User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 8

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, Tikiwont, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cure's thirteenth album

It won't allow a revert, presumably because the editor who redirected it then redirected it to Dream 13 then redirected it again to Dream Thirteen and the number of edits since. I'm wanting to move the current article at Dream Thirteen back to The Cure's thirteenth album.--JD554 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The revert to Dream 13 won't work. --JD554 (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --JD554 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't move it in the first place. I was trying to restore an inappropriate move. --JD554 (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I was just (unsuccessfully) trying to put you in a position that you can technically undo it yourself and take responsibility for whatever title you consider appropriate.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your help. I'm assuming you didn't mean the comment you've removed the way I read it. I did try to revert the moves as you suggested, but they didn't work and I can only assume this was due to the number of edits to the article since the moves or possibly due to the number of moves. I just hope the album isn't going to be called Dream 13 or Dream Thirteen in the end! Cheers --JD554 (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake and my apologies, I've just realised I was trying to undo instead of move. At least I should remember if it ever happens again. Sorry for the misunderstanding --JD554 (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. And the removed comment was rather intended as a general suggestion to sort out the definite title before moving another time and would have better fitted on the articles talk page as I had all interested parties in mind. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Closure

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A.Z./Imagine

Do you feel that your closure precludes boldly removing the pages from the essays category?

Given that categories don't provide references, and the essays themselves don't note that the main author was indef blocked, grouping these contextually with other essays by users in good standing doesn't seem appropriate.

What do you think? - jc37 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As you raised that point versus the end of the discussion, there wasn't much feedback. How to characterize or categorize user pages is on one hand somewhat beyond the scope of MfD. On the other hand, most editors from the nom to yourself treated the pages as essays in userspace and the category Category:User essays "is for essays in the userspace" without distinguishing between editors, so they would stay by default. Moreover, they are being categorized indirectly by applying the {{essay}} tag to it. So to remove them from the category would require removing the tag and somehow amount to arguing that the MFD consensus consisted solely in keeping the content, but not in the form of user essays.

If that doesn't help, it may be useful to raise the issue elsewhere, e.g. on the MfD talk page or elsewhere. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are ways around that, such as using a variable or parser (or both) in the template, but that aside, I dunno. This is one of those cases where not being able to explain the context of the essays due to the fact that you can't in a category, would seem to indicate that categorising the essays is probably not a good thing.

Another option might be to tag the essays with a concise notice at the top as to the current status of the user in whose userpages the essays reside.

I dunno, but just doing nothing just doesn't seem right somehow. What do you think? - jc37 04:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the context of user essays is rarely explained and the status of the user should be clear from their user page. So I'd either leave it for the time being or remove the tags / cats, leaving an explanatory note at the respective talk pages or to the user themselves.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal with a note on the talk page does sound like the best "compromise" solution.

Thanks for your insight, I appreciate it : ) - jc37 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: VulGarrity

Well, I have over 3,000 edits and have been around since January 2007 so I'm considering adminship, but until then I'll have to use the {{db-afd}} to close AFDs that have a delete consensus. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

report to msg regarding mahaabhaarat

ya,Mr. Tiki. I agree what you called on my page but here is my full review on that.

Review:I am not misunderstanding twinkle. twinkle was just a tool for me to run when i was found save button pressed twice or more in same minit. this was very easy for me when this user is new i will guide them and they will stoped there edits beacouse when i was prompt to so evidence to data for verify and to show admin team that these data is came from here(when prompted). they have no evidence to so me beacouse this are personal text due to refer rohiini's edit they redirected backlink to Eijaz Khan's page and called that actor ajaz khan by niglecat this fact that this named article is present on wikipedia.

but still if you think that twinkle is not in good use for me then remove my script page i will never start till experiment something good by edit page from history list

Hardik Kansagra (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

previous message grammar checked

Here is grammer chacked in MS Word version of previous message.

Yes, Mr. Tikiwont I agree what you called on my page but here is my full review on that.

Review: I am not misunderstanding twinkle. Twinkle was just a tool for me to run when I was found save button pressed twice or more in same minute. this was very easy for me when this user is new i will guide them and they will stopped there edits because when I was prompt to so evidence to data for verify and to show admin team that these data is came from here(when prompted). they have no evidence to so me because this are personal text due to refer rohiini's edit they redirected back link to Eijaz Khan's page and called that actor ajaz khan by neglects this fact that this named article is present on wikipedia.

but still if you think that twinkle is not in good use for me then remove my script page I will never start till experiment something good by edit page from history list

Hardik Kansagra (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit pattern for my self: when I was found major content added. I was always check history for editor's name or contribution or in the basis of that when I was prompted for proof to verify the content's origin to braking copyright policy of that site or not and braking any policy or terms of edit in wikipedia or not. Because my edits here filtered one common thing that content must be verifiable or not a personal text with commenting any human's work. Because this is against to prove edit wikified. That’s why I previously called vandalism not here but I have article where editor added this way but that content is already verified by me that this text is from this site or it is in good faith so I was neglect it for just one content remove edit. Hardik Kansagra (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes content must be verifiable. Beyond, above is incomprehensible. Just consider the suggestion on your talk page. Best, --Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox

Thanks for closing this, and maybe it's moot, but I found the No Consensus closure rather puzzling. There was clearly a Keep consensus. The nominator emphasized conflict of interest, which is why I moved the article to my userspace, in order to moot that argument. Ned Scott moved it back, saying the user had a clear right to work on the article there, but if there were agreement on the problem of the user's COI, again, that could be undone.

Besides the nominator, against the five Keep !votes, there were only two Delete !votes, and one of them was from Allemandtando, a sock puppet of [[User:Fredrick day|so the result was 5:1 against the nominator. See block log. Maybe it's not worth your changing of that closure, but I thought I should at least mention it. --Abd (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I tend to consider the nom, and in as far as numbers matter there were three delete opinions besides the nom. Nevertheless it matters if one of them was from an indef blocked user, which I didn't notice. In any case the closure wasn't fully intended as No consensus (not bolded) and mentions an agreement to keep, but my summaries are inconsistent, so I'll align it and the MfD notice with this.[1]

Thanks. Much better. --Abd (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hkansagra still reverting edits of Wiki Users

Hello, User:Hkansagra hasn't paid heed to your advice at all and is still continuing his job of reverting contributions made by other users after terming it as 'vandalism'. I think he is totally confused on what is Vandalism or he feels he owns the article because he created it. Please do something about it.Samira 2008 (talk)07:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For the moment I've tried to clarify and reinforce the message.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Y, let me clarify some basics problem regarding these things

• there is no need to define you because you are one of admin who responds the speedy deletion of page after this if some one spammed or vandalized this content and if this article comes for deletion then its only possible for me to add hang on template and respond to it and at that time if I knows that where is the origin of this content then it will be helpful for me. on the basis of the content called vandalism again is not any matters what content added because I knows that content was useful for article but there edit pattern will reflected seem terms of vandalism as referred from IRC feed image on cleaning of vandalism.
• reflection of vandalism: vandalism template moved from 4 to 3 with referred comment revert vandalism picking up as result 12-13r/min give me just one link to the my contribution page where I was reverted 12 or 13 pages in just minute. When I was watched there contribution page then it shows me the so many edits madden repeatedly in few and few minute. so I was only suggested them after first revert to followed both contributor that stop your work which gives me the vandalism signal and look what they done they started one vandalism edit war. Hardik Kansagra (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Y

• Settlement: as the final result of this discussion herewith I give you guaranty that when I was updating my user page. I will remove vandalism information user box the base thing which start this all. As you are admin please remove the full subspace of user script page comment misunderstand use of twinkle which uninstalls twinkle and do not think about live contribution counter it is not in use currently but not also uninstalled from script page. Neglect adds of speedy deletion template this type of removal do not matters me as bad work to my user page. Hardik Kansagra (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Y

• Need More Help: Thank you, for doing this. i need one more help from you that, it is possible on wikipedia that "meta wikimedia user page" will redirect to "english wikipadia user page" without showing user space of "meta wikimedia"Hardik Kansagra (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know you can only create a link / soft redirect, but not a full one. I have e.g. a sentence that asks people to contact me here. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ulteo

Tikiwont, you deleted Ulteo but I don't understand your reasoning for deleting this new stub. Why is Ulteo deleted, but not articles for other coLinux-based products such as [[andLinux] or Topologilinux which also seem to lack external sources. Several of us believe that these new products are very notable and that WP should discuss these interesting products -- These coLinux-based products are not J.A.L.D. (they run alongside Windows) and are quite different from alternatives such as VMware, Cygwin & a dual-boot Windows/Linux system. If next time, we referenced reliable external sources, would that satisfy your requirements notability and inclusion? -= Gigglesworth (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you meanwhile commented at User_talk:Ezra_Wax#Ulteo I'll elaborate there and userfy to User:Gigglesworth/Ulteo.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Kaffir piano

The family of lamellaphones is pretty broad I really don't think that would be an effective strategy. Moreover, although this designation is out of step with the times, there's a long history of its use. I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise that mbira should be used as the generic name for this group of instruments. I myself have played mbira for over 35 years and have also been doing scholarly research on the instrument for at least a good 25, so I love the instrument. If there was going to be any kind of merger I'd put it together with lamellaphones, which is a much more descriptive term and has generally been accepted by the scholarly community as an appropriate description of this type of instrument. Kkhemet (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I may have been mislead by the articles statement. "This is another name for a type of Mbir." If it isn't just another name or designation but a distinct instrument, it should explain what it is. Otherwise the designation should lead to place where it and possible variants are explained. Anyway this is a question for the article's talk page where I will post this conversation. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate your response and will add more details describing the instrument. Admittedly, I had to do a quick revision in order to avoid deletion of this article. Thanks again for your comments. Kkhemet (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

MfD edit

Totally my mistake. I got this one confused with another one PeterSymonds beat me to (if I recall). I spent some time puzzling over why I tried to archive it, since I already knew that yours was the second nomination. It was only when I realized that Peter archived my target MfD, that I goofed. Apologizes for any confusion this may have brought. Regards. Synergy 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, after being initially perplexed for a moment by the 'Speedy keep', it looked already like a technical mistake. I even messed up this particular nom myself initially . As i was packing, I was just glad that I noticed and tried to make clear for others as well, why the MfD is there. Beyond that I notice that archiving MfDs as wiki links only, does not help to identify such kind of error, because the MFD itself is not transcluded anymore and thus thus the closure is not directly visible. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'll run this by Nixeagle. Hes currently rewriting MFDbot for me, so we can have a bot do the edits again. Synergy 15:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Queens of the Stone Age Taskforce

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed taskforce Queens of the Stone Age|Queens of the Stone Age. There's alot of Queens of the Stone Age-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this taskforce can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this taskforce off the ground and a few Queens of the Stone Age pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't really know the band; must have edited some article passing by.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Evangelical Mission Ministries Comments

I appreciate your comments. I also am new at the editing/writing portion of this so that is part of the reason for the questions below.

I began this article because of the article I read for Eastern Mennonite Missions which was also located at the "EMM" disambiguation page. The "Eastern" article does not cite any external references, yet is listed without problem, without bot messages saying there are no sources, etc. I am wondering what the main difference is between the "Eastern" page and the one I created. Perhaps the other page is simply "grandfathered in" because it was created before the citation criteria??

Looking at several articles in the religious orgs stub pages, they appear in large part consistent with the article I wrote. Perhaps my article is more appropriately a stub and should be re-categorized as such. I don't exactly know where to go from here. Suggestions would be appreciated. Bengal9377 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your help with the page move. This is the second time in two weeks this has happened. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem; strange though. If it repeats another time a post at the tech village pump might be in order. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are curious, here is a report I made about the first incident. Viriditas (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wissenschaftliches Institut zur Erforschung der Tabakgefahren

Hi, can you please tell if the translation of Wissenschaftliches Institut zur Erforschung der Tabakgefahren as Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research appropriate? I found no better alternative. It is regarding the Research section in the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless there is an official English name under which it might have been known back then, I'd go with the translation most common in the English sources actually cited. Many Germans would probably rather translate it literally into something like "Scientific Institute for the Research into (Study of) the Hazards of Tobacco" (as e.g. here [http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/1/35) but I am not sure if that was an official name, while as far as i see Proctor uses Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research and that seems to be the smoother variant.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu

Tikiwont,

You have endorsed Phil Sandifer's speedy deletion of this article. You have suggested that discussion of a fresh draft might come to a different conclusion. How would I go about creating such a draft and submitting it for approval? - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me first underline that it is more appropriate to say that I closed the deletion review accordingly as I read the discussion in that sense. While the second DRV kind of closed the chapter of the previous deletion, it was less articulate whether or not we should or could have an article on Sofia.

As far as I see the memorial chapel has actually been built and there is also coverage (subsequent to the deletion) that indicates that her parents actively call on her behalf for tighter legislation. That might possibly help someway towards addressing both the previously felt need to protect the relatives as well as possible 'Not news' objections, but I haven't checked this in detail, nor would I want to offer an opinion.

At this point one can expand the article on the murderer with references regarding the aftermath of the crime. That seems to be reasonable in any case and is where I' would start. A separate article on Sofia can be drafted first in userspace. Where it should be discussed after wards is somewhat ambiguous. A recreation after a clear BLP deletion should be discussed at DRV, but this isn't really such a case. On the other hand another DRV might be able to assess readily whether the draft addresses previous concerns or should be sent to AfD. The alternative is to maybe gather some opinion and then go directly to AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Error

It seems to me he/she was a real blocked user. But i've seen that it's only an hoax. Pardon, delete it --DerBorg (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nope :-) Sorry for mistake. --DerBorg (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for yet to be published books

Even though I know the answer is likely "no" what is the official stand on publisher sought reviews, i.e. the ones that appear on the back cover, as being reliable or not [I think in the case of Morals and Markets Palgrave did not directly pay any of the reviewers? --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, part from not necessarily independent, in any case they aren't published, no? This essay might be interesting for you.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:24th August 2008

Ok thanks, i was about to leave it for someone else to tag or take care of, after tagging quite a few speedies over the past couple of months i am still getting the hang of it. I was being bold and probably "nocontent" would have been a better reason but you did the right thing so thanks for leaving the message. Now i know if someone creates another "date" page i will redirect it. I always have found it best to follow up articles that i have tagged to see if the admin followed my chosen criteria or chose another, sometimes it comes down to personal choice. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 13:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Desperate Living

Please don't change the character name from how it is credited in the film. This info belongs in the body of the article. Thanks.Mjpresson (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had already noticed your revert and actually agree. I tried it once I noticed that the character isn't yet mentioned in the plot but also realized that I don't know enough about the film to improve the plot, but messing with cats section wasn't satisfactory either. If you can improve the plot, even better.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll work it into the article somehow. Mjpresson (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive Me

This single is now available and gaining airplay on stations such as BBC Radio 1. Can you kindly inform me, what is the basis for article deletion and protection? Ta. — eon, 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The original deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song) ended in clear consensus. I deleted this once in June, where it hardly had any content besides claiming another time that it is the forth single, as repost per WP:CSD#G4 as it did not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. I protected the page then as it was already the forth recreation. I merely reapplied the protection today merley as it didn't seem to have worked last time: I counted another three recreations and deletions, so i also unlinked it to avoid the impression that thsi is an artcile missing. If I now look more in detail at the latest deleted version of today, it had two citations, one to a community site and one was [2] which supported the claim that it is being released, but why should the bare announcement of an upcoming single already be worth an article in the light of the previous AfD? As far as i see you also have checked with the deleting admin about this and he might elaborate or have suggestions. Mine would be to wait until the single has actually been released and is covered by reliable independent sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why your not finding sources is because your not looking at sites like channel 4 or music video news tells you what to look for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.73.48 (talk • contribs)

Thankyou for that explanation. I believe the AfD result was correct when Forgive Me was nominated, back in May, but time moves forward and consensus can change. Indeed, this single was released in Australia and New Zealand last month, and is now available on iTunes in both those territories. The UK will follow shortly, where it has been released to radio. Perhaps it is time to reconsider? If the page should be recreated, then I think an admin should do it, to avoid any further misunderstanding. I will wait for your comments on this matter. — eon, 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, consensus can change but the fact that several different editors looked at the repost and tagged them for speedy deletion does not indcate that this is the case here, and the current state at is also perfectly in line with WP:MUSIC#Songs which represents our more general consesus. Until things change, I'll create a redirect at above place as it may help.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

conrfimed on official site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.73.48 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See above. A mere announcement would not invalidate the previous AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please remove your redirect on this song please? It has been officially announced as a single now by her official website and so deserves its own page just like every other single by every other artist. It's unfair to protect it and not let someone create it. It was fine to delete it when people made the article too early as the song wasn't even announced but now it has. Plus it's been released on Australian and New Zealand iTunes for about 3 weeks now and the video will be released in the next few weeks. What is the issue with not allowing it to have its own page? Sony BMG Australia announced it months back so why is this not enough to warrant a page? Adi39 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

well, thanks for ta least linking to the announcement of yesterday (!); previous poster didn't. As for the rest, please be so kind to read above. Are there any reliable sources yet so that we can write an encyclopedic article and not just fan driven advertisment? Cause it isn't correct to say that every annouced single has a page after an AFD that results in deletion. See also WP:MUSIC. i'll be back tomorrow.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can get a more reliable source than her official site and Sony BMG's official site. What is it exactly that you're wanting? Adi39 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Offical site is no fans site.This has ben officaly annouced look at Better in time refences. As soon as it was annouced the page was made for it. Why should this be diffrent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.73.48 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i was in a hurry yesterday and could not choose words on the best way or add wiki links. There is a protection simply because numerous re-posts have already been deleted per the previous AfD and it does not help anybody if articles are created and deleted. The song as composition and recording existed already then. What is changing now is simply that the song is available commercially for sale in the internet and soon in music stores. So the announcement that the single is for sale is in that sense reliable, but it is not independent of the subject in what we call here reliable independent sources and it is certainly not substantial. If we just report that we have the collusion between the artist, the producers, the stores and the fans, that I above somewhat imprecisely referred to as fan-driven advertisement: A Wikipedia article about nothing else than an announcement of a single. If you actually look at WP:MUSIC, it will say that this is not sufficient to have a separate article about a song. So what Wikipedia is waiting for is any coverage of the single or song in independent published sources. If anybody has that, let me know. The protection expires automatically on expected release date in any case.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

he video premiures on channel 4 on Tuesday 16th September 2008 at 11.05pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.73.48 (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC) OMG PLEASE CREATE THE PAGE ALREADY. I don't want this to be the first leona single with a wiki pages. JUST DO IT NO QUESTIONS.

Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately I don't receive channel 4. Hopefully somebody will start writing about it. Maybe we can start all together now a draft at User:Tikiwont/Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song) and then move its to mainspace once it is good enough to be deleted as repost? I mean it has already been deleted 8 times or so.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At least there a start. I just have to login. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.73.48 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Promise_(Girls_Aloud_song) Here and example of a single not out for ages having a wiki page. Why should Fogive Me be diffrent. There video out tomorrow on yahoo music. All you have to do is put that teplate up till 27th October —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.73.48 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but did you actually read above? Show me some good interdependent sources and I'll unprotect. the ones for Girls aloud aren't particular strong but they haven't been examined yet. The main diference is simply that it hasn't be through a deletion disscsion and been deleted eight times. Or just edit and osurce above linked draft in my userspace and I'll move it once ready. You can also got to [WP:DRV|deletion review]], though.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=TbObeE6s1I8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.73.48 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We now have a release date, single cover and music video. It needs its own page. Adi39 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate you enthusiasm, but this is still far form meeting WP:MISIC#songs and I really haven't anything new to say. Lifting the protection before release date wouldn't help as the article has meanwhile been deleted another few times more under different names. If it charts things will certainly be different. If you have any sources you can discuss them at the redirects talk: Talk:Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song) or work on them in a userspace draft.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurry up make the page already. i posted loads of sources all u fucking admins do is fucking delete them all. IUM NOI WAISTING MY TIME FINDING THEM AGAIN ANDFOR U TO DELETE the page. Hurry up u fucking retards twats.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.168.218 (talk • contribs)

