User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 17

John Englehart

Argh, sorry for the clumsily simultaneous edit, there - thanks for your help in cleaning up the article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Its quite some time that i edit conflicted copyediting that it almost felt good ("You are not alone!"). That is as much as i can contribute right now anyways.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Alpha30 making a mess

I noticed on his talk page that you had previous interaction with him. My first encounter was today, noticing that Basal metabolic rate was pretty unreadable, and tracking it down to him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Basal_metabolic_rate#Horrible_English

I reverted all his changes. It looks like he's done the same thing to varying extents to other pages. Jiggling formatting around a bit and removing a copypaste tag, inserting horrible English where he pleases. What should I do?

Examples from today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tartary_Buckwheat&diff=prev&oldid=388981875 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speech_and_language_impairment&diff=prev&oldid=388978254

Yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=388797742 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_theology_of_the_body&diff=prev&oldid=388793033 —Darxus (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the upside is that he now actually tries to help after having been warned for his own creations and interactions. As his improvements are misguided, the first thing is to talk to him which you already did. I'll have a look as well and chime in there.--Tikiwont (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Trying to communicate the problem to him didn't occur to me until after I posted here. —Darxus (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

hello, I have only tried to correct something in the edit pages copied and paste. I have corrected only a few point lead, and added some style. The pages can be restored as they were. no problem for me.--Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 17:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The pages were already copied and paste in the category, and were already in a horrible English. I tried putting it with a light style. can be restored, as they were before the changes. ---Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 17:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

hello, all solved, and thanks for your understanding ---Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this and thought you might find it interesting: "(Block log); 18:13:18 . . LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) blocked Alpha30 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: placing Indef Block template on other editors talkpage when no such block was in place)" —Darxus (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

List of American scientists PROD

I saw an IP removed your PROD here. Are you bringing this to AfD? Doesn't look like a great list, is unreferenced and can go on forever...--NortyNort (Holla) 12:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are several such lists. They were all created as dumps of Category:American scientists and the like but without considering the subcats. If at all, it might become a list of lists. See User_talk:Ahmed91981#Proposed_deletion_of_List_of_German_scientists. So pretty useless and incomplete as they are, but List of Russian scientists on the other hand was prodded and expanded. An Afd should therefore be somewhat systematic. In short, I tend towards wait and see. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I saw this while looking at the AfD for List of African scientists, inventors, and scholars and trying to form my opinion on it. They seem unmanageable but the African one above is a little better than the basic lists an encyclopedic because it gives their years on earth and background. Likewise, List of Russian scientists looks much better.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your prods of similar lists. Since they have Wikipedia articles, its a valid list. Expand & complete , & add infor for dates and field. , deletion is inappropriate per Wikipedia:BEFORE. There is no deadline on improvement. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Those lists were an inadequate one-off effort by one editor. Unless and until some editors actually work on them, they actually weaken our coverage on science related topics. Even then there might not necessarily be consensus to organize our material accordingly. So tagging them or deleting them without prejudice against expansion, recreation or restoration does not seem to be inappropriate to me. If you disagree, that is fine, but with a lecturing tone like this, you're certainly not convincing me to participate in their expansion. But maybe that is not even what you're trying to do here. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Orange terror

Hi. See User:Quiddity/User style customization tutorial#User CSS#New messages - less orange. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But... why? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I was thinking of you as I wrote that subject line.

It's specifically in reply to Tikiwont's comments at VPR#Custom "New Messages" alerts

Note: I did add 2 orange examples at User:Ais523/highlightmyname2, so you can have your name show up in orange within watchlist/history pages, too, if you'd like :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I already guessed that the color can be customized when commenting...I'll try it out. Actually my talk page is rather quiet recently so I'd b fine if any message by Orangemike still appears ....orange but I guess I can't add such an exception. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Barry Anthony

From the same keyboard as Joseph Blatchley. I feel this is a hoax, and as JB was previously deleted as being by a blocked or banned user, this might be by a reincarnation. The prev for BA shows probable hoax material, and the allegedly famous subject appears rather hard to Google. Peridon (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, there were other problematic articles and edits, might be a sock puppet but at least one actor was real.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ole Söderberg

