You don't go to a library and defecate in the reference section, so please don't do it here.
”
— Message to vandals
Leave a message!
If you leave me a message here, I will try to keep the discussion on the page it originated, so be sure to check back for progress on the discussion! I also might make additional comments on your talk page for your own reference and copy the discussion there. Or something else I haven't thought of yet.
Thanks for spelling out the guidelines out the talk page - nice work, Wizzard. :-) Wickethewok 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They deleted it a few months ago but It's much more popular now and the hostility with Jimmy Wales is old news. You have alot of clout here, could you help me make it an article again? Andman8 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Start the article in your userspace (subpageUser:Andman8/centaire for example). When you've got some content in there, let me know and I'd be more than happy to give you feedback on it. If you place a notice at the top that its an article in progress before its ready to be released, and perhaps the template {{userpage}}, that should keep it safe until its ready to be transferred to a mainspace article. A good place to start is WP:BETTER. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. Did I resolve the issues for this article. Please let me know what you think. It was the first one I ever wrote.
--Akc9000 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. I added some wikilinks to it, and did some copy-editing for you. You'll see some [citation needed] around places where I feel some supporting evidence is needed for the claims. Anything that is not a statement of obvious fact probably needs to be cited, especially to a reader unfamiliar with the material. I think the article is doing much better, and genuinely falls into the category of a stub (at least in my book). Hope that helps! -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a new editor, so you may not be aware of this recommendation ("slapping standard templates on the Talk pages of experienced users may be regarded as petty and uncivil"). Don't worry, you haven't done anything wrong, but the culture around here is that it's sorta considered bad form. Your broader point is well-taken -- good of you to step in. Thanks! Raymond Arritt 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used those official templates because 3RR is quite serious. The next step is reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR, but I have to be able to show the diff where I warned everyone. You particularly are not close to the 3RR limit, but each of the other two involved have reached the threshold. I had to warn everyone involved in the edit war (just calling it what it is really) to be fair, and face it, the template is the easiest way to do that three times. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Templating experienced users may be the easiest way to do the job, but as explained it's not regarded very favorably. All involved are experienced editors who are well aware of the implications of 3RR (in fact one is an admin). Sometimes there are more important considerations than doing things the easiest way. Just trying to help you maintain goodwill. Raymond Arritt 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I can see that. I wasn't trying to be a dick, I was just trying to get the message across. You can see in the talk page on the article I tried warning everyone there, but it didn't seem to take. Even admins make mistakes in heated debates from time to time! I've been trying to follow the progress of this article since I first caught notice of it, but I haven't really seen many good opportunities to pitch in honestly. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 16:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, I know you mean well and am just pointing out a part of the culture you may not be familiar with. Your contributions are appreciated. (People whom I don't like or respect, I just try to ignore instead of responding.) Thanks again for stepping in and helping keep things sane on the global warming related pages. Raymond Arritt 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, sorry about that. I was logged on through a computer at school and a friend of mine jumped on my account while I was in the washroom. If I could get my rights back that would be most appreciated, fore I am currently putting up a wikipedia search for my band Empty Sin. (possibly, the best band eva!)
Thanks, and again sorry for that misunderstanding.
Justin
No problem, it happens often. I don't believe you are blocked though, its just a warning. I'll copy this conversation to your talk page so other editors can see this as well. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the tags from rfd to csd. That is a more appropriate tag. Do you know an easy way, perhaps using AWB, to search for these kinds of pages? --CPAScott 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I havent found an easy way to search for them, but popups and twinkle made it easy to tag. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I dunno, revert isn't working, or I'm doing it wrong. Help! This is good, right? --Smokizzy (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using Twinkle, go to this version [1] and click the [restore this version] link on the left. That should be a good one. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I still get confused which side I look at when reverting. --Smokizzy (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just started using Twinkle myself, and it took a bit of getting used to! -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 02:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I made a representation about why a page I authored (on the beer expert John Harley) should, in fact, be preserved; I expected from the comments left on this page that the process would take 7 days. However, I wake up this morning to find the page removed along with my comments. I can honestly say that I feel abused. Why give explicit descriptions of a process, and get the author to enter into this process, and then scrap not only the work in question, but also the 'judicial' process!
