User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 15

Padrino Framework

Okey but it's a little strange that Wikipedia depends on a Google results, for example in the Ruby Lang scene RubyInside is the most important source of news and this post can tell a little about our popularity without consider this or our official repository. Yes I can wait but I disagree with the attitude to "mark a deletion" without an accurate motivation or a specific background because in this case any ruby programmer user know (or can know) us. DAddYE (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned google hits only because some guys "ask for deletion" saying about few "google results" and it was correct because we launch the site in the meanwhile we write the wikipage. So in the Ruby scene what can be a reliable source? I need to ask to Ruby Author, Matz? Write a book? Im a ruby programmer from a lot of years and today best reliable sources as mentioned is github and rubyinside and few others. DAddYE (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Padrino_(software) you can see that all talk about "google results" !

Okey! Good! Let's me know what do you think about and when we can try to create a new wikipage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAddYE (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I see just now that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Padrino_Framework could you help me? That's crazy that in deletion discussion talk about "false positive" when here http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=padrino+framework we have 21,000 results ! DAddYE (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've said that already and I've already explained at length how to proceed. You'd need to go through the actual mere approx. 260 pages produced by this query[1] looking for better sources, instead of repeating the same complaints. In any case I can't help you further. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Now we hare more than 260 pages produced by this query[2] so how I can recover our written texts? We spent a lot of time. Thanks! DAddYE (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

With a deletion review and numerous postings in the same vein, it rather seems that you also cost the community time while refusing to get the point. The last post at Padrino_Framework from April 22 was a copy paste from the website anyways. Do you want the previous version mailed or userfied? --Tikiwont (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and sorry but for newbies wikirules are so so complex. If you can email me the latest correct version. Thanks so much for your time. DAddYE (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No offense intended. We're all just volunteers here and it is indeed difficult for those who come here in good faith but only for a single purpose. Text sent via e-mail.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your time I sent you a mail with more details btw I create the new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padrino_(Web_Framework) tell me if is perfect for you. DAddYE (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not meant as invitation to immediately repost and with the additional links to blogs including some from your colleague Nathan it is not perfect at all, but should be deleted as repost. I'll post you also a warning.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So sorry I forgot it, now I fixed ... can be done? DAddYE (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No it can't be kept because there are no new sources invalidating the previous consseeus alo of the DRV. While I am sorry that you don't fell welcomed any more[3], this is one of the reasons why we advise against writing about your own stuff.[4] --Tikiwont (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Refael Vardi

Okay. Thanks. Dhall10067. I would like others to write the article about Refael Vardi (Rephael Vardi) who know him better than I do. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglaseivindhallgerber (talk • contribs) 07:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Part Three (The Pacific)

ok, but some content should be added to the page, rather than just have an info box Sophie(: 11:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion of Folding plug

Read the undelete request. Thanks for the information. Gin^(not)bot₈₆ 04:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Uppersia tour operator

You removed this once earlier today. I'm not a sysop, so cannot tell if it has been substantially improved, but I've retagged it with A7 because it still does not seem significant. Non-creator has removed the speedy tag at least once. FYI, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, but gone twice meanwhile. Re-tagging is fine, having at some time another admin assess even better and the third one can then salt. If people remove tags, revert and warn accordingly. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain this comment?

We are all human, and will make mistakes. This may be an instance where I was human, and made mistakes in creating these redirects. If so I would like to do my best to understand what those mistakes were, so I can avoid repeating similar mistakes in future. So I hope you don't some questions about your comment, which frankly wasn't clear to me.

You wrote: "We just should not have in such a case form the single item to a a general topic where it isn't even mentioned." I know the nominator claimed the guest houses weren't specifically mentioned in the references. But I think a check of the references in the target article shows the nominator's assertion was simply incorrect.

You wrote: "The redirect should not serve as shortcut to the valid editorial solution namely stating and sourcing at the article about the detainee where he stayed and what that may have to do with his detainment and where necessary link directly to the article on the general topic." Sorry, I am having trouble figuring out exactly what you meant here.

Are you concerned that Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy is not an appropriate article to describe the Uyghur guest houses where Uyghur captives in Guantanamo were alleged to have stayed? Are you concerned over whether their stay there being subsequently offered as a justification for those captives' continued detention justifies a "suspected of ties to islamist militancy" association?

You mention that wikilinking to a "general topic" might be useful. Could you please spell out for me which general topic you think the assertions should have linked to, if it were not Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy?

The WP:Coatrack essay is not a policy. I do think it raises some interesting points. I find that those who cite it as if it were policy, almost always mischaracterize what it says. Nevertheless I do try to take the advice in the essay into account.

