User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Vanish Dab

Thanks for building the Vanish page. Much better now! -DjD- (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Titus Bramble is crap - don't have a cow man!!!

Don't be a bore all your life have a day off.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poyntyhepburn (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Forever Slave

Maybe you can help me. I scanned all the deletion pages of March and April and couldn't find the first deletion talk. Where is it? Hybscher (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In such cases you need to study the article log that you can access from the top of the history page [1]. From which results that it has been deleted 'speedily' that is without discussion as not asserting sufficient importance. I declined the second such request and it was brough to AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hybscher (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead - reinstated deletion?

Hello! A few months ago you guided me through a speedy deletion of a film stub I had posted. I have more supporting information (2 articles referring to the film's theatrical release at a film festival this month) and believe this info along with what I'd posted earlier would make the article verifiable and hopefully not be deleted. How do I go about 'reinstating' the listing and making sure it is not speedily deleted as "copy of previously deleted article"? Should I start a discussion on the article's deletion page? Kc1981 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way to start would be with draft in userspace, e.g. at User:Kc1981/Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead, where it is not subject to imminent deletion, focusing mostly on reliable external sources. As already said, the question is in as far the references cover the film and not mostly the subject. Example: Peter-Ernst Eiffe will mention a documentary about him as this testifies to his notability, but there is no page on the film itself. For the rest, maybe Wikipedia:Notability (films) And WP:FILM, the relevant project might be useful.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

RS

I just stopped to know one thing that can I use Criminology: The Core as RS. The book is written for students, so I am confused if it is RS or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, why you're asking me, I'd say there is no need to rule out a college text book a priori as a reliable source, but it may depend on the context and be subject to editorial consensus, e.g (in your example) whether it is about a criminology concept or a specific case. You may want look at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples and then either discuss this locally where it matter's (article talk) or more general at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi

Thanks for the welcome - looking forward to being of help!

Pity all administrators aren't as helpful as you!!!

BRChamber (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but in any case we consider it important to assume good faith to all of them. I'll comment some more on the relevant AfD.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article

I noticed you deleted the article The March 3 2008 shooting of Memphis (Tennessee) based on a PROD. I'd like to see the text of this article, because I think the subject is notable and I think the reasoning that the content was redundant with Wikinews is baseless because content on the encyclopedia can't be redundant with content on a different project with a different purpose. Everyking (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it to User:Everyking/The March 3 2008 shooting of Memphis (Tennessee). The prod tag there was actually followed by a (malformed) Db-g7 tag by the creator.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

On secodo thought I may have done more that you actually asked for. So please let me know if you want to reuse the article and move it back to mainspace, possibly with the creator's consent. If not, I'd move it back and delete it again there. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. If I have time, I'll work on it and move it back to mainspace. Everyking (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Acadiana

Thanks for restoring the Acadiana article to its official and proper name. Aaron charles (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits/spam

I was chastised for my edits and need to repent. I'm reading the editing policies and learning about what I did wrong. What happens next? How do I get forgiven? Chcf (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, many prople start here with some wrong conceptions. As you stopped and came here, you're forgiven as far as I'm concerned and as far as that is a helpful concept. The only other thing that really counts here, is helping to make this a site that you would want to rely upon. I'll set up an archive for your talk page, so that further contributions are more likely to be judged on their merits alone. Best wishes, --Tikiwont (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted for being a noob, doh!

Thanks for trying to help, and for moving the source to my talk page. Still trying to figure out what exactly qualifies as "notable" and all of that jibberish. I never knew wikipedia was so heartless to my poor code. ;) Thanks again for taking the time to help! Sinandsuffering (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just take your time, there is no deadline. I've now also posted a welcome page with some links on your page. And, yes, this can seem a cruel place, but what did you expect with your username ;) --Tikiwont (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're so patient, I really admire that. :) I'm like... omg get it done now now now! haha. You know you like my username... come on now! But in all seriousness, if you get a spare moment can you look over that talk page you moved my would-be article to and give it a once over and offer any suggestions you think would help to prevent it from being deleted. :)

Thanks so much Tikiwont! :) Sinandsuffering (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking about patience: I'm out for lunch and it is already in mainspace... Let's see what happens.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is now over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Horan I can't thank you enough for your help. Thanks for spending a little bit of your time in making this website so much better. You rule! :) Sinandsuffering (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, but don't stop working on the article.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The page seems to have stuck, and your edits helped immensely - especially your patience as I tried to refine the code! Thank you again x2384923470948!!1! You rule hard. :) Hoping you are well, Kyle Sinandsuffering (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahabaharata Article

Ya Mr. - I under whatyou have sayed but this page was misstakenly moved by someone so the page is now safe to deleted from wikipedia index so it is not harm full for any future series to upload same title page but not story or other feature not connected to original title. that's why is needed to removeal from wikipedia even i think every page who have reason of this type should also be deleted. Hkansagra (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Yes i respect but i think you does not watched editing history with detail there is seconed edit maden by my self and on the page page created mr. hnsampat is redisigned by myself so when you interput in this metter we alrady in discuss for other user named rdmt319 interputed our article to mistitle so there is one image of old series is needed to upload on article so when this metter in dession if you think that my uploaded for deletion is wrong then this time you upload proper deletion on page who deleted after a month or year when this metter discussed so bye from me i am going offline for half hour for other channel article data running on tv i came after 7:00 pm IST Hkansagra (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahabharat Image