I am shocked. MusicMusicMusic 07:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple different processes on wikipedia. What you have to understand, is while wikipedia is structured, it's not a bureacracy, and editors will take shortcuts when they can feel something is going a certain direction. There are processes to reverse such action, such as a deletion review, and sometimes you can get an article restored to a subpage in your userspace to work on. If you want to write an article about someone, your best bet is to draft it up first, before posting it, especially if its been deleted here before. You can start in the sandbox, or make yourself a subpage in your userspace (be sure to label it draft, so it doesnt get tagged as well). When you're creating an article about a living person, just about everything you say in the article about them has to be sourced, or it gets deleted as potentially libellous. Take a little time to get to know how wikipedia works, and you'll find the experience a whole lot smoother. Hope this helps! -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there is now a link for a game review in Monsters Game, as it's on AfD, I hope this review link will revert its deletion (as this review proves its not original research, and its notable), the only thing is that the review is in German. Jordz 12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really going to help much. I've seen things with more evidence of notability get deleted. The article's contents have been saved over at wikia:gameinfo:MonstersGame, which is probably where it belongs for now anyways. There's much more freedom there. If/when someone ever decides it worthy enough of some spotlight attention, it might work as a wikipedia article, but not without a few sources talking about it first. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been vandalized since the 2nd edit. Since then, almost all the edits have been RVs or more vandalism. Besides, it doesnt seem that the school is notable in any way. Pbroks13 07:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to be salted after being deleted then, or I'm sure it would just keep cropping up. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 07:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly sorry about this. It was my 12-year-old daughter. She has been appropriately chastised and won't do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.183.165 (talk • contribs) 19:36, June 8, 2007
It happens, thanks for stepping in! -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 02:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine ill stop with the 'editing' well, at least with what some people consider bad editing. But if you knew what Giuliani's actions were on sept 11th youd put him up there too. Anywho,,, i always thought Wikipedia was more open and free about things such as that. Didnt know it was Nazi Germany still.. Oh well, good luck trying to stop free ideas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.146.171 (talk • contribs) 21:08, June 8, 2007
Himm; but this is duplication of already created articles. It is a Fork of the previous content...
What is the main article??? I believe Ottoman Empire is Turkish as Republic of Turkey is Turkish. A person who wants to read Turkish history should be directed (dub page) to all these articles, rather than creating an article that do not reflect the historical periods... You need to explain more. --Anglepush 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turks did not come to existence after world war one. Are you saying Ottoman Military is not a Turkish military??? If so what is the meaning of having multiple articles? Is this what you are promoting? Am I understanding you correct? --Anglepush 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say, a list (a set of articles :-))) really) which does not have any content should be kept in the article? It breaks the idea of coherency in a story, which is the basic issue for the readability of an article. --Anglepush 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so i want to make a user: takmit page, but i dont want to get in trouble for posting nonsense there. i got your helpful info on making posts but, is there one i need a user page?
Multiple templated warning messages can have that effect, and they're meant to discourage people from adding unacceptable content to the wiki. Unfortunately, if people are determined enough, they will just ignore them. I saw your message at Hey wikipedia, so I knew you weren't the normal vandal type. I've left some tips on your talk page on where to begin. Just be sure to read up on the rules, and try not to step on too many toes, and you should do just fine here. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Take a look through the links at the top of your talk page, and that should get you started. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reproof of my ill-conceived behaviour and I accept it humbly. However, I have begun to correct some severe semantic issues concerning the article entitled Belladonna [porn star]. These corrections are legitimate and will improve the readability of the article. Consider this to be my wiki-probation or my wiki community service if you will.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.143.31 (talk • contribs)
Just a quick note to say I declined the speedy deletion of an article you tagged, Wanderson de Paula Sabino. While it was in no fit state at the time of tagging, it had only been created two minutes previously. I've since cleaned up the article. Oldelpaso 09:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good, at least someone was able to recognize what it was supposed to be. It took me a minute of staring at it before I recognized it was a person! -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i thankyou for taking the time to tell me that you may be deleting my page. i have recetly done extensive research into both christianity and catholicism, if you have aswell.. then delete it, but if you have not, which i suspect may be the case, then i would strongly encourage you to actually READ the article as it speaks plain truth to allow clear thinking.. any attempt to delete the article will be taken offensively and will be treated as attempted censorship, this will then result in the closure of wikipedia, along with mass publication of my article. the truth will be heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anklesockrockers (talk • contribs) 10:53, June 10, 2007
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. However, your article Christianity and Catholicism was text copied from another website. Wikipedia cannot accept text copied from other websites due to the free license requirements of the wiki software, and that is why it was speedily deleted. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not writting a complete history on the product Datatrax, but it is interesting article for me to complete,which involves the Ministery of defensive of England giving us their missle tracking technology and how we use it to track players in sports- I am in the process of writting an article on how a government is using its engineers to focus on commericalization instead of military usage for new develped technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binsinagoup (talk • contribs) 16:37, June 10, 2007
Sorry I looked at what the other labels had contributed and changed the format...[edit]
I apologize for the inconvenience I do thank you for your patience, I'm requesting that the revised version of the definition of "Fizx-Recordings" be reviewed. Thank you.
This version has is at a neutral stand point, please consider "Fizx-Recordings" to be a drum and bass label and this not to be spam.
Fizx Recordings is a Canadian based record label owned by Shayne Jackson and Matt Masters.
Thank you, regards Matt Masters
No problem. I wasn't actually the one who tagged it for deletion after you reposted it. I didn't have a problem with the new version, even though it was short. Good luck! -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Fizx Recordings, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ==
Nope, deleted again..Too short this time which is odd I understand that it is short but it is just as long as freak recordings under drum and bass labels in the same section as mine. As well as every other label. I understand that you did not delete it thanks for that but what should I do. Sorry to keep bugging you..
regards matt masters
Not a problem. I would suggest you start by drafting up the article on your computer. Get some good text, some sources, and figure out what types of wikilinks you want to include. Also, you will want to mark it with {{stub}} if it's short. See WP:STUB for more details on making a good stub. Alternatively, you can create a subpage in your userspace such as User:Fizx-Recordings/sandbox to test edits and wikimarkup. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sent me some info about the Ten-Fifty-One article, and unfortunately due to a busy work week I did not see it until today. I would've updated that the information was posted with the direct permission of the copyright owner (i thought I already had).