Were you suggesting that rather than linking to the article about the Uyghur guesthouses suspected of ties to militancy each of the articles about a Uyghur captive who was suspected of staying in a guesthouse suspected of ties to militancy should have some material in his article offering background on that allegation? If so I think that would open up room for challenges that the background material on the Uyghur guesthouse allegation was being squeezed in to the articles on the captives in a manner contrary to the advice of WP:COATRACK. I strongly suspect that those who rely on the advice of the COATRACK essay would point to those passages and say: "This is an article about Abdul Razakah. This background material on Uyghur guesthouses is inappropriately being shoehorned into this article, when it really belongs elsewhere."

Thanks in advance for trying to help me understand the position you have taken.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, i don't necessarily think you personally made a mistake. I disagree merely on how to handle the links between the G detainees, the single guest houses and any article that addresses their role in general. Sorry if I did not make myself clear. My more complete comment was related to the other redirect. For redirects in general I don't see a reason for a hard link to some general topic where we have little to say about the single item itself and any coverage at the target is subject to continuous change. The same would apply to redirect to shocksite and sorry if it isn't a good example. Looking the Razakah article from an editorial point, I would not use such a redirect from a quote or assertion underneath the name as it surprises the reader. So if Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy or the like is to be linked, then I'd do it directly (and in my opinion outside the quote of the assertion but with some context at least in a note). That is of course subject to discussion but redirects from some name should not shortcut that discussion.

Hope that helps an clarifies somewhat, as I'll be off for a break.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiteshskumar

May you warn this user, 'cause he's obviously playing with Wikipedia and that's not good. Cheers Aleksa Lukic (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. With or without twinkle, you can do that, too.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup

can you add the tag back to the top to tell users there is a conversation going on? If anything it will help your perspective. There was not grounds for the "dispute" tag reversal, clearly there is a dispute.Lihaas (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A dispute would require sides. A single person doesn't make much of a side. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the actual {{dispute}} tag wasn't fitting anyways. I've added a different one. It at least informs on the history,--Tikiwont (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What about {{current}} tag? --Malikussaid (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well in reality the schedule would be rather stable with a few edits each day, no? But you can bring that up on the talk page if you see fit.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems like MickMacNee has deleted both of the {{content}} and {{current}} tag. --Malikussaid (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sons Of Admirals

Why did you delete this page when it had met at least one of the notability criteria? Daskill (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you talk about Sons Of Admirals · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions], I didn't delete it, User:Bwilkins did. So please contact him about it. FWIW, it asserts sufficient importance in my eyes as well. Why did you think it was me, maybe there is something else to double check? --Tikiwont (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It says that you deleted it on the page? Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Well, I'll talk to Bwilkins then. Daskill (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Still I'm puzzled, what you mean by "on the page" At this point the page is not there. Can you see my name somewhere and if so where? The only thing I see is the log that you can click above with Bwilkins name.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sabreman Stampede

Thank you for what you did.

Evidently I wasn't very clear, I am not the creator of the page.

I simply was reading an article (non-wiki) and wanted to look it up, which is what is wonderful about Wikipedia. To my frustration Wikipedia informed me that the page did exist at one time but was now deleted. Upon further investigation I noticed this had been the second time an article under this name had been deleted. A reason stated for deletion was "cancelled game". IMHO this isn't a good enough reason to delete it. However, as you pointed out it doesn't necessarily need it's own page, a sub-section are redirect certainly work and are better than a "page is deleted" any day.

I was hoping to find links or leaked information other than the few tidbits garnered from a Google search. Rare has cancelled games before, especially since their Microsoft acquisition and later brought them back. In fact this was supposed to have been the revival of Donkey Kong Racing (another page that does not exist) but they have now gone on to work on Kinect and other projects. Another game that one may consider vaporware is Killer Instinct 3 which has been teased by Rare for years (citation: their "Christmas card"), however at E3 2010 they mentioned that they were not working on it. Nevertheless, the information, what little there is should be out there.

Now, I understand that there is a degree of quality control and Wikipedia standards to enforce, but if I may suggest - deleted content should be available (through some digging) or off-loaded to another wiki (call it WikiDelete) as some of us simply don't like to feel that our information is filtered/censored. This is the internet after-all.

I recall a similar incident about a page called "The Game" (AFAIK it continues to be deleted and then rewritten by different authors). I was able to find a rogue cache/mirror (not waybackmachine or Google) that had one of the original detailed articles and link that to a Wikipedian who requested it.

Anyway, sorry for being so lengthy.

EDIT: I am now able to access http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabreman_Stampede&curid=27750937&diff=368766498&oldid=368766110 and discover that the article from which this is all about is nothing more than a stub. Just a photo and duplicate paragraph from another page on Wikipedia. Disappointing. Dontdeletepages (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. First I did not assume that you are the creator of the page. Access to deleted pages is restricted per this policy. If you bring it up at the village pump, people will probably point you to numerous discussions to change it. This is not the Internet after all;) Which is one reason why pages deleted as proposed deletion are brought back per request. Pages can also be transwikied to other projects instead of deleted, but as you have seen, this isn't worth it. I'll refine the target of the redirect, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)