yes your think is correct but as per my work on article there is someone in wikipedia named rdmt319 is maden this redirect of article to wrong title as per tv storys so there have to stop who made this type of moves and interput a article so to verify titleing there is an image who have original title of this series is needed to upload and that's why i maden this old series as image to identifie original title of tv storys by b.r. chopra to bobby bedi's story or Ekta kapoor's story. for stoping unneeded move of article. if any series have any of other image on pubilshed i have changed this one with new one till please donot change image. or now you uploaded one more msg in site. so what's the msg mean pls replay me i will made change in article that hnsampat made for starplus channel or i am maded for 9X channel. Hkansagra (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for souces when there have one image of old series verifying that this title of remake or sequal is correct that's why i am uploaded the image of old series till new series have any verifiale source of image only for title verifying. Hkansagra (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why This Does not have a show. of course there have a show and that's why i am already uploaded on caption that calls this image is from old version show aired in difined year and in detailed uploaded on this image page that this image is from which site that have copyright to block publishing this image on other site this site where from this image came is public uploader for image or video like rapidshare or youtube ormany in this categry so that is this image is not from official copyright protect site any one have full othority to copy this type of matirial to any site. Hkansagra (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But Which Article The Starplus or 9x that iam created beacause in 9x show i am already linked article on site india-forums's tellybuzz secssion where ekta kapoor's interview by called that this series expect his start on august of 15th but this date is expected so i am uploaded just month if on later time the show's fix date to going on air revaled then i am change it with full date till it proves his varifialblity with refrences taged secission linked article or you think about starplus article then that's not mine. that's your mistake to call me to verify beacouse the article started by hnsampat so for me when i started change the title is already verified by hnsampat or my title already verified by article called Ekta ki mahabharat shuru that mean the show of ekta called mahabharat is started but in detail view that already defined as per i am saying that series will begin in auguest 2008 is confirmed. Hkansagra (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean to say that i am tailing you wrong but you did not confirmed realy beacouse in my created article [Mahabharat (9X TV series)] there is one and only external called Producer talks on mahabharat series under spelled section References or on already opened 9x mahabharat article on wikipedia or where i called in and thats external site called www.india-forums.com who have one section called tellybuzz in search for article write mahabharat and you got list of article taged mahabharat where link number one 's logo have flickering between ekta kapoor and channel logo of 9x that calls series is to came on 9x called mahabharat and at the end of first part there is word calling which is to start from August 15th.. where date is wroten in bold letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkansagra (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i am now quit happy with what youhave done but what about my created article on 9x channel that i am called you to define your problam with article and i rafrenced to forum site but there no patent for calling forums the forum section only under home button but tellybuzz section is only a news section who ownered by forum site or any other site like yahoo,google,indya(official site for star india),rediff or other. and this time i give you a direct link to article what i am calling about. or if you think that's not a reliable source then this time you cheack all indian channel show page all page have one or more have this type of link. what you want to do is just tag them with unreliable source.And Link is ekta ki mahabharat shuru Hkansagra (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the reason I created the Mahabharat (2008 TV series) article was because some other user edited that information into Mahabharat (TV series) and so I felt it was better to have that information as a separate article. I have seen several articles online (via a quick Google search for "Mahabharat 2008 series") about the new series, although I haven't yet linked them into the article. I don't know anything more about the 2008 STAR Plus series or about this other series on 9X that Hkansagra is talking about. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding St edwards deletion thing

Hi, I added the deletion tag to the steds article (actually I attend the sixth form there) since I found it an unsuitable article that didn't have any notability so no one could clean it up to quality...of course even though I've been on wiki a long time I haven't indulged myself in the various policies...so tell me what would be done about that article? Thanks. Seriphyn (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not much, really. In case you feel strongly that deletion is warranted, a nomination at articles for deletion would be the next step. But there rarely consensus emerges to delete a higher school, and with St. Edwards Church of England School being rather old, I would not see it as deletion candidate. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

speedy delition of "Marnie Weber"

may i ask why my article on "marnie weber" was deleted, so i can do better in future? i dont get your reason, because i think that marnie weber is one of the most important artists in the contemporary art scene. best regards, Katha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusskati (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The deleted article Marnie Weber did not make clear that she is considered an important artist (nor by whom) nor mentioned any mayor exhibitions or awards. Apart form the links on your own page, our notability guideline might be useful.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for the 'Big Four' claim in CT (company)

Hello Tikiwont. I noticed the PROD nomination come and go on the CT (company) article. When I came to look at it the article, I saw that it was much puffed up from before. Yesterday I took out some of the advertising language. I think the Registered agent business is worthy of some notice in Wikipedia. The concept of a 'Big Four' is no worse than the Fortune 500, assuming it's true. I was thinking of adding links at CT pointing to the articles of the biggest three competitor companies. If we can't find a Fortune article, how would you feel about using http://www.registered-agent-information.com as a source for who the Big Four companies are? This web site wouldn't normally qualify as a reliable source, but they do seem to be reasonably professional, and this kind of information is probably not controversial. We could attribute the 'Big Four' claim as their opinion, not a proven fact. (Any website is a reliable source for their own opinion :-). I can do a more extensive web search if you thing something like this would be acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is and has been in the past a rather controversial subject since such a concpet obviously of interest mostly ot the numbers three and for and a thorn in the eyes of all that come beyond. Logically, there are of course the largest two, three, four, five and so on, but that doesn't mean that there are the 'Big Four'. At that time no reliable sources have been found anyways, just some websites such as the above are close to Incorp. So no, above does not qualify, IMO, and certainly not in an article of a different company. The compromise found in the past at Registered agent was avoiding the mentioning of 'Big four' and just listing those who have an article. Even that is too much for some. Further input should better go to the respective talk pages.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Recommended administrators

Hello, i have created a section on my userpage for other users to find administrators recommended by me. I would like you to add yourself to the list so it can have your unique signature! Please use ~~~ to add yourself, as this will omit the date. If you do not wish to be on the list, thats okay! I respect the choice of every administrator/user on wikipedia. Have a nice day :-) TheProf - T / C 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the feedback (articles and their creatures). So i neither object to being mentioned there nor would I want to enter my name myself (I don't have a special signature). In any case I'd make the section header more neutral (as you already did with the text). And what about Non-admins? Have a good break! --Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would'nt put non-admins there as this section is for pointing users who mistake me for an administrator in the right direction. As for the neutral header, any suggestions? -- Break!?! It's very hard to stay away for any lenth of time. But i'm trying :-) Thanks TheProf - T / C 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC) {Creatures may create articles ;-)}

No suggestions really, but I'm having a rather uninspired day creating and repairing my own collateral damage.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

National High School Center

Thanks so much for helping me out and creating a new article - you mentioned that you would take a look at my new draft and comment. Can you point me in the direction of where you would have posted your comments? Highschoolimprovement (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with my article. Based on other user's suggestions, I’ve trimmed the article a bit to reduce the size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highschoolimprovement (talk • contribs) 20:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

restoration article

I don't know what to do with my restored draft... do I need to re-create the article or do I need to work with that copy? Thanks,Clemen Wilcox (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I reworked the article. Could you take a look? I read all the instructions, but I am not sure I did well. Bye,

Clemen Wilcox (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles that speak about the foundation are in Spanish. Is that okay to talk about them? See - http://www.idealist.org/es/org/163707-37 - http://www.salento.com.co/htmlesp/principal.htm

Clemen Wilcox (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I found this article - http://www.cronicadelquindio.com/index.php?module=Pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=3&pid=15210 at the "Cronica" del Quindio newspaper. Is that what you need?

