User talk:KieferSkunk/Archive 4

Humble question:

I'm just a fan and mere advocate of the truth here and am not a self-promoter that inserts links to my personal web page. Those were press releases from the company headquarters, so I don't understand...

http://www.bandainamcogames.co.jp/bnours/hotnews/index.php?id=21

This article clearly states that Pac-Man celebrates his 25th anniversary on May 22, 2005 (In Japanese: "2005年5月22日で生誕25周年を迎えた『パックマン』。") and should be an acceptable source for a date of release. At the very least Namco America's website should be sufficient to point out the year of release as 1980 ( http://www.namcoarcade.com/nai_gamedisplay.asp?gam=pac25 ).

Why were these citations removed as acceptable references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.26.125 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to address these one-by-one:

• Japanese Namco-Bandai article: I missed the caption under the lower-right picture that specified the 5/22/2005 date. The phrase "He celebrates his birthday on this date" pretty definitively states that date. So I can accept that for the Japanese release.

• Microsoft Pac-Man C.E. press release: This article states 1981 for the American release, but does not give a specific date, and other articles that say "A year after the Japanese release" are not specific enough about the date. In the industry, "a year later" is very fuzzy - it only really means that the US release happened in the next calendar year relative to the Japanese release. So that article does not verify a specific release date, just a general one.

• American NamcoArcade.com article: This one backs up the Japanese article in terms of Pac-Man's presence in the industry starting in 1980. However, it does not give a specific release date, nor does it distinguish between the Japanese and American releases. Because the first article is verifiable for the Japanese release, we can probably assume that the 25th-Anniversary Edition refers to the original Japanese Puckman release. (Also of note is that Namco released the 25th-Anniversary Edition, whereas Midway released the original American Pac-Man.)

Based on this, I'll reinstate the first citation with some clarification text. We still need a verifiable source for the second release date.

Thanks for clarifying the Japanese article. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The USPTO First Use In Commerce for video games is 5-27-1981 [1]. Does this help with citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.26.125 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the quote in the article literally says he "meets his nativity" (shunen wo mukaeta 周年を迎えた) but that doesn't sound very normal in English so it sometimes means "anniversary". It doesn't say "birthday" because that word is "otanjyobi" 誕生日

"Meets his nativity" translates well enough to "has his birthday" - the word Nativity refers to a person's birth. You can cross-reference this with the "nativity scenes" commonly used at Christmas to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems concrete that the combination of official United States Copyright Office records AND the Namco Bandai Games Inc. Press Release stating the 5-22-1980 as his official creation date. Further, you can't have a "25th nativity meeting" and it definitely does not mean "birthday"... I assert it means "anniversary". You are the only one on my side and people keep reverting my changes... I'm just frustrated that legal records are being nullified by some newspaper article that was never verified. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.26.125 (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how "nativity", "anniversary" and "birthday" all can't refer to the same thing. Japanese uses separate words and phrases to refer to the same general concept when applied to different kinds of things (people vs. fictional characters vs. intangible concepts). English tends to fuzz these things quite a bit such that different foreign words translate to the same word in English. In other words, there are very few words in Japanese that have more than one meaning, vs. quite a few words in English.

As for the current state of the discussion: You don't have to convince me. I'd strongly recommend that you continue participating in the discussion on the main Talk page. And if the discussion continues much longer, I'll probably start asking in the main project talk page and/or open an RFC to discuss the content with a broader audience. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To the anonymous IP - "I'm just a fan and mere advocate of the truth here and am not a self-promoter that inserts links to my personal web page." Once again, I did not add references to classicgaming.com (which is also *not* my personal website), and I resent that implication. Those were put there quite some time ago by another editor, and that's easily verified by the edit history listing. Likewise, you were writing over the main citation creation without replacing it at one of the other two places that also cited it, destroying those reference citations as well. --Marty Goldberg 02:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace Keeper

To Keifer -

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For working to research and listen to all sides and ultimately keep the peace over at Pac-Man Marty Goldberg 03:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I'm glad to know I haven't upset you in that discussion, and I'd like to praise everyone for keeping their cool throughout. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pacman dispute

If you can get any screen shots for me that would be great.