Reposting under different titles where other administrators delete them and leaving insults at my talk page won't help.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's now charted in Sweden at number 28. Bubbling Under in Poland too. Adi39 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song) (is currently still a redirect.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. :) Adi39 (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the revert Tikiwont, I didn't think through the implications of taking out the nowikis did I, I thought it would only appear on my page. Ex nihil (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just note that I did not revert to the nowiki version but actually listed the templates via {{tl|template}} which gives you also a working link as e.g. {{template}} which explains it further. Tikiwont (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

hello

Hi, why are you deleting the article. I have read up on your policies and feel it would be best left as a stub for now. Surely, this article fits a stub.Infocentral2000 (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A stub is valid if there is potential for an encyclopedic article but little has been done yet. I feel for Noble Chummar it is the opposite. A fair attempt to use everything available but the time isn't ripe yet. In any case this is now a community decision.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read the comments for deletion. All the sources are valid. I suppose others will have to add on to it as there is a multitude of information on the subject, and adding it as a stub will inspire others to add on.Infocentral2000 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC).

Well, hopefully somebody finds more references before the discussion is closed. This[3] isn't promising, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Ok, ok, ok, I'v read all the policies and I'm truly sorry if I'v bitten a newcomer, and will apoligize myself, however, whilst I thankyou for pointing it out, there is no reson why I shouldn't put a delete template on a page I suspect, and then let an admin make the final decision, but in this case pointing it out is justifed, and I shall apoligize as well as being more carfull about delete templates in future. Also I don't know what you mean about my twin, but if you want to ask him somthing feel free, cheers Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama-Ayers moves

We don't need to keep track of a half-dozen moves that were all made within about an hour. It's just junking up Wikipedia with all the possible names that sockpuppet could think of. Flatterworld (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but it looks to me that moves had been made on different days since July and also involved more that just one person. In general we have WP:RFD for cases where the speedy deletion criteria don't apply, but there page move redirects are often kept as 'cheap' unless there is harm. Nor do I see why you call the involved editor a sock puppet, and would rather consider it inappropriate as there seems to be a clean block log and no SSP case. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Google

Hi the Noble Chummar page was deleted. Why does it still show up on google search?Infocentral2000 (talk)

Because it takes some time for the Google index to catch-up. It stays around even longer in their cache. But it is in any case a Google and not a Wikipedia issue.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

These pages are useless, I mean they vandalized once and mostly they would not vandalized again (unpopular pages). Also, they meet speedy deletion policy, why should we keep such pages or create unpopular talk pages with talk header while probably no one will use it.--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 12:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "because it costs us less work": C'mon, we've many and many active admin, we can always give more users admin tools. We can also program bots with admin tools if needed!
2. "no deletion record needs to be created in the database": Well, I believe that a page with its history recods more bytes than a single entry in our deletion log. Don't worry about performance!
3. "and deletion would not protect it from vandalism anyways": Somehow, it will. There is a note shown on deleted pages before new creation, There is also a note put in the creation user talk, then he may stop or think again before re-creation.

Have a nice day!--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RFD of WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT

Hi, I feel that your closure of this RFD wasn't appropriate. The headcount was 6 to 4 in favour of keeping, and your closure message came across more as a comment that might be attached to "delete" than a summary of the arguments. I invite you to reconsider it, noting, if you wish, that the nominator has left the project. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I had indeed not noticed that the nom has left. The close came from what I considered very substantial arguments by Protonk and The Man in Black, but i take note that the wording may not really reflect this. I've undone the close anyways and will leave a note.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