Hi! Would you mind if I moved this new version of Ole Söderberg to mainspace? I could nominate it for deletion again to see what the community thinks (it seems to me that he now meets the GNG). Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be sure about notability. One point of the footy guideline emphasizing professional appearance might be to discount somewhat the standard transfer and pre-game coverage. On the other hand, I can't read the Swedish sources, and a referenced article is in any case a different starting point. So I'll trust your judgment here, whether to move on or to keep it still on the bench. Best, --Tikiwont (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Salmon burger

Thanks for restoring this. I have reverted to the sourced version and improved it further. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

John Aland

I was working on the John Aland article which you deleted. I was hoping you could undelete it for me to add references to it and to finish the article. I accidentally posted it instead of saving it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcornice (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking politely and no offense but this showed no potential for an article at all. If there are any reliable sources on the person you best start from them and with a fresh userspace draft keeping also our policy on living persons in mind. Or maybe improve the one on the hall itself. Hope you like it anyways here.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I know that the article didn't seem like much but I can say that I really didn't mean to publish it, just meant to save it as a draft (I'm pretty new to posting on Wikipedia and am trying to update both the Hall page as well as the page about some of its former patrons). Do you have the original text that you can send me and then I can work on the page in draft mode and finally resubmit it? Thanks a lot and have a great weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcornice (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you enable email, I'd send it to you.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Lifeline Malawi

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the above article. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that there was a reference to an article in the Calgary Herald about the organization and its activities. Wouldn't that qualify as a reliable source? I don't really see why the PROD was valid. Thanks, Fingerz 23:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes there was a citation, although it didn't link to a story for me. Well it doesn't have to, but it also had no date, and as there was little content, I didn't see a particular reason to contradict the nomination statement of no significant coverage. As a contested prod, I'll restore it, of course. On a side note, if you can recover the original source link, please use the cite news template.--Tikiwont (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, local coverage can be tricky to evaluate. I added another reference but no see that that editor (also of the Calgary Herald) is also a member of the board of Lifeline. --Tikiwont (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nyetimber Pirates

Hi you have deleted our page for Nytimber Pirates Fc, due to being a non notable club- but we are real- any chance of restoring it please?

(Check the league website http://cwssfl.footify.com/)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles88 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The question was not whether they are real, but if anybody writes about them. In any case, it's a proposed deletion, so if you confirm I'd restore it, but would either bring it up for a deletion discussion or redirect to the league in case you want that restored as well. Alternatively, I can first restore to your userspace where you can try to improve it with reliable sources. Or you consider to edit something else than your team. Let me know. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing this once more, beyond being real neither the league nor the team article assert any importance and would thus qualify clearly for speedy deletion, so I would not want to restore them directly. We thus remain with the other two options, restore to your userspace if there are any reliable sources. Or you consider to have fun with your team and consider to edit something else. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not my team im just a fan, and to you it may not be of any importance but to the 100 or so fans that follow the team week in week out may see it differently. Can you please restore it and i will add the sources thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.184.1 (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No offense intended, it was meant in the sense of giving no indication of meeting the inclusion guidelines. I've restored it for improvement to User:Charles88/Nyetimber Pirates. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Harrell W. Stiles

One of the reasons for my creating this page was to hopefully learn moe about Mr. Stiles, since as I mentioned in the article, there is very little information available about the author.

I have done a rigorous search for any information about him, but have come up empty handed.

He did create a very popular video game, and for that reason I think he should be noted.

Is it fair to delete his article because he fell of the face of the earth and therefore can't be linked to a credible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capngloval (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Harrell W. Stiles belongs here. His game Miner VGA was very very popular in the late 80's to mid 90's.

If you where around then and in the dos games community you would know this.

I might not have listed this properly, maybe I should have posted the game only, but he is worth mention.

This is also a matter of historical fact, not a person who was made up out of thin air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capngloval (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well as you say yourself he is credited for the game and the article had mostly game information vaguely asserting fame but also saying that little is known about him. If also according to you there are aren't any reliable sources, there is no real scope for an article keeping our guidelines on notabilty and living persons in mind. Meanwhile you may want to focus on the game, also proposed for deletion. I will create on your behalf a redirect there as it seems to be the thing his name is known for, but that can only be kept if the article on the game itself stays, which again is about sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Headway Solar