thanks a bunch Matthias_09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias 09 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The layout in which you placed the screen shot pic could be worked on so that there isn't such a big area of white blank space. Just a suggestion -- Matthias_09 21:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Pac-Man article? I'm not seeing any empty space on that page. If you're talking about how it's shown in your Talk page, I'm sorry - I just put it there to show you that the image existed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship (2)

I noticed the userbox on your userpage, and I think you could get through an RfA...what are your thoughts? Would you like a nom? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. :) Thank you - I am interested. :) User:Andrevan had previously mentioned this (see the first Adminship section on this talk page), but at the time there had been a recent dispute between myself and another user that probably would have made it difficult. That seems to have passed now. Thank you for your consideration. :)

Not sure what your project involvement is, but if you can garner the support of admins in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, that's where I'm most active. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll start writing a nom. Yes, I have seen you around WT:VG - I gave you a barnstar too (I was Giggy). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhh, cool! I didn't make the connection. :) Thanks - I look forward to participating (or watching) the RfA process. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost ready - I'll give you a yell when it's good to go. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate and Wikipedia:Administrators before answering the questions. Give me a yell if you need a hand. Good luck! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The way the RfA is going now, it should/could pass - the percentage is over 80%, and that's usually a successful bracket. So don't lose hope. Sorry about the late reply, I missed your note and then archived. Good luck, and (hopefully) use the tools well! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I am working on trying to address the concerns of those who oppose the nomination - it seems all of the opposition comes from my perceived lack of experience, much of which is addressed in WP:AAAD, and much of it has to do with what people are still calling a "vague" response to the first question. I'm trying to get someone to tell me what's vague about the reply - I cited specific areas in order of knowledge/experience, with the footnote that I'm willing to help anywhere and everywhere I'm needed, learning the skills I need as I go. Not sure what else people are looking for, really. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Title MoS

Template:Title MoS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. User:Krator (t c) 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Answers to questions posed at your RfA

1. In order to be an admin, is it NECESSARY to have participated extensively in AIV, AN/I, etc.? Is any consideration given to the fact that I spend 90-100% of my Wikipedia time actually working on articles and mediation, and thus am not usually inclined to spend much time reporting or discussing vandals?

• It's unusual for a candidate to have no deletion related experience or reports to AIV.

1b. Is any consideration also given to the unfriendly and unhelpful responses I've gotten from admins on the few noticeboards I have attempted to participate in? People such as myself are discouraged from participating in those boards when our notices and complaints are summarily ignored or declined without comment. (This is an issue I would try to help resolve if I were made an admin.)

• If this doesn't succeed, then in your next RfA, you could mention that your involvement in the admin noticeboards would involve providing friendly and helpful advice to bewildered newbies, who unfortunately sometimes receive bitey responses.

2. Is it a requirement that an admin be available for much larger periods of uninterrupted time than an average user? My level of participation on Wikipedia will not change significantly if I'm made an admin - I cannot change my work hours or the time I spend with my wife, so if I will only be made an admin if I'm able to spend, say, eight hours a day on Wikipedia uninterrupted, then I am never going to meet that bar.

• Nope.

Overall, I would suggest you withdraw and then re-apply after gaining some experience of the deletion process and vandal reporting. Addhoc 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi,

You seem like a reasonable person, and I'm sure I'll be happy to support you after a little more time. I'm something of a stickler for project-space work in candidates -- admins need to have a very thick skin, and project-space is a great place to develop or display those talents. I know that I learned things about myself, and about conflict management, from my experiences there. Having to discuss such abstract concepts as notability, verifiability, "encyclopedical-ity" -- this is something an admin needs to master, and it requires a different skill-set than just discussing things in the real world that one enjoys (the sort of things discussed on article talk pages.) I don't consider my standard very high -- I look for around 500 WP-space edits, with a mixture of noticeboard reports and XfD participation. A person also acquires practical knowledge about how Wikipedia works by "hanging around" the exopedian areas, the kind of tiny details that come only from experience, and cannot be written in a manual.

