a page, where there is in fact plenty websites with mentions of his discography prooving that Cory Bold is in fact a music producer? In the discussion page for Cory Bold, I go on and list a good bit of websites with factual proof, ranging from hollywood.com to cduniverse.com

Thank You

Wikiuser12348 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check the post above (Cory Bold Article Deletion). --Tikiwont (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Karrox technologies limited

An editor has nominated Karrox technologies limited, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrox technologies limited and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piss be upon him

Pls will you consider a speedy close of this AfD? Even if you disagree with my argument for speedy delete, it's snowing. And it's in WP's interests to delete this as fast as possible, as it denigrates us every second we host this tosh. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. NB, I've done very little AfD closure since getting my tools - what does this ({{ns:0|?}}) do? --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you must have sensed that I already looked at the speedy tag and the AfD. The tags are left behind from this script in place of the cats. But I am not completely happy with it anyway, since it collides with wikied. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Faith No Man

Thanks for closing the deletion discussion. I merged what little was worth keeping into the Faith No More article. --John (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly User:HDS has reverted my redirect at the FNM article. Rather than edit war about it I request that you redirect and protect/block if necessary. Sorry for your trouble and thanks again. --John (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you for doing the merge and sorry for your trouble. Maybe me doing it as the closing admin might have evaded the back and forth, but it is also important for HDS to realize that this is a consensus decision. Anyway, It seems that others have joined and clarified sufficiently, but I'll keep it watchlisted.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. --John (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about your answer to my request.

Hello, you responded to my request (see below for details), but I do not understand if you helped me or not. Can I get a copy of this article so that I can work on it or not? If so, how? Thanks in advance for explaining this to me.

Charles E. Crutchfield III Temp viewing of deleted article Kerrygirl (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I am requesting the article to be restored in my userspace or emailed to me so that I can work on it to address the problems that led to its deletion. Thank you.

Comment - Are you sure about the name? Above links do not indicate a deleted article. Neither does your edit history.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Okay I found at corrected the links (No ',MD', but 'E.').--Tikiwont (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

--Kerrygirl (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been restored by a colleague to User:Kerrygirl/Charles_E._Crutchfield_III, which means that you can edit and improve it. If you think it addresses the problems of the AfD you should contact Jerry or DRV again. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your speedy deletes

Hey - I just noticed something about the user who created the 2 pages you just nominated for speedy delete. It may be only a coincidence, but this user was banned on March 8 - s/he created several pages on similar "mixed wrestling" topics. Actually, s/he created one entitled Gia Primo which was deleted on March 1. The editor who created European Fight Club, Kira (wrestler) - both articles you nominated for speedy deletion - and Manraping & Scissors (wrestling move) - which have not yet been nominated - created his/her profile on March 11. Could this be a sock puppet? Ah, this editor also created another article, Orsi, which may be in the same boat... BWH76 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another issue - this user continues to delete tags placed on the articles s/he created. I've asked that this user not do this on their talk page, but it hasn't seemed to sunk in. I'm not exactly sure as to how I should proceed with this as I am unfamiliar with the proper process/reaction. BWH76 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be right with respect to the possible block (not ban) evasion. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_block_evasion and the account has been blocked. At this point the removal of tags that are not deletion notices is a minor problem.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Banishment in the Bible

Hi. A quick check on the revision history shows that the reason for the prod was "The article has been somewhat neglected the last months and as long as it is just a loose list of banishments in the bible with added links to every single example, I don't really see the sense of this article. For Trivia lists are already discouraged and so should be senseless lists. Wikipedia is not a Christian website nor is it a source for such things as a list of banishments, the article doesn't really say anything about them, it just shows them." A bit long to put in a summary, but I don't know why the contributor couldn't have checked this for himself instead of contacting me. It seems his message on my page was unsigned, which explains why I didn't get back to him. As far as the article goes, I don't have a particular view either way, but I thought the prod reason was quite reasonable. Deb (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see he also claimed that he had not been notified of the prod, but I have checked his talk page and the notice was placed in the normal way. As to what happened with the previous prod, I'm a bit confused by that as the whole thing seems to have been handled "through the back door". Deb (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I am just confused by it because I can't tell what happened from the history. Deb (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DRV

If you can state where that is written, I'll gladly remember it. But thanks for closing it nonetheless :) I only did it per the suggestion in the DRV. Even if it was comical, the DRV was a waste of time. Once it hits about 6 for any closure, its over in my opinion (keeps). And again, thanks, for notifying me. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On a technicality, I didn't offer an opinion in the DRV. Of course I'd endorse the closure, but there was no rationale placed on DRV for doing so. It's kind of tricky. I did in fact say endorse the closure, but I expressed no rationale for doing so. I also never edited the article heavily, and have no personal bias toward the matter (which is why I didn't mind that you closed instead). I don't really see a conflict of interest in the matter, but you're welcome to your assessment. I'm not one to let things prolong, as you can see. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Registered Agent

re: 12:05, 25 February 2008 Tikiwont (Talk | contribs) (12,325 bytes) (rv; not good per WP:EL since heavily advertised, also for its owner and this isn't a directory anyways.)== I don't necessarily disagree with you, but just wondering who is the owner and when is this a consideration? Also, sites with advertising can't be used as citations or references?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.27.202.58 (talk • contribs)

Well our general guideline on external links is the one linked in the edit summary . My comment referred to the link description ("Free site from a Maryland attorney with links to all states' websites to find a corporation's registered agent") and on the site you'll find the name and his own banner among others. Moreover, this site has been extensively discussed on the article's talk page and there are already wiki and web links for the state sites. Advertising is in general, a concern, whenever it rleates directly to th subject at hand (as here). For citation and references the reliability is the main concern. So a neutrally advertised newspaper article is acceptable, but rather not a (hypothetical) insert that e.g mixes company profiles and ads. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Both cases on Abtract ... dropped by same sysop

I took the sysop's advice to seek WP:DISPUTE shortly after the ANI thread but then (s)he decided to change their mind, claiming "forum shopping". I want to hear more ppls opinions because, frankly, comments like these should be discussed, correct? Please reply on your talk page, as I've watchlisted it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you have Abtract's talk and the ANI page on your watchlist as well, so you'll see that he has been warned by another sysop and apologized at ANI, so I think this is closed and will also mark it as such. Apart from that, it is up to you how far you want to heed what is the core of Redvers' advice: namely disengage and consider what you can do yourself to avoid escalations. Let me know if I should clarify the latter as it was not your question here.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Middix deletion

Hey! Could I get you to comment on this? I am confused. Thanks! -- Swerdnaneb 21:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems to have been clarified. Personally, I'd add that it is rather the wording of the speedy deletion criteria than the intent that has been changed. In the past there was a list of things subject to A7, namely real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content. This already didn't apply to books, albums, games and software (with the exception of browser games). To avoid misunderstandings as in the quoted AFD, this has been meanwhile stated explicitly.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Horse Isle (video game)

Thanks for your message regarding use of prod. I'll do my best to remember it in the future. As for this article, I'll take your advice and see if AfD is appropriate. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)