If you are an admin with the ability to block users, why not simply delete Headway Solar rather than continuing to revert the IP editors' removal of the DB tag? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah may look ineffective, but I issued the IP block first coming from here[1] and the found myself somewhat irritated so I didn't want to make the content call as well but then the other Ips started to pop up. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am Jasmeet and I represent Headway Solar Company. Can you remove this wiki page that calls it a spam. The company does not need a wiki page. The spam tag is harming the credibility of our company. Please remove the page itself. This wiki comes up if someone searches for our company, and a spam tag harms the credibility of our company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.117.169 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Please remove the content as I am unable to edit the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.117.169 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. Actually the tag called for deletion and I initially wanted a second admin doing it after I got somewhat sidetracked by the constant removal of the tag by you or others and my own need to prepare for a trip. The negative publicity of pushing things here is seldom considered. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I did not remove this version to immediately have you creat another one. It is now protectd till notable and independent editors are prepared to write about it. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my page. ;) Peridon (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pragmatic Buddhism

Hello Tikiwont: Thanks for your note and I am sorry if I was rude. I do admire you people who volunteer to mantain the integrity of such a wonder work that Wikipedia is. I do believe that PRAGMATIC BUDDHISM deserves an entry in Wikipedia but if you feel strongly that it should not, I would suggest, please, to remove the item completely; in other words, I would prefer that the search for PRAGMATIC BUDDISM redirect automatically to the CENTER OF PRAGMATIC BUDDHISM. They wanted to show their name in the article and, after several "ping-pongs", I added the subtitle "Organizations" to make room for them. I then added other groups which do not call pragmatic themselves but whose mission is THE END OF SUFFERING as taught by the Buddha. The Unfettered Mind organization note was added by this group.

If your judgement is not very strong, I would like to receive your advise on how reorganize the article to make it fit within Wikipedia's standards. Again modern Buddhism is moving to non-religious, secular, agnostic or atheist "adjectives". I definitely like "pragmatic". Thanks again. ADARTSUG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adartsug (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Adartsug, you were not rude, and I also understand that seeing one's work disappear is one of the unpleasant experiences to have here. I mean you're a volunteer as well! Now, I do think there are problems with the article and the concept 'pragmatic budhhism' but do not feel strongly about it; another editor obviously felt so, but renaming the whole article and replacing it with a stub on the center is not an appropriate solution. One one hand it is confusing and may stifle discussion on the merits of the buddhism topic, one the other hand we now have a stub on an organization that would by itself be a deletion candidate. Therefore I will untangle that so that more editors can discuss at the talk page or in a deletion discussion what to do. Best wishes, Tikiwont (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tikiwont: It look that the entry on Pragmtic Buddhism is on the deathbed. Thanks for you efforts to keep it alive. I have to agree with some of Sylvan comments but, becasue of my Pragmatic Buddhist way of living, I know the trend is real and many new buddhists are entering the stream. Most of them do not care at all how they are called. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, many changes are noticed (and documented) long periods after after they have been effected. I would suggest two major changes to the article as it stands now. One to the definition , the other to the section on Organizations and Groups. My suggestions to replace both sections are below.

Pragmatic Buddhism refers to an approach towards the Buddhist doctrine which leaves aside beliefs and rituals and advocates the continuous practice of the Buddha’s Teachings (Dhamma in Pali, Dharma in Sanskrit) with the primary purpose of eliminating suffering and bringing about inner peace and harmony. As such, Pragmatic Buddhism is not affiliated to any of the schools, branches or traditions of religious Buddhism.

Organizations and Group Pragmatic Buddhists are not affiliated to any specific Buddhist tradition and are not trained on any particular lineage. Though some organizations present themselves as Pragmatic Buddhists, they still follow teachers or practice rituals used by some of the branches of religious Buddhism. Consequently, they do not fit within the definition above. On the other hand, there are groups, followers of the Teachings of the Buddha, that, in spite of not using of such denomination, they are definitely pragmatic. Most branches of the so called Vipassana movement fit in this unspecified “pragmatic” category; in general, their accounts make no reference to beliefs, rituals or any practice that could be associated to religious systems. Adartsug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adartsug (talk • contribs) 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is still open to editing but as you noticed without better documentation of what you're noticing - under whatever terms - it won't be kept now. Best wishes, --Tikiwont (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Adartsug says: I changed the Organization and Groups section and withdrew the link of the Center of Pragmatic Buddhism. Sorry I do not know how to change the first definition paragraph. Adartsug

Stephen Burrows Fashion Designer

I got your response regarding my request to undelete a wikipedia post. Unfortunately, I do not have the exact title of the Wikipedia page, but I know for a FACT that Stephen Burrows, the fashion designer, had a wikipedia with a biography, photos etc. Is there a way that I can find out the exact title so I can get it relisted? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.244.10 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know beyond what I already tried which includes internal search and deletion discussions and even deletionpedia. I'd suggest to restart it, maybe it was deleted under a different spelling, maybe as copyright violation or as spam because of too colorful lamguage (" is currently creating a fabulous collection" and the like) in which case the deleted version it would not even be restored if found. A good version is usually moved to a correct title and linked to other pages, which does not seem to have happened. In any case keep WP:COI in mind. Best --Tikiwont (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Weather radar

Hi,

I see that you intervene to stop a deletion of Weather radar. I want to thank you a lot as it is my baby ! What was that all about ? Pierre cb (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing really, I intervened on the tagger's behalf, technical mistake. Protection did not seem to be necessary at this point either. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks again. Pierre cb (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read

I am not an adminstrator. As a wikipedian, I just like to read, expand or, sometimes, create an article or another. Nothing more else. You should not expect I know all the bureauracy. Sorry for that anyway. I think you can understand the good faith motivation behind what I have done by reading this User_talk:RHaworth#Airsoft_deletion. And please, as you are an administrator, add your input there or in a more proper place in order to solve the pending issues. Thank you. Unobjectionable (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I usually read my talk page and explained on your talk page what I objected to and that no offense was intended. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think someone has committed a mistake by deleting some articles of notable airsoft gun manufacturers, or then, by avoiding deletion of some other airsoft gun manufacturers. This is the issue pending. I have no intention of start a formal bureaucratic discussion process about that. Content disputes and edit wars don't attract me. Thanks. Unobjectionable (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it's die if you do, die if you don't then...Maybe not all of them are equal and CSD is certainly not our only deletion process. I would restore anything to your user space for improvement and demonstrating notability if that attracts you more.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start and that attracts me. Unobjectionable (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have also comment at Richard's page. May I suggest that you first look at the ones that are still pending as proposed deletion, adding sources and remove that tag where you see fit, also drop a note at the project linking to the relevant talk section and finally let me know there or about userfications.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Richard is a good guy, I have no doubt. I hope I have enough time to search for sources, but I can try. Celcius and some other recently deleted manufacturers are well known in airsoft. Some of the existing articles talk about manufacturers that I have never heard of. Unobjectionable (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I seem to have rudely stepped on your prod at The Secret Under the Rose. I had the article up on my screen for awhile, walked away from my computer, and then came back and forgot to refresh it to see if anything had changed. Since I've already started the AfD process, it's probably easier to just let that roll. Feel free to let me know if you have any objections. SnottyWong ^comment 20:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, we both seem to have taken a stab at the tail of the unpatrolled page log. Afd is fine as the prod might have been contested anyways. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

30 day NPP backlog

Hi. For months now I have been having stab at this most days and usually work through the whole last day systematically. However, it's a drop in the ocean because anything from 50 - 300 pages a day still fall off the cliff. I've tried to drum up support but very few people like working at the bottom of the list because it concerns the difficult ones that take ages to resolve. Most of the NPPers are newbies who work at the front because it makes them feel important, they cherry pick, and it boosts their edit count. Very few, if any, carry out any of the basic tasks and qick fixes. I once came across a bunch of kids who were actually running edit count competitions based on their page patrols!
All the pages in the backlog have serious problems, it's hard work saving them, and most of them aren't worth saving, but we try to. I have already made a few varied suggestions as to what could be done, singly or in any combiination :

1. get more people working on the backlog
2. automatically tag the pages that reach 30 days
3. automatically tag the pages that reach 30 days and message the creators for help
4. automatically tag the pages that reach 30 days, message the creators for help, and send the pages to an incubator
5. automatically tag the pages that reach 30 days, message the creators for help, and automatically PROD the pages.

I'd be most willing to find a solution or to work towards a consensus to adopt one or any of the solutions above, but never found a cat that lists pages unpatrolled after 30 days. --Kudpung (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I know a little and have also participated in some discussion. Nevertheless,, two days ago the latest entry was two days off the cutoff, so nothing fell of for two days, and ideally it would stay like that. My question this time is only how we can make visbile whetehr articles fall off, and once they are close to it. The log istelf cannot be marked it seems nor the single pages, so why not marking the explanatory page. A manual tag as backlog with an edit summary would at laest be some indicator.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)