I do see that you've been at Wikipedia a while -- my standards aren't absolute, and I very much appreciate the calm and kind way in which you've approached me. I'll consider the matter, and I'll probably end up withdrawing my comments from the RfA altogether. I know you have more important things to attend to in life than Wikipedia (if there is anyone who does not, I'm very worried for him!), but I do recommend spending a little time around some XfDs. My standards aren't based on whimsy; I genuinely believe they are a "forge" that forces one to ponder the encyclopedia's issues in a different way. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind response. I appreciate it. I'll look at some XfDs and see if I can find ways to contribute to them. Do you have any in particular you'd like to point me to? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA Response

I appreciated how forthcoming you were about it. In return, I owe you some candor: you knew me on iSketch as Ahab.--Father Goose 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA query

Hello again KieferSkunk! I think my RfA Criteria is causing trouble at the moment. I have always had a criteria in my head, but since I saw that other Wikipedians had written down a criteria in a similar fashion I thought I'd create my own. This was to make my thoughts set in stone and clearer for other people to deduce how I operate. But it seems to have simply caused more confusion, and if it carries on I'll get rid of it.

So, now for your query. Yes, you are correct, you have met a lot of the points I laid down in my criteria. You have done a lot of great article work. You interact well with other Wikipedians. You have built up many months of experience. But my main concern is the Wikipedia-space participation - a key area for administrators. Since there are less than 300 Wikipedia-space edits I thought you needed a little more time to work in these areas and become astablished in them. Once you've had some-more time in those areas, and become accostomed with them, I'll gladly support you. I hope that clears things up.

It is not that I think you are a bad Wikipedian, you aren't, trust me. I just think you need a bit more of a good all-round-experience that's all. But all sorts of people think different things, as we can see just by looking at your RfA, people have different standards.

With love and best wishes, Lradrama 08:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is with gratitude to Twooars for spotting the mistake that I am able to inform you I didn't intend the double negative in the above reply, It is not that I don't think you are a bad Wikipedian. I'm incredibly sorry, in no way whatsoever do I think you are a bad Wikipedian, sorry about that! I've changed it now. I hope you didn't think I was referring to you as such! ;-) Lradrama 07:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I figured out what you meant based on context. :) Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Atari Task Force

Just letting you know about the creation of the Atari Task Force as part of the Wikipedia Video Game project. --Marty Goldberg 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you so much for the Barnstar. I sure hope it wasn't granted in the hopes of softening my position; if so, it certainly wasn't necessary. I was just happy for the intelligent discussion that took place over at the project page. (And I don't doubt your sincerity—it's just that it was a bit of a shock. In more than two years on Wikipedia, it's my first one.) Again, thank you, and here's wishing you happy editing! Unschool 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - I think you genuinely deserve it. :) You're making much more of an effort to assume good faith and to keep the discussion on-topic and civil than I've seen very many people do, and I felt you deserved some recognition for it. It's not in any way trying to soften or butter you up. :) It took me a long time to earn a barnstar as well, so I know how it feels to go for a long time without recognition. But keep up the good work, and you'll earn plenty more from more editors. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I'm pleased to inform you that, consensus having been achieved, you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, hope you do good with your tools. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Wikipedia has been improved with your promotion; congratulations for this well-deserved recognition. --Parsifal _Hello 21:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You deserve it!! Pat^{Politics rule!} 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I am glad to see that you succeeded in becoming an administrator. Regards, --Carioca 23:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I know we will do good!! Pat^{Politics rule!} 23:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Now, I'm not an admin here, but on another Wiki, I am an admin/bureaucrat, so if you have any questions about how to use any of the admin tools, feel free to ask me. Ksy92003(talk) 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, congratulations and good luck. Any help or questions, don't hesitate to ask. Ease yourself in slowly is my tip. Hiding Talk 23:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Idem. User:Krator (t c) 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome for the support! Here is your new T-shirt! Acalamari 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Adminship

Eh, you're welcome? Heh, I'm not sure if you're supposed to reply to things like that or not... I'm sure you'll make a fine sysop.

Why don't you have some chocolate as a celebration?

Chocolate! Though, technically white chocolate is not chocolate at all.

Temperal^xy 02:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Now I know where I knew you from... you participated in the WQA I was involved with involving SouthernTexas a few months ago. If I had remembered that, my support would have been even stronger and I would have been more vocal in my support for you! Congrats!Balloonman 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay!