Clemen Wilcox (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

An article that you have been involved in editing, Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Deletion of article

Dear Tikiwont,

I write about the deletion of an article, the posting of which was, if I recall, the subject of debate between me and another Wikipedia official.

As one of the few people who has had a letter published in The Times in praise of Wikipedia, I have to say I am disheartened by the way things are done on Wikipedia - not that they are done but the manner.

I spent hours, days indeed, in researching this article - the list of the ship's company of HMS Hydra, and related statistics - and now it has been deleted without any reference to me whatsoever. This does, if you do not mind my saying, seem rather arrogant. Had I been of the view that an article should be deleted, I'd invite the originator to comment!

I am nearly in tears at the amount of wasted effort this afternoon alone spent in trying to get to the bottom of this matter. I have had to cancel a meeting as I have run out of time, the time needed to find out what is going on and how to ddeal with it.

Let me make this clear. The article was not written because of the 2007 anniversdary f the Falklands war. The history of the ship was written so as to give as fulsome a story of the life of one ship as possible. The list of the ship's company was done so as to give a full breakdown of the jobs of 120 people in that ship - something that is almost never found anywhere. I am a naval historian and I can tell you that such a detailed account of a ship's company I have never ever seen, in print or on line. Even without the individual names, some of the information that was included in my piece is important to people researching naval history.

What I would like, please, is the opportunity to recover this article in its latest form - I cannot find the information I uploaded and I have thus learned a lesson. Please advise how I recover this article, or to whom I appeal if it is not you. It is crazy just to have this research of mine thrown away by people it does not interest.

Anyway, this means I must consider my position in Wikipedia. What is the point of my further voluntary effort if it might result in such arbitrary removal without discussion with the author? It's a poor way to run a railway!

Please advise how I might recover the article which you have deleted. I look forward to hearing from you.

There is much I do not understand about Wikipedia and I find some of the tutorials hard to follow. So forgive my uselessness.

Lester May —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestermay (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lester,

I am really sorry for the distress this caused to you. So first of all, the article content has already been restored to your userspace. It is at User:Lestermay\List of ship's company of HMS Hydra (A144). So it hasn't been lost even though it looked thrown away.

The deletion itself was a result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ship's company of HMS Hydra (A144) that resulted in a clear consensus, that Wikipedia isn't the right place for such detailed and and originally researched accounts. My observation about the 2007 anniversary was just an additional note with respect to the possible motives of publishing this in Wikipedia based on the articles talk page, but wasn't really called for. The other unfortunate circumstance is that in the edit history of the article, User:GraemeLeggett was listed as 'creator' because he split the content off. So he received the invitation to join the discussion, and not you, without anybody realizing that.

So sorry once more for the way things have been done, but at least you have the content restored. Usually we try to decline research not seen anywhere else in print or online more gracefully. Let me know in case you need further help around here.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article

Dear Tikiwont

Thanks for the speedy and polite reply and thanks for facilitating my recovery of the article. It has gone some way to restoring my faith but I am still not happy. The more I think about the information that this one-off article contained, the more I see its value as a record of a ship's company, both to naval and military historians but also to family historians. That it records a ship's company during a war, of interest to many world-wide, means that it has more interest value than such a list of people at another time.

Few people will have such detailed records as I kept for the ships in which I served. Yet even I could not produce similar data for any other ship in which I served, as I don't have the detailed information and it's virtually impossible to research without an inordinate amount of time spent on such arcane business.

The concern, of some of your fellow Deletion Debaters, that other military units might also be listed in such detail, is unwarranted. In the two years or so since I first uploaded the article, I presume no others have done likewise. Exactly! The reason is that few could, fewer have the time or interest and thus this is a rare piece of information, a rare piece of research that has wider use than anything I first considered. It is damn-well researched and accurate too!

Even if you guys had decided that the list of names of people was irrelevant, the breakdown of the ship's complement - ship's company - by rank and rating, with the different qualifications of certain groups, and the totals at the bottom of the page are rare pieces of information. I can tell you that nowhere have I found anything similar, in print or online. Yet you delete the lot, in one fell swoop.

Yet how I would love to know such detail for some of the ships, particularly the last warship, in which my father served. At least I know that no Wikipedia bureaucrat arbitrarily decided it was of no interest, as the information almost certainly has never been gathered at all!

What it especially odd about your deletion decision was that the piece was well-researched and useful to some and of general interest to some more. Its being part of Wikipedia added value and did no harm. Yet small-mindedness decided otherwise.

To be honest, I don't really care whether this list is on Wikipedia or not. But the information should be available somewhere, ideally online, as it will be of assistance to other researchers. It is a pity that you have decided it is inappropriate.

I'll be a lot more cautious about the effort I put in for Wikipedia in future. I am furious about the time I have wasted on this matter today, let alone the agony caused and time wasted by other contributions over time. I have pages of research here waiting transcription for Wikipedia but I am not so sure I should even bother any more! While it has been pleasing to be able to offer my research free, and to see it published on Wikipedia, it has never been much fun navigating the by-ways of Wikipedia; it's a sure way of wasting time.

Nevertheless, though I am angry, I appreciate the tone of your reply.

Lester May —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestermay (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lester,

Let me just add for clarity, that besides the arguments of the debate, not publishing original research is, for better or worse, one of our core policies here. This something you should take into account when posting further pages. Alternatively, there might be other wiki-type communities that are not bound by this restriction. This link [2] might give you some ideas.--Tikiwont

Original research

Not publishing original research, you say, is a core policy of Wikipedia. How stupid is that? You specifically disallow the copying of other information, as indeed you should, but don't allow original research either. Completely barmy! That hardly allows room for anything, then.

Yet my 'original research' is not the sort of research to which you refer. It was research into private and public documents to gain information and bring it together in one place. It is not research that is a matter of opinion; that, I imagine, is the original research that Wikipedia would not allow, because it may not be verified.

It seems to me your using that phrase to support your Deletion Committee's arbitrary deletion of my article is clutching at straws.

As I see you could not be bothered to respond properly to my message, it's best that I cut my losses and do no more for Wikipedia. I often see mistakes in articles and do correct some; I feel rather less motivated now and not just because of the article's being deleted but because of the attitude and mannerin which it was done. I sense a pettiness, lack of maturity and good sense among those who run the show. I might also be allowed to wonder why it is that my article stayed on your site for about two years before you suddenly, arbitrarily, stupidly decide that you don't like it? Daft.

Yet just look at some of the garbage there is, masquerading as articles, on Wikipedia. Rubbish about non-entity pop stars and utter trivia, yet you and your cohorts were happy to insult sailors as being unimportant; just look at the words your self-important colleagues used in your so-called debate about deletion. Some of the policing of the site, and the manner in which it is done, the language used, the petty-official-strutting style, would be a model for a dictatorship!

I have written to Wikipedia head office about the general principle. How I wish I had not been so fulsome in my support of Wikipedia in a letter published in The Times on 23 April 2007; little did I realise that I would be so disenchanted exactly one year on.

Still, my walking away from doing any more for Wikipedia, bar perhaps completing what I have started, will allow me more time, without the bureaucratic impeding so inherent in your set up, to do research and write articles where they might be better appreciated.

This has certainly been my least happy St George's Day. Thanks Wikipedia - a lesson well-learned before I waste any more time on your site.

Lester May Lestermay (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe my second answer was short, but I felt it necessary to point you at a policy that you did not seem to be aware of, more in light of the planned posts you mentioned than to justify the previous deletion decision. If you see the need that can be reviewed at WP:Deletion review. In any case I tried to answer as best as I could, and no offense was intended from my side.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia - policy and administration

Dear Tikiwont,

Thanks for your reply. I am not offended and no offence was taken but I am angry.

It's no fun dealing with someone hiding behind anonymity. It annoys me greatly that anyone with powers of attorney should be anonymous. However, that's Wikipedia for you.

I have looked at the link you offered about appealing the decision to delete and it's so bureaucratic, so written in 'officialese' that I really can't be bothered even to start the process. It's the sort of guff produced by civil servants and ministers when they want to fox the average man with process.

What is particularly annoying is that, in your responses to both my last messages, you failed to respond to some key points. Thus I am none the wiser, no better able fully to understand why you and your posse of deletion enthusiasts acted as you did.

If it were easier to do business with Wikipedia, then I might challenge the deletion, even though for some two years you seemed relaxed about its being posted.

So, an uncovered aspect of military history is not entertained because it is "original research". But garbage about TV Shows, with trivia of mind-numbing uselessness, is just the sort of article that you allow. Your colleagues claimed my article was not worthy of an encyclopaedia; I would wager that detailed trivia about TV shows is not worthy of any airing, in an online encyclopaedia or elsewhere, other than a site about stupid television aimed at people whose brains have been disconnected. Your article on East Enders has 119 references! The programme itself is a waste of human time, a soap opera about London low life of no interest to anyone with a brain; worse still is the waste of time of all the contributors an article about such garbage. Yet my article is deleted and East Enders remains.

There is no debate here. Wikipedia clearly sanctions garbage because it will get loads of hits from dim-witted souls whose life is full of interest for 'celebrity', 'soap operas' and so on, but those topics that are of interest to a minority are more likely to get the boot.

I wish I had better understood your policy before being enthused by Wikipedia. Please ensure that the exchange of messages between us is forwarded to Wikipedia management as it may be instructive that they see the result of their policies. Furthering the dumbing down of human kind is surely not the intention but that is what is happening when you make it too difficult to inspire those who wish to impart information unavailable elsewhere.

Doubtless I will continue to go to Wikipedia for quick answers and I don't doubt its usefulness on matters of brain food. But, I think you have lost my interest as a contributor, both because of the manner in which you arbitrarily deal with sound articles and your propensity for celebrity nonsense that appeals to the mindless majority.

Having written thus far, I decided to search Google for alternatives to Wikipedia (the link you offered was, sadly, of little help). Interesting, isn't it, that I find at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/sanger_onlinepedia_with_experts: "... As its popularity has grown, Wikipedia has become more of a hobby, a multiplayer game and a repository for fan trivia than an attempt to improve the wisdom of the human race ..." and "... Today Wikipedia's entries on multi user online role playing games (it's almost 8,000 words long) ...".

Rather than my appealing for you to show common sense about intelligent pieces of writing that are unavailable elsewhere to 99% of the population, it seems to me that you should be appealing to me to write more for Wikipedia. But no - you get more hits from mindless people who want to read about mindless video games and the like. I don't want to be associated with dumbing down of any sort. Wikpedia has become Wonkypedia or Whackypedia. It's a sad report on the good idea of Larry Sanger, isn't it?

Lester May Lestermay (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lester,

I understand that you are angry and also see the problem with the anomymity. Besides that you raise many points, now up to the point whether wikipedia has lost its way. Given that my time after the initial answer was (and still is) more limited, I merely tried to highlight some. I'll now sleep over this and see if and what I can add add tomorrow. Good night. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am less attorney than system administrator with some rights and capabilities which include the deletion and restoration of text based upon policies and consensus. Actually, Wikipedia is built more upon consensus on how to do things that on what content is important. In that sense I take responsibility for deletion decisions as far as they relate to interpretation of arguments and policies and also to some unfortunate circumstances. On the other hand, I can take only notice of your disagreement with a core policy or with the type of content you find.

So the deletion was not arbitrary, even tough it came out of the blue for you, simply because it takes someone to notice and propose a deletion in the first place. I could then have left the closure to a different administrator, but the outcome would hardly have been different.

I've just yesterday seen two long-standing colleagues leave, and I did neither appeal to them to stay nor to you to contribute. It is a project that can raise enthusiasm, frustration and anger for all, but everyone needs own up to his actions and decisions. I am still here because I consider it too important to be left. In case you stay around you may find the WikiProject Military history and its section British military history of interest. Take care.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Zigron et al

Hi, This is my first message here ever, so please don't mind if I go wrong. Well one of my article has undergone an immediate deletion under A7. I'm actually trying to add the foreign organizations working in different sectors of Pakistan, especially software and communication. I mean this the the significance of these organizations, i.e. how differently they operate, and the different ways of outsourcing. Can you please guide me how can I proceed with it!Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Fit (talk • contribs) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all I posted you a welcome note with some general links and hints. If I understand you correctly, you may want to start with which sources you have with respect to the industry in general and the comparison of different approaches. Please also check what is already there, sometimes a gradual apporach works best. You may find further help at Portal:Pakistan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. and With respect to individual organizations, you should study our notability guideline for companies. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the detailed guide.... I'll go through it and will disturb you again if I encounter any problem!

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Fit (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

you deleted the desserttruck page

blatant advertising? the page wasn't even finished yet and had only a few sentences taken from their website. no assertion of notability? well, why didn't you let us finish the page before you went on your delete spree? food and wine, time magazine, new york magazine, time out ny best mobile food award.... why don't you do your research before deleting pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.141.64.122 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the short article didn't mention any references or awards but mostly said where to find those desserts. It may help if you write a more complete draft before posting. Or mark it as under construction instead of just leaving it. But this is something that you can still do. I'll post some links on the original creator's page. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD A1

Okay, sorry about that! I was just really confused as to what they were pertaining to, but I now see that there is a main La Liga article that does provide context. Thanks.I feel like a tourist (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake, I misunderstood it. King iMatthew 20 08 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:W.GUGLINSKI

I know it's this guy. The article clearly should be deleted and an AfD would be pointless. If I were an admin I would block him right away and delete his stuff. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well blocked isn't banned. Repeated block evasion might result in banning, though. Moreover, I actually deleted an artcile of his per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory. That mentioned some Naveen Dankal, so the latest account might be also be like-minded person. I'll give him a welcome page and then we'll see.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're an admin? I thought there was some sort of rule that admins had to say so on their user pages.

He might not be technically banned, but as long as he continues to do the same thing he should be treated as if he were. I don't know how else to deal with this. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the rule, but I actually forgot to restore my user page after latest wikibreak.

For the moment I assume the two accounts are not the same. If not we'll certainly notice and can take action.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heisenberg's Scientific Method

Dankal.naveen (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Naveen DankalDankal.naveen (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC) With due respect to Heisenberg and his contribution to science, I don not mean to use wikipedia to express my ideas and opinions about the works of any indvidual.I have only stated some of the limitations of Heisenberg's works with due references and just brought out a fact how Heisenberg's method is unable to resolve the mystery of scarcity of dineutrons and in a way "lope-sidedness" of our universe.

I just disaggree with you whether not this is is a good addition to wikipedia. On the other hand, I also disagree with the block you received resp. the unblock denied and have raised that point.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Unblocking...appreciate your step...will try to keep wiki rules in mind!!! Dankal.naveen (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008

Well, let me know once you have further concerns or questions.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dankal.naveen (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Naveen DankalDankal.naveen (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC) i am making a few changes in the article on Heisenberg's scientific method.I would like to know wether any refernces to banned members' works jeopardizes the articles chances of getting hosted or such refernces can be incorporated without any hitch. Moreover, before hosting the articles, can they be e-mailed to the administrators for a review so that the users are not lead to the worries of being blocked or banned?

There are two different issues. The User:W.GUGLINSKI has been blocked for disruption. His theories have been deleted as fringe theories. While that doesn't mean they can never be cited, it is unlikely to go without discussion. Your main problem still seems to be that this is an encyclopedia, while your article starts with a concrete question about the dineutron and the Isospin and then drifts away into more general considerations. What is missing is the intermediate step: what reliable sources have written about e.g. "the mystery of the scarcity of the dineutron" or limitations of the Copenhagen interpretation. Without including such secondary sources it will be a personal synthesis which is not accepted here. You first question, however, is what exactly is your topic. If it isn't anything for which there already is an article, it should be precisely delineated and notable, in the sense of sufficiently covered in existing literature. Technically, you can write drafts in userspace, e.g. at User:Dankal.naveen/Sandbox, but maybe you want to work on existing ones first.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

While it seems that you've noticed above, I thought you wanted to have the draft reviewed first before posting again at Heisenberg's Scientific Method. On the other hand it is not clear to me whether you actually read other articles such as Copenhagen interpretation that has a section on criticisms, Bohr-Einstein debates and Interpretation of quantum mechanics that touch on some the questions you treat, or dineutron that is rather too short. So how would your article relate to those. Who would be the main proponents of that criticism of / view on Heisenberg and QM? The term "Heisenberg's scientific method" certainly isn't known to anyone.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dankal.naveen (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Naveen DankalDankal.naveen (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I did put the article in my sandbox .However I did not get any feedback for 2 days so i thought that maybe the sandbox is not accessible to users other than me and had a doubt as to wether such thing as a "review process" does exit on wiki.So I posted the article directly to make it "visible".I did have a cursory glance on copenhagen interpretation.It mostly touches the aspects of "acceptance" of Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and talks very little about the concern which stand against it.I do agree that Heisenberg's scietific method may not be a common term however a lot of work has been done on "Heisenberg's philosophy" (which in a way describes Heisenberg's Scientific method, that of concerning the "observable" as the prime object of investgation and not the "cause", and advocating an inemittable use of mathematics to describe physical phenomenon). Well the artcle serves to those who still believe in keeping the "causality" intact. I might edit this article in future to add more on dineutrons while not stating the "original" ideas and opinions.

Well, from the timestamps it still looks to me as if you created the draft on 19 and put it into mainspace directly afterwrads.[3]. While there is no formal review process for drafts, it was visible and could have been reviewed if you had let know. Moreover, please keep in mind that existing articles such as the Copenhagen interpretation can and should be expanded and edited by anyone as can your article now that it is up. We also try to avoid articles that cater for a specific audience. In as far as it represents a specific view on Quantum mechanics and Heisenberg: what would be a more common name and would it be possible to be more clear about who has written about it or is a proponent, how it fits into general scheme of Interpretation of quantum mechanics and what its own criticisms are. An example of this type of editorial treatment might be the Ensemble interpretation listing Einstein and Ballantine as supporters.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dankal.naveen (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Naveen DankalDankal.naveen (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I have made a mental note of the points described by you about the way of doing articles on wiki....Thanks.Also I guess you are right about the time stamp..maybe I may have kept the article in sandbox only for a day or less and may have shown a bit of a hurry at my end in posting the stuff.