scouting council redirects

Waht are you trying to do? They seem to be very normal redirects to list entries and i see no information what you would want to move there.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Scouting Project has determined that most Scout articles beneath council level (camps and activities and so on) are not notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia, but that larger council articles containing broader information are salvageable. I'm trying to put longer, well-written but too narrow articles into a broader home. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see how db-move applies there. You can either simply expand the redirect to artcile if it warrants it or rather use '''{{'''db-move'''|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|REASON FOR MOVE}}''' if there is an article that needs to be moved, so it get's clear. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And hey, thanks for undoing my requests before you asked me what I was doing. I'll get an admin to do it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, seriously I think thought you should rather merge into the redirect that have an edit history and not move sub articles, which is why i declined your requests. Could have asked a moment earlier though, sorry if i stepped on your hoofs. Looking at the long camp articles that exist, I see your logic, but leaving the edit history under a redirect from merge at the place where it was also has benefits. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ITL Removal Justification Seems Incorrect

On or about 08-Sep-2008 you reversed my update for the ITL disambiguation entry as a reference to "In the Labyrinth", which is a role-playing game designed by Steve Jackson. In your removal note, you cite two reasons.

1. In the Labyrinth as that refers to something different than a role playing game

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantasy_Trip#In_the_Labyrinth where it states:

"Released in 1980 as an 80-page, 8 1/2 x 11 saddle-stitched book, In the Labyrinth: Game Masters' Campaign and Adventure Guide added a role-playing system and background to the basic combat and magic system of Melee and Wizard."

Once you add the campaign and adventure guide to the basic underlying character system, it becomes a role-playing game.

I am confused. In what way is this role-playing game not a role-playing game?

2. The target is not necessarily known as ITL

In point of fact, I kept seeing references to "ITL" in a TFT E-List and came to Wikipedia to find out what it meant, so it most certainly *is* known as ITL. Do I need to find a way to cite an E-List in order to justify this fact? How does one cite an E-List?

When I later found the explanation on that same E-List, I vowed to make everyone else's lives a little easier by adding this information to Wikipedia. (Dismayed I was to discover that my work was removed on what seem to be shaky grounds.)

Perhaps I did not clarify something properly? I thought I was following all the guidelines.

What did I miss?

Many thanks for your time.

Marinersk (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The line that you added here [4] contained two links. If you actually click on the first, In the Labyrinth, it will refer to a 1967 multi media presentation, which was simply not correct. I then checked the other link The_Fantasy_Trip#In_the_Labyrinth and it did not mention the abbreviation ITL (as opposed to TFT). Now if you think that is known as ITL you should first add a "(ITL)" in the local context. If it is known widely enough it can be mention on the global dab page, but at that point it looked to me as an addition on what seemed to be shaky grounds. I've now updated the dab page but trust on you to expand and possible source the target section.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User Seicer

Thank you for taking the time to post on my discussion board. It is very appreciated. After reviewing the information from the user "Seiser" at this address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seicer , particularly after reading the "Don't-give-a-fuckism" section (pardon the profanity), it seemed clear to me that there was a problem with this user. My comments were not meant to be a personal attack, but an attempt to report a potential problem with a user that may be engaging in questionable activity on wikipedia. It is my feeling that it may be worth checking into the history of activity from this user. Thank you again for your response. Cdisalv (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I will review your guidelines and provide a response. Cdisalv (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Rivera

Sorry getting very confused with multiple versions of this article. The original article appears to be at Oscar Rivera and was started in 2005, not by User:Justiciasocial. This article was cut and pasted to Oscar López Rivera. It looks like you're fixing it. Tassedethe (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I was momentarily confused because artciles and redirects changed while I was looking at them. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tikiwont, thanks for your help. Sorry for all the versions -- I was just trying to ensure that people could find the article with or without the accent.

All versions of the article have disappeared -- Oscar Rivera, Oscar Lopez Riera, Oscar López Rivera. Actually I think we could eliminate the accented version (López) and just keep the unaccented version (Oscar Lopez Rivera). I puzzled since the other changes were immediate. Justiciasocial (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the article has been deleted as copy right violation. But there was a stub before that, from which you can restart. If you want you can move it to the unaccented version yourself. A redirect will automatically remain.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do the move. No violation was intended -- I was just trying to preserve the edited content. Thanks for your patience while I learn how to do this stuff. Justiciasocial (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've added two refs with all the bells and whistles. Just study the source code as it will help you to expand and write a decent article on the other fellow that you tried.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Registered Agent (Again)

Hey Tiki! Sorry I've been gone a while... I've been off Wiki for probably a year (largely because of the petty bickering, vandalism, and SPAM), but I stopped by the other day and - wow! The bullshit has just continued since I've been gone. :-) I note that NRAI is still defacing the "Registred Agent" article and promoting their agenda (Whatever that is... I'm assuming SEO, but since there is no SEO advantage to being mentioned on Wiki, I don't know if they are persistent or just stupid). (Note the only edits they've ever done are defacement or "pro NRAI" drivel.) Anyway, this is all ironic since I actually wrote the article on NRAI way back in the day which I thought was actually pretty flattering to them. This is also funny because I know who they THINK I am and I get a big kick out of that.

Anyway, I am glad to see I was finally villified on the "Big 4" argument from way back. I recently saw another article mentioning the "Big 4" agents while reading some magazine outside a law office and thought about logging in and throwing that in everyone's face. Also, I saw the "Registered Agents" Knol which was interesting.

So... the question is... are they going to be allowed to continue to SPAM the page? Or is it just constant post, undo, repeat still? Dougieb (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I stepped back there some time ago and am reluctant to engage but actually the situation was rather quiet recently. Most recent edits are not about the function of the RA but about who gets mentioned where and how with accusations of conflict of interest for NRAI or Incorp, spam, vandalism and defacement going back and forth with some profanities and personal attacks (such as 'idiot) added to the mix. I think everybody should tone down the rhetoric and talk. This is essentially a content dispute with some edit warring: How to represent the industry and on the basis of what sources. The only thing new is one source which I do not have available, though. (You may feel vilified but in the past it was the common knowledge argument.) In general the removal of cited content needs to be explained or discussed on the talk page. Beyond that, there are channels for dispute resolution etc. as well as possibilities to ask for administrator intervention in case of persistent spam, vandalism or incivility most if which require previous warnings. Hope that helps.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on every point. The recent edits all over DO appear to be very good. I used the word 'villified' because apparently someone else put that in months ago and added the reference you and I could not find. I said 'idiot' because 1, I know who is making the edits, and 2, I was annoyed that they said that "RA Specialist" was me sockpuppeting. I have no need to sockpuppet. As you know, I have no problem saying what I think AS me. I also say 'idiot' because I wrote an article about their dumb company years ago thereby (I'm guessing in their estimation) promoting them to some minor extent. I also created an article for both CSC and CT. Note that I never bothered to write an article about Incorp. I can only imagine if I wrote an 'Incorp' article how it would completely hit the fan. I may actually do this now to spite. As you can see from my history, I've created and edited a bunch of different articles, but this is the one that killed Wiki for me.Dougieb (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, can be unnerving here specially after the climate around an article is already poisoned. But maybe above history tells us that if Incorp meets WP:CORP someone fresh will get around to write an article about it. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of the issue the anon mentioned on my talk page... much appreciated :-) --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

HiperVideo Studio external link deleted

Hi,

I am the author of the hypervideo authoring system named HiperVideo Studio.

I added a external link to my system web page and remained in the Hypervideo entry in WP for a long time.

It was deleted, added again, and now it is gone again.

This system has been on use for more than 4 years, despite its limitations and features it is a nice product. In fact a new version, web based, is comming.

Can someone tell me what is the problem with a reference to this system?

Thanks for your attention,

66.82.9.15 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Benito Estrada / hipervideo (at) benitoestrada.net

The edit summary contained a reference to Wikipedia's guideline on external links. It that sense a simple link to a product does not add much value to the article. If I now re-assess the article, it needs some work and there are other links to be examined as well to avoid that it becomes a list of authoring tools. There should be separate articles on the notable tools so that they can be wiki linked, allowing for the article to focus more on techniques, history and applications. But that will take a moment. Meanwhile, please also have a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)