User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 18

Query on csd procedure

Hi, I hope you don't mind - I found you as an active editor in the original a9 creation discussion [[1]]- I'm a little unclear of the actual intent of the criteria. I recently listed the album Pulse_(Thomas_Giles_album) for speedy deletion (as it hasn't been released yet and the reviews regarding it are not RS, so it doesnt meet GNG) under A9 db-album. However the deletion was rejected as the album's artist had an existing page (See User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ) and the description of the A9 asks for no notability AND no article (copied below). The original discussion seemed to contain an 'or', although it was a little ambiguous A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings).

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles

This is similar to what was discussed with the original consensus, however, when it was added the initial comma was changed to an and. It is unclear to me in the discussion whether this was intentional, and seems to me it may be better as an or (As then it can be used to remove albums which clearly will never meet WP:Music.

Original wording:

"An article about a recording of/in any format1 which does not assert the significance or importance of the subject, where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is currently tagged for speedy deletion."

Do you have any thoughts on whether it could be worth changing? It seems to me that the letter of the law and the original intent are not completely congruent. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the current wording with the qualifying 'and' reflects both the consensus when the CSD was actually added[2] and actual practice since then. There were minor language tweaks as in the discussion you cite, but as actual criterion it always relied on both conditions. Major reasons are that being released by an artist with an article indicates some importance to most and that there is a possible target for mergers. Nor are CSDs for assessing notability. So I think getting it changed is neither likely nor would I personally be in favor. Hope that helps.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts - one more question; how would you treat an article like Pulse_(Thomas_Giles_album)? Would a redirect be adequate? or a afd? Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering the particular situation, I'd wait and see. There is more content than I'd usually redirect nor might it be uncontroversial. An Afd close to the release date unnecessarily binds editorial resources. Afterwards it it might become notable enough and otherwise a second editor would sooner or later share your assessment.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Boeing Charleston Factory

I have expanded the article and added secondary sources, as well as removing the notability tag. The factory can be considered extremely notable to Charleston - North Charleston - Summerville metropolitan area residents in particular, as it is going to have a major impact on their local economy. It still needs some expansion and cleanup, but I'm working on it. Please let me know if you have any objections or constructive criticism. Thank you.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and no objections. It is certainly an important angle that you added.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Review of Updates to IQMS work in progress

Thank you so much for restoring my previous article on IQMS. I have read the comments from previous reviewers and have made changes to prove importance of the company as well as deleting text that appears advertorial. I want to be sure that I have followed wikipedia guidelines. Could you please review and give me your input or if you have the power to move to published section.

Thank you so much for your help. Jdsmith3 (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, beyond possible further text changes, the main problem is that IQMS while certainly a respectable business, does not seem to meet Wikipedias inclusion guideline for companies. After a quick review I mostly see blogs, press releases and two local press articles so would not move it back. If you disagree you could technically do yourself the risk being that after several speedy deletions or a deletion by consensus it would get much more difficult to create later. So I'd rather wait and edit something else meanwhile.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Moon+ reader

eBook reader is one of the most important app area on mobile. With the increasing popularity of Android OS, eBook reader on Android is surely an important mobile application category. Moreover, in my experience, a lot of users are looking for information of Android eBook reader. In fact, this article is added in response of the needs to compare eBook reader apps on Android. I found Aldiko and FBReader have been in wikipedia. Moon+ reader is added in wikipedia to support the comparison. It is not reasonable for a Android eBook reader app comparison list not including moon+ reader which is very popular in Android fans although it is very young regarding to the release date. If you have doubt about the popularity of moon+ reader, please go to Android market and see the comments for the app and compare the comments for other Android ebook reader apps. In my opinion, the inclusion of moon+ reader would vastly benefit the Android ebook reader users and make the description of Aldiko and FBReader less biased. If you have no objections of the above motivation, I would strongly suggest you to remove the deletion tag on moon+ reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabay (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree already with the initial motivation as Wikipedia isn't a mobile application guide. More importantly here, each single app of the ten thousands available is still subject to our notability guideline. If you want this article to stay, I strongly suggest you add reliable third party sources to it, that go beyond lifting a feature list from the download site. which also something that we shouldn't do here. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryo Miyaichi

Hey there! Well I think you should let Ryo Miyaichi's article there. He is on loan to Feyenoord and soon he is going to play in Eredivise. He desires a page, no? Thanks. PS: Sorry for my bad english :( --Dantas 01:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantasu (talk • contribs)

As already mentioned on your talk page, this has been discuused at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryo Miyaichi. Nobody doubts the player has first signed and the be loaned, but it needs some actual games to over come that consensus and warrant an article. --Tikiwont (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Moonshine & Other Memory Burns and A9

Are you authorized to collect New Page Patroller cards? I had to go back through the history to find that A9 has been a criteria for over 2 years and I didn't know about it. Thanks for handling the AfD. I'm going to go sit in the corner. --Onorem♠Dil 18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No sweat, it's been introduced precisely for this case but without fanfare and can even still puzzle. See above.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lockout?

On Church of the Holy Cross at Soradir, I was the last IP editor by 4 days, yet my edit was not reverted before the article was locked. Could you direct me to the guidelines for article protection, or any request for article protection, so I can read the parameters? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason for semi protection I saw (The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Protection policy), was edit warring with seemingly one editor resorting to different IPS. Presumably it's the articles creator after having his account blocked. There was no specific request, but I had this on my watchlist and decided after your edit not to wait for them to check back and revert. Sorry that this locked you out as well. As the case was admittedly not particular strong I'll now lift the protection. Thanks for letting me know. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the block but please do not misunderstand me: I was not asking that the block be lifted, only wondering why it had been imposed. I read your reply and followed the various editors to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2; I have no wish to stick any of my appendages into that. I simply did not understand why the lock had been imposed. Thank you again. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to work on a possible RfC/U

I am working on a potential RfC/U about User:Geo Swan. The draft is located at User:Fram/Sandbox. I have used a discussion where you were involved as part of the evidence, and would like to invite you to go over the draft RfC and add or correct whatever you feel is necessary. Obviously, if you feel that an RfC/U is not appropriate or not the best step to take, feel free to let me know as well. Fram (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan

Thanks for the note. I see it's live now. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

come on

pls why did u delete the page i created?? it took me a while -.- Stefiblondie (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there is already much info at your page and this isn't a place to make a surprise for one of your friends. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

James Romig entry

Hi,

I've updated the James Romig entry with links and updated information. Is it sufficient for you to remove the undeletion?

Thanks!!!

SerialMusician (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on Updated IQMS page

You had given me your comments on a previous version of the IQMS page I have been working on an I'm hoping you could give me comments on teh most recent very scaled down version. Your feed back is much appreciated and if you can move to th epublished pages that would be wonderful.

Regards, Jdsmith3 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Scaling down helps to avoid any impression of advertising, but the main problem is still the same, lack of independent in-depth coverage. A listing at an RfP site and the incorporation don't help. Please review WP:CORP and also try to edit something else, so you get a feel for the requirements here. One way to phrase them can be found in this eassy.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate your help. Before I created this latest version I checked with other companies listed in the ERP Software vendors page If you check Epicor, Syspro, and Plex or Infor they all are pointing to blogs, their own pages or in some cases have no outside references. So you can understand why I am confused. In today's IT environment most publications have turned to online blogs which are not considered reliable sources. I am not sure how to procede with this. Jdsmith3 (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking yourself why you want to proceed with this gives you part of the answer. If you or I don't edit the Infor article on the other hand, who else will do it? The expected standards are the same, but it's a decentralized system and regular editors are volunteers. So we also look at the potential to write a neutral article and will also have versions that look poor because they have been despammed if good references at least exist. Some blogs count, though, but somebody has to do include them. Or nominate for deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you again. The link to teh WP:Amnesia essay has been a tremendous help. Jdsmith3 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

re RfD for Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises - Kangaroo

You may want to note the message I left on the creating user's talk page here. – Ajl^talk 06:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up as I did not have the page watch listed. Could have probably given more advice. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Yeah, sorry. Just t'was the nearest I could see to being a school. What is the right deletion template then, for a school? Honest mistake. RCSprinter123 (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

how to insert a photo in to the info box of my entry

Hello there, I have been editing this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurul_Momen for a few months. I have been trying to insert this photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nurul_Momen_1908-1990.jpg to the info box of that mentioned entry but failed.... The copyright of the photo is of family members of Nurul Momen; I have permission to use in the bio of Nurul Momen. Could you please help me with inserting the photo in the info box; I am aware of the copyright tag etc. but I could not find the right way to solve this technical problem. FYI  : I am not good in IT ! Zafor2010 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure either why the picture doesn't show inside the box, so Ive put it apart for now. Your main problem is that you have to validate what you're saying about the copyright or it will be deleted. See Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Donating_your_photographs and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Best, --Tikiwont (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your BLP unsourced tag on the article Richard Kirkham

The only facts about Kirkham in the article are his publications and that he's cited in Wikipedia articles. The bibliographical references for the publications and the links to the other Wikipedia topics constitute the only source references for these facts that there ever could be. Accordingly, I think the tag should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossui (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)