Unfortunately, some other person decided to go in and delete the material already, so i'm not going to bother to waste my time re-doing it. I don't think that wikipedia is for me, as it moves much too quickly and unless you have significant time daily to respond to things, there is no way that any contribution will be long-lived. :(
I appreciate the note, I just wish that the other user had the same courtesy.
Sorry you didn't see it until now. If you do decide to post it again, take a few moments first to familiarize yourself with the GFDL and Wikipedia copyright policy. Any content posted here has to be completely free. Permission of the copyright owner to post here isn't enough, it has to be relicensed under the GFDL. -wizzard2k(C•T•D) 05:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that, it was driving me mad. Darrenhusted 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've seen it happen a few times where the second/third afd's don't show up right. -wizzard2k(C-T-D) 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page needs to be re-named to Justin White (wrestler), then put up for AfD. I didn't even read the first AfD because I was trying to fix the links. Darrenhusted 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your request raises some warning signals.
Please make sure you study the history of why we use lists and categories, and what the distinction between them is: in particular make sure you take note of how each deal with red links (hint: one of them does not and is therefore useless).
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, a lot of the "List of" articles are going to Afd, and being deleted, when a few of the people in the discussion are agreeing that a category would be better (one example List of songs with the same name as song artists). These are mainly things that simply contain links to articles, and nothing more. The idea is not to get rid of good lists, but lists that are going away as part of an AfD, as I have seen several do lately without being converted to categories as suggested. I do understand when reds are helpful, and from my monitoring of List of wikis I get to see my fair share of red links that are just plain spam, or people creating articles that really don't belong. -wizzard2k(C-T-D) 06:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I don't plan on converting any existing lists, just ones that are up for deletion (and look like they're going to be deleted, and would be better served as categories, or a few that have already been deleted, but would still be better served as categories. -wizzard2k(C-T-D) 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes much more sense. Could you adjust your AWB request to reflect that? TIA HAND Phil | Talk 08:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I see you are populating Category:Eponymous albums. That category was previously deleted, so I'm not sure it is appropriate to repopulate it. Have a nice day. --PEJL 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion seems to be about songs, not albums. --PEJL 19:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original article included sections for albums as well as songs and "hat tricks" (artists/albums/songs). -wizzard2k(C-T-D) 19:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The AfD has no hint of this, so thanks for clarifying. --PEJL 20:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its one of those "you had to be there" things. Songs don't usually get articles on WP anyway, so an Eponymous songs category would be pretty empty. -wizzard2k(C-T-D) 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously think I made this up? I am still working on getting a citation, but I think you will soon find that this information is true.Jack0514 03:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get the citation before you add the information, as everything in wikipedia must be verifiable. Also, do not place your signature on articles. -wizzard2k(C-T-D) 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the edits I removed were not labeled as vandalism, someone else did that. The edits I removed were your signature, and when you enclosed L2 headings in L3 headings. [2] If you wish to know how to add spoilers, take a look at WP:SPOILER. If you're confused about the nesting of tags and headers on a page, take a look at WP:MARKUP. -wizzard2k(C-T-D) 16:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you opinion as to whether the entry Sklogwiki is mature enough for entry in the section list of wikis#Science and technology yet. I should only like to include it if it has a reasonable chance of success.
Being rare doesnt really assert any notion of notability. I don't really know anything about the sklogwiki, but just looking at the article, it doesnt seem to do anything to prove its worthiness, and the article itself probably would not withstand an AFD as is. -wizzard2k(C-T-D) 04:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Wizzard2k, many thanks for your advice. Much appreciated. --Spud Gun (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalismonly, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoetytalk 03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for guidance on how best to go about discussing proposed modifications to the Design Technology entry? I have tried to add comments to the Talk page and even tried editing the page itself. Neither has had the desired results. The talk page has resulted in no discussion and the page edit has resulted in my modifications being deleted, but again with no real discussion/dialogue of why and guideance on the proper process. I have even looked through the history and don't see my edits or counters to it. I feel this topic should be expanded here and not just redirected. With proper expansion the redirected section could still be included as a link. I want to do things right, but need some assistance and direction. Let me know if you can help me with this, thank you Obi-wan (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)DezignViz[reply]
I apologize, in that reviewing all this again, I may have messed up. It now appears there are two entries Design Technology my recommended modifications, and Design technology containing the redirection. Notice the lower case "t" in the second case. I am not exactly sure how this happened and it was not my intention. I thought I was editing the original Design technology page.
So, now the question is can I or you replace the content and redirection in Design technology with that of Design Technology, and then remove Design Technology entry? If me, can you outline the proper process? Thanks Obi-wan (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)DezignViz[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wizzard2k. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