ANI

The article has been brought up at WP:ANI#Would someone delete this junk?, if you'd like to comment there. --barneca (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented there why I don't agree with the block. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you took the time to unblock, will you watch out for this user, helping him/her learn the ropes and ensuring that they understand the expectations here? Thanks and regards, Antelan ^talk 14:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually I was trying to do that when the ANI got somewhat in the way. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Antelan ^talk 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am necessarily effective. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Control2k2

can you please help me as i have put 2 pages up and both was deleted the main one was "Welsh Automotive Forum" ‎....what am i doing wrong??? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Control2k2 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talkpage--Tikiwont (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

St Edwards

Could you please explain to me why u think my comments constitute as vandalism? I am not some person purposely trying to ruin wikipedia for everyone, i do not agree with the concept of ruining other peoples work.

The point of me putting teacher profiles onto the St Edwards page is so that parents may be able to see what the teachers in the school are like, and get a feel for things before they commit to applying to the school for their children and also realise what the school is like for their children.

I think this is totally reasonable as there is no bias and no opinions, the profiles are based on fact and a number of different sources of contribution to give an accurate account of what the teachers are like.

TheOnlyRaconteur (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ka Inu

I inquire about this articles deletion. Removed under the premise of lacking context, I feel that this is wrong. The article is equally valid to that of Bill Gates or Densha Otoko. I would like straight to the point guidelines for revival of the page. What it lack, and what content makes it less valid then any other person writing about an inspiration or idol of theirs.

The article was small, however it would have grown in time, with the subject becoming more and more widely know. More sources would have appeared and in turn more of the statements could of been backed up.

Thank you KoKoO Psy (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, could you upload the draft to my user page, so i could work on it.

KoKoO Psy (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmichele

Thanks for the help and advice. I'll heed it in the future. This is going to sound absurd, but how did the Persian Poet Gal get her user page to look so groovy? Keep up the good work. Hmichele (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea; my userpage is very basic and just a means anyway. Which raises the question: What is the end then? BTW user paces fall under the GFDL as anywhere else here: their layout can be ripped if attributed.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Prod removal on article

I disagree with the removal or -prod on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_Aaron_Istodor

The first person who challenged it said he removed it because a quick search on Google revealed a few links to his name, but he didn't know whether the actor deserved notability or not.

What I am saying is that he doesn't deserve it yet and Wikipedia isn't a place to put one's name just to get a higher pagerank. The guy is indeed an actor but he is also is heavily supported by his mother Maia Morgenstern, a famous actress who also played in "Passion of the Christ". She plays with him in several plays to "help" him like stated here http://www.curierulnational.ro/Specializat/2005-05-28/Tudor+Istodor:+Profesia+de+actor+ma+invata+ca+e+bine+sa+explorez+tot+timpul

However, he is faaaar away from a career in acting. I strongly suggest to remove the entry until he has earned his right there. We will see in a few years if Tudor is a worthy actor or just "mama's boy".

I you want to assist fledgling actors with connections, then go ahead. But it's not fair to other actors who are working very hard to make a name for themselves on their own. 89.137.228.70 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the second prod for procedural reasons as per policy we go through that only once and then prefer a discussion. You could register and open a deletion discussion at WP:AFD. If you can't do that, please write a preferably more neutral reasoning than the one for the prod on the article's talk page, and i'll list it.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Istituto Sperimentale per la Zoologia Agraria

Cut and paste.Sorry about that. I was writing a little on Fritz Ruhl when I noticed I had misspelt Zoologia Zooogia.Now I see what I should have done and more to the point why. Many thanks for the guide notes Robert Notafly (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sgt_Pikachu5

His sig aside, his userpage states :"Hello. I am new! I created this account as a replacement to my old one (which was blocked indefinetly). I WONT VANDALIZE". I hate to escalate something just by stumbling upon it, but isn't this block evasion? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had noticed too, and mulled this over a coffee. Basically, it seems to be intended more as restart than as block evasion and in as far as it is technically a block evasion, he doesn't necessarily have to be blocked per WP:BLOCK as long as his intentions seem to be good. Still, the question won't go away, so I'll raise it with him as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Outside of his sig, which he actually agreed to fix, I haven't seen disruptive editing in a cursory glance. Maybe I'll look further. If a user wants to have such a message on their user page, do we usually ask them to identify the previous account?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will, if you wish. Rudget (Help?) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a real clean start under a new name would require both: to have the old account unblocked and marked as inactive, but no obvious connection on the other hand. Therefore, I'd suggest that asks e.g via e-mail for an unblock of the old account to facilitate a good faith start under the different account. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, he is not negatively affecting me or anything. A lot of this is help me get a better understanding of some nuances of blocking policy. For my own good, I think I'll review more of Pikachu's history to see if anything pops out as concerning. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He's been making funny edits like this to editor's talk pages that he says are now retired. Then, later, he makes this edit to the same page, with the edit summary "Quite rude". He went to Jimbo's talk with this message. He's telling someone they might be blocked here. Here he alters another editor's warning. Some more to come after I look at those "retired editors" pages he edited. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just wanted to continue editing Wikipedia. At least, with the exception of Behindthescreen, I reverted them. I should use the Sandbox instead. :DSgt_Pikachu5^{talk contribs} 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Adil Najam

Hello Tikiwont. I've restored this to article space, per your closure of the DRV. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I wasn't sure if anyone wants to work on it before.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My account.

Just unblock my old account, User:Togepi_987 and mark it retired. Then, they won't think i'm a sockpuppet. Sgt_Pikachu5^{talk contribs} 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

talk page

Hi, I noticed you did not delete my talk page, I know it's always better to keep them, but you know, my problem is that while tying to archive my messages, I messed up! I moved them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SF007/Archive_1 and now I can't move them back! even if I delete all the stuff on my talk page! thats why I requested for them to be deleted, so I can move the stuff back, sure I can just copy and paste them back, but that would not preserve the "history". If it is possible for you to do it, I would appreciate it, if not (it might be against some poilicy or something) no problem at all... ;) thanks in advance. SF007 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem and history now merged to talk. With the 'author request' tag i just didn't realize that this was intended as housekeeping deletion for a history merge. If you want you can now reuse User_talk:SF007/Archive_1 for copy and paste archiving. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for for merging the history in my talk page! SF007 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

userfying maximum bob (singer) article

if that is what it takes, i accept userfication. the problem is, i did not write this article initially. Also, im confused about the concept. if it is in user space, can others still access it? how does it make a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC) also, im not very experianced with wikipedia formating and beureacracy, so yiou and other admins might have to guide me through step by step what userfying will do and how to bring it mack to regular wikipedia Ritzbitz00 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would be at e.g. User:Ritzbitz00/Maximum Bob (singer) and have at the whole history and can still be accessed by anyone, but as not being part of regular wikipedia it won't be speedily deleted, but can be improved and evaluated without hurry. If it addresses the problems of the deletion discussion, it can be moved back to Maximum Bob (singer). Otherwise it needs to be deleted once more. In that sense I can help you with the administrative actions of restoring, evaluating and moving it back (or redeleting it), but you would need to find the sources and work on the article. Let me know.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please userficate it to my page, and let me know how to access it once you do. Thanks. btw the original article will be at my disposal, es? i cant remake the article sry Ritzbitz00 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but how will other people be able to access it to help with improvement? i linked it to some places, but will that be enough? and Im also done fixing it. whats the difference between stubs and categories, when i tried putting them in they both used stub thingies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is accessible if people know about it. Maybe you can ask on talk pages for related articles for help. A stub is a short type of article and they have their own cats such as Category:United States rock singer stubs. The respective article cat is Category:American rock singers. Nevertheless yours is a user draft so it shouldn't be categorized at all unless its is moved back among the articles. What is still missing before doing so are reliable sources that write about him. It was understood in the Deletion review that you may know of such sources. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not articles per se but i have videos and sound clips of him that would testify toward information about him. is that ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not okay. It neither addresses the problems that resulted in deletion nor is it acceptable to speculate on identity per WP:BLP based on a youtube video not counting as source. Do you have yourself the DvD or do you just believe that it was taken from there? In any case it is a story, and we should rather not have it here unless picked up and verified elsewhere first. Nor will we have an article on Maximum Bob unless there is some more written about him already.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I added more sections, are you able to see what ive done? it would be easier if i got direct criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

for some reason, it keeeps deleting all the sections below the career section. it happens when i add a referance to it. is this something you changed? or is something wrong? also, how do you upload sound clips? i couldn't find the page letting you do it. or do you just need to form a link? --Ritzbitz00 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That was due to a malformed tag. A ref needs to be finished with </ref>. No idea about sound clips, but try Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media filesalways consider copyright and fair use. Consider using the {{helpme}} tag. But see also below.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As already said, we're primarily trying to see whether to have an article at all. While it is also a useful exercise, there is only so much effort we should spend on it if it needs to be deleted. That isn't a question of layout but of substantial independent sources or other indication in the line of WP:Music and should have better be discussed at DRV as there don't seem to be any.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

well, do hat you have to do. I'm about to add sound clips backing my claims about the musical style, and i thought there was an article about them, but it mustrhave been deleted from the site it was on. is there anything in specific I should sources for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A sound clip may give an impression, but references that explicitly describe his style, reviews or news articles about the artist / person is what you're looking for.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Does live footage count, if not recorded by the band itself?--Ritzbitz00 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they can just illustrate what should have been described elsewhere. Please can you now have a (second) look at our guidelines on notability of musicians and reliable sources. And then go through a thorough google search to see what you can come up with? --Tikiwont (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ur deleting the article. just do it before i realize its gone. im leaving onthe 30th. ull have a month to delete it. its been fun ^_^. ps how do you delete a conversation (this one perhaps and the help pages i have)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to systolic geometry

Hi,

For some reason, the article appears under "I" in the list of introductions, rather than under "S". I can't figure out why. Katzmik (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is because of a missing sort key; I use now the standard template at the header. If you want to user your previous intro, you can re-add the cat as [[Category:Introductions|Systolic geometry]]--Tikiwont (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Luv Addict

Thanks for fixing it. I'm not used to closing DRV discussions and didn't even notice I'd muffed it! (blush) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well at DRV it's probably better blushing about tiny formal errors than growing pale over gross procedural ones...I didn't even want to highlight it but for some reasons I had to edit the whole log to fit in the missing tag. It mystifies me anyhow why have different style templates each XfD venue. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well said. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Need Help

Hye Mr. Tiki this is wikipedia user hkansagra calling for you to help me sorting my problem on Mahabharat (9X TV series). Once I found ekta kapoor creating a mahabharat series, i created the page but then a found the title was not mahabharat. The title is mahabharata, i moved the page. and now i found on 2^nd june ekta give proper official name called Kahaani Hamaaray Mahabharat Ki, i remade move to that title and now i have your oppinian to mondrate my this matter give me reply what should i have to do with Mahabharat 9X TV Series page beacouse there there is three redirects on this pages

1. Mahabharat (9X TV Series) to Mahabharata (9X TV Series)
2. Mahabharata (9X TV Series) to Kahaani Hamaaray Mahabharat Ki
3. Mahabharat (9X TV Series) to Kahaani Hamaaray Mahabharat Ki ... This Move Is edited first move non-sencely by my self

the third move will moved my user page vandal level to 3(ELEVATED) so i called you to help me on this matter to solve it and get vandal level down to 1(LOW). i am previously talked to you on old mahabharat series image uploaded to identify this article on 17 april Hardik Kansagra (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you are now sure that the new title is correct... looking at[4] I see that both Mahabharat (9X TV series) and Mahabharata (9X TV series) redirect to Kahaani Hamaaray Mahabharat Ki, which is fine. They do no harm, show where the article was in the past and guide others to the right place. With respect to vandalism, the recent edits are not many and rather amount to speculation and not vandalism, so I don't think protection is currently warranted. As long as a page is not protected, it should not be marked as such. If editing flares up in the future, you can request protection also at WP:RPP.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr Tiki, I need your one more help to correct my article page of Kis Desh Mein Hai Meraa Dil. Some IP User Uncategorised and removed channel show template so rollback it to my last edit. Tell me if wikipedia have any bot which work like watchlist but displays all changes on my selected page at my user page and count my final edit or give me any new permission like rollback rights,bot operation to control wikipedia with new primisees which never used on bot. All Information you need is found on my user page or sub page for userboxes. Hardik Kansagra (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is given to experienced editors to fight vandalism in general, not just to watch over pages thy edit. You can simply go to the revision history [5], click on (cur) next to your version to see the differences to the current one [6]. If you then click on the edit link next to 'Revision as of 19:24, 2008 June 7', you open your last version and edit form there. I use and would recommend a java script, popups to facilitate reverting and some other handy stuff, but it has to be used with care. There is also a script Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Changes since I last edited that lists all changes since you last edited, but I haven't tried that. If it isn't straightforward vandalism (and speculation about an upcoming TV series is rather not), it is best to consider always the changes and then edit edit the latest version re adding what has been lost. For more info see Help:Reverting--Tikiwont (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I Have Agree What You Said.

CSD

Thanks, I'll do that next time. Kivar2 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced

D'oh!! that's what I get for reading in tabs :) Thank you!

reg

CROSSFIRE

Re: Crossfire band page I don't see how they qualify for encyclopedic relevance in any manner. I have seen many pages qualify for deletion with more relevance and sources cited than that one. It's not that I wish to take down anyone's page, but this seems to be a clear case of not meeting the requisite standards according to the defined standards. 195.233.250.7 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They may not be notable, but there are certainly assertions of some importance. There is also a link to an Hebrew article and to the Hebrew wiki entry. Because of that a speedy deletion had already been declined in the past. Moreover their albums aren't speedy candidates anyways, so discussing all of them together at AfD seemed the best way forward to me. Let me know in case you think an AfD is warranted and need technical help with it. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

. .

I think it's quite clear that they are no different than any of the other innumerable bands who try to get themselves onto Wikipedia. I don't have the time or experience to pursue this matter, but I think that the page and the album links do not meet the criteria for encyclopedic relevance. Perhaps as an administrator you can take the appropriate action. Again, it's not that I wish to tear down someone's page, but the standards are not met in this case. There is one source which most of the world cannot corroborate due to the language, and having secured spots with notable acts as the support group does not, in turn, make "them" also notable by association. There are many, many bands who make these attempts who get deleted every day and this group is no different. So, in the end, you must do what you feel is right, but I will be taking no further action on the matter, I simply wanted to point it out, and I think it is clearly a matter for AfD. 195.233.250.7 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Charismatic Wikipedians

No it's alright, I'm not actually a member of the Charismatic Christian movement. I just included myself in that category because I'm quite vain and I like to think of myself as charismatic. It was intended as humorous. Thank you anyway. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, that makes about as much sense as saying he added himself to the neo-natzi group because he thinks he has a (neo) new style. I had to tell you Jupiter is indirectly one of the most anti-christian names you are going to find. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually this reply reinforced the need for a rename. Since he didn't remove the cat, he has automatically become member of Category:Charismatic Christian Wikipedians. To me the user name sounds rather deliberately hyperbolic than offensive, but you may want to check out WP:Username for yourself as I am more or less off for vacation.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Kucinich resolution article

It was a test page. The author created another page called The Kucinich Resolution with the exact same content. But I really think that your edits and disamb page was the correct way to go. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the other page and redirected it, so i reasoned that this was not a page to test wikipedia's features, but an actual post with the editor then changing their mind about the name but not aware of the move/rename option. For duplicates its often best to just redirect them, especially if the name makes some sense. Anyway, the outcome counts most, so thanks for the feedback, and let's see if the originator agrees as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Elliott Bay Towers

This article was deleted in late March from an expired prod, is it possible to restore it and then redirect to Frasier (as to keep what might be some relevant information)? Epson291 (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sabina Umeh

Hi Tikiwont

In February, it appears that you untagged the above-captioned article as a candiate for speedy deletion. If that is the case, could you please explain why? Bongomatic (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I understood that Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria (MBGN) is the most important pageant in Nigeria, so winning it and representing her country is a clear assertion of importance to avoid speedy deletion and as far as I am concerned also of notability. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User Loom91's edit war

Hi,

User Loom91 is unhappy with the Introduction template at Introduction to systolic geometry and has already removed it twice. What is the procedure to challenge his edits? Katzmik (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your comment at the discussion page of the article. Katzmik (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have it now on my watch page and will probably comment later. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [7]

Any chance you might be so kind as to at least userfy it for me? Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that you have argued hard for this article to be kept, but its history involves a number of editors, so a userfication would be temporary and and you haven't really given a reason. Nor did the DRV discussion itself offer such a reason, e.g that there are problems that should be addressed in userspace (as e.g in the Knights Templar artcile that I userfied) or a possible merge, so i'd rather postpone this until you someone else comes up with some new material or the like.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone in the DRV mentioned a book that does provide the dates and I want to see if I can maybe request that book through library loan and cite the article accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Thom Wolf

It's very difficult to understand what is going on with this page. Many months ago this page was unorganized, badly written, badly linked with no verifiablity. Over the past several months there has appeared a much better written, seemingly accurate, reasonable contribution. In the last week this contribution has been blasted away and again replaced with a poor contribution, leading to a "Speedy deletion" notice. Confusing matter more, it has been split into two pages.
Disambiguation may not make sense as it is obvious from the various links that both "Thom Wolf (pastor)" and "Thom Wolf (educator)" are the same person.
For now I will undo all these changes and request another editor to provide feedback. Usernow (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, looking at the two completely different versions, [8] and [9], I actually saw tow different biographies which prompted me to split. Part of the content comes from this resume [10]that doesn't even mention his earlier past. I now see the website that makes the connection. Sorry for messing things up even further. I'll fix some and and will reply more at the talk page.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tikiwont. I agree. It appears like the new edits (by Tylerhoehne are formatted very much like a resume vs. wikipedia. It's tough sometimes with all the edits flying back and forth. There is still some cleanup to do here, but isn't that always the case? Usernow (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)