User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 26

Deletion of Open IPTV Forum and associated mess

Why is Open IPTV Forum getting deleted AND moved back to WP:AFC at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Open IPTV Forum? This is a legit article and referenced with reliable sources. See [1] (The Register) and [2] (Ericsson). What's the problem? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well sorry for not stopping by myself. I see you thankfully recreated it and also talked to Hu12. After it had been posted by you and deleted by H12 per CSD G11, I answered a request at Wikipedia:Refund#Open_IPTV_Forum by an IP so I could not userfy it. So I thought moving it back to AFC adding a 'procedural' decline that took the subsequent deletion into account and inviting the editor to improve it, would be a practical way forward. Then DJDonkey reverted my decline, Hu12 blanked it and DJDonkey duplicate it in their userspace.

At this point that copy can surely be deleted. Anything else we need to consider for the attribution of the new article? --Tikiwont (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What a mess. Thank you for at least moving it back to WP:AFC. Next time just contact me directly, I don't promote unless there is a clear reason to. It seems the bot (not you nor Hu12) marked it as a WP:COPYVIO or WP:SPAM but I looked at the history and I couldn't find the content that allegedly violated copyright. It seems this was a content dispute as it was redacted more like an advertisement, rather than a copyright violation. Regarding the other copies, lets just leave the redirects to avoid the socket puppets from creating more copies. If you find any other just redirect it to the current article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos, we have rules against conflict of interest and promotional editing on Wikipedia. I have outlined a few of those on DJDonkey's user talk. I would advise you that your message on that page; "please ignore all the messages posted above. It is irrelevant wether there is a conflict of interest here...please ignore all the messages posted above ", is in serious error. there is clear evidence of this company has used wikipedia to promote their organization in the past and the current account (including his two IP's) is a continuation of this. Understand that allowing the marketing director at Open IPTV Forum to actively edit is never appropriate, particularly when it there is a conflict of interest as it violates Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates). See WikiProject Spam report. --Hu12 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, our rules are against WP:POV but not against WP:COI. Wether WP:COI is controversial or not is irrelevant. WP:COI discourages edits who may pose a conflict of interest but do not disallow it. Please make sure that you understand the difference between WP:POV, WP:COI, a rule, and discouraging a behavior. See Cydia and Talk:Cydia for an example of a WP:COI that adheres to WP:NPOV.

I also reviewed the content of the article and I could not find a single instance in which the content was an advertisement. I highly advise you to cease deleting and blanking content that you beleive to be an advertisement and instead encourage you to use the proper venues for that; specifically WP:DISPUTE and {{advert}}. Remember, claiming that an article is written like an advertisement is a subjective matter and an opinion. Proof of this is that I reviewed the same content that you reviewed and I did not find it to be an advertisement but you did. You, as an administrator capable of deleting content, should bring in more eyes when stuff like that occurs.

Furthermore, who is editing the article is irrelevant, Marketing Director of Open IPTV Forum or not, as long as such a person writes in a WP:NPOV. If he is not then that's a content dispute and not something that merits deletion as it is not a copyright violation. Don't you think that it would have been better if you contacted the reviewer since this is and has always been a legit article with reliable sources? Don't shoot first and ask questions later. Your WP:CVU work is appreciated but in this instance you overstepped with your administrator privileges.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Neutrality is one of the five pillars and a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates and is never irrelevant. Additionaly, unilaterally advising others to ignore other editors/administrators comments is ill advised and is in serious error. Regardless of you doing so it does not exempt them from compliance with Wikipedia's policies, specifically in the case of COI, see Wikipedia:COI#Blocks.--Hu12 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Yes, WP:NPOV is a rule and a bannable offense if not followed persisently, but WP:COI is not. If you notice to what I wrote to DJ you will see that I told him exactly that: you can continue editing the article as long as you adhere to WP:NPOV. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(copied from Ahnoneemoos talk page) Please don't take it upon you to advise new editors unilaterally to ignore other editors comments made in good faith as well as your own. More specifically, your take on COI editing as exposed there is not uncontroversial and you should better be aware of it and secondly I specifically advised DJDonkey to not revert themselves AFC reviews of their articles, so telling them twice to ignore that isn't helpful. Moreover, retention of editors working is as much a problem as accommodating new ones and whilst we admittedly didn't start of very coherently here you now just added to the mess. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sprint undeletion

Thanks for undeleting the file and for restoring it to the article. Above and beyond the call of duty.  ;) user:j (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Open IPTV Forum

Open IPTV Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are you sure that you wanted to restore the copyright violations which were previously correctly deleted? mabdul 09:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

err no, certainly not. The log looks terrible as I made two technical errors missing some versions and misspelling the target but certainly I only restored the versions for the2012/2013 incarnation at AFC. Was that a copyvio as well? If not we could just remove the early versions have been restored with a history merge. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the 2008 revisions. mabdul 10:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have now redeletd these revisions introduced inadvertently by a history merge from The AFC submission to the mainpage article --Tikiwont (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about RfD

Hi Tikiwont! I'm not very familiar with RfD, so I'm not sure what to make of your comment on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_3#Template:Boston_Legal. Since there was no consensus, but the page should be fixed, are there steps I should (or shouldn't) take to fix the problem? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I meant the named user page that is affected by this redirect, User:Blankuser/Carl Sack where I already removed the redirect, and amended the closure in that sense. No need for a nav box on a draft in any case. It can now stay that way till somebody decides to resurrect the template and objections can then be sorted out at TfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I've restored it myself to avoid other accidental transclusion. If it is not wanted you can post it at WP:TfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michele Knotz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Once Upon A Time and Musti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Zudella Pimley-Smith

please send me the deleted page by email which is enabled. I want to work on it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimlezu (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sugababes' forthcoming seventh studio album

Hey how come the redirect didn't get deleted yet but the RfD was closed as "delete"? Till 23:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Because I didn't push the button, so thanks for the heads-up. Links and {{db-xfd}} are handy in such cases.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edit of Block Notice

Hello Tikiwont; I just read over your recent edits to your block notice which resulted in several additions of partially incorrect grammar and the de linking of your signature. The edit is here. Just thought I would tell you as it did ring an alarm bell to me and is not what I would personally expect from an admin, Though I assume it was a mistake and greatly appreciate your work on the 'pedia. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a mistake. Sorry for triggering any alarms or not meeting expectations. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's alright, Also remember to indent on talk page discussions. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)