File:Admin Trophy.png

Go rogue! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O)

Good to see you get through, and use the tools well :) Check out Wikipedia:New admin school if you need help. Oh, and enjoy the image ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome and well done in succeeding! Best wishes, Lradrama 10:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful promotion. I'd like to invite you to read my little essay on the duties of an admin, and please do contact me any time if you have questions. Again, congratulations, and welcome to hell :) Keegan^talk 04:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for removing that template about speedy deletion. I was trying to grab all of those, and change them back. I had missed a few, and still am trying to make sure I got them all. Thanks again. businessman332211 19:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It appears that when you changed the content of the template itself to {{db-test}}, all pages that had used that template got the same tag. I've speedy-deleted the template per your request. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jequebskeet‎

My original justification for nominating this article for speedy deletion was not WP:NOT, but {{db-nonsense}} which is a valid criteria. A simple search of Google proves this. Anyway, I've nominated it for AfD as per your suggestion, but the result will be a foregone conclusion I feel this is a waste of time. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(nod) Sorry, I think I may have gotten the speedy-delete nomination confused with that of another article that cited WP:NOT. However, I was also doing my best to interpret WP:CSD - the page did not appear to be patent nonsense or spam, but rather an article about a neologism. Patent nonsense includes gibberish, pages that only contain phrases such as "Ryan has a big nose" or "Hattori is a hamster", etc. Of course, as always, another admin may override me on all this as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a borderline case of CSD A1 in my opinion. The text itself clearly makes sense, but the article title is gibberish. If there been even one hit on Google I would have PRODded it as a neologism (and followed it up with AfD if necessary), but it seemed to me that the page author had just sat down at the keyboard and typed in some characters at random to make up a word. Anyway, let the AFD take its course now. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's the course I probably would have taken myself. I'll keep an eye on the AfD and see what others have to say as well - I'm a new admin, so I have much to learn, and this will give me a good opportunity to learn how to handle similar cases. (It's quite possible you were absolutely right with the speedy-delete tag.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a tip, when it's not quite insane chatter, it usually adheres to no assertion of notability. I don't delete anything as nonsense unless it truly is incoherent, so I'm glad you see the guideline for what it is, but you can A7 it most of the time. the_undertow ^talk 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a bit of a grey area to me. That rule in speedy-delete seems to say that we can delete articles where the notability isn't asserted without giving the author a chance to assert its notability. That also seems to put admins in the position of defining what is notable and what isn't. Can you help explain how to interpret A7? I've been staying away from speedy-deletes with that rationale because I can't vouch for whether the article is or isn't notable - Canadian rock bands, for instance. (Check out Chaos for Comfort - it was deleted under A7, I believe.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't scrutinize it too much. Really. You are correct with your first assertion. But it does not put us in the position of defining notability - just the assertion of it.

• The Toronto Terrors are a band from Toronto that consist of four members. or

• The Toronto Terrors, widely known for their 7 hour recording of "Silent Night," consist of four members.

One of these asserts notability. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's not your burden to decide what is notable, but only IF the assertion is made. Hopefully that helps. the_undertow ^talk 03:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Abraby

I was told if the page constituted nonsense then it can be deleted like any other article because it is a mainspace page. Tiptoety 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Per this. Tiptoety 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't see it the same way. Go ahead and speedy-nom it again, and I'll let another admin take care of it. I could see how the author might feel his user page wasn't nonsense, though - it didn't look like just flat-out gibberish. *shrug* — KieferSkunk (talk) — 13:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no it is fine i will let it be. I just wanted to make sure that i wasn't missing something. Thank you, Tiptoety 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for ensuring that my sandbox wasn't speedily deleted! Warofdreams talk 00:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

New Userbox

This user is respected by Tinkleheimer and has done great work in Tinkleheimer's eyes.

I made my very first userbox and am passing it out. I won't be terribly offended if don't put it on your page. And if you want to make one for yourself, just create a subpage under your user page and just copy/paste the code from User:Tinkleheimer/RespectedByTinkleheimer. Thanks!!Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Angel Moxie

It seems like I'm missing something here, like a discussion that's not referenced on the page. There are four or five similar articles. Can you fill me in or point me towards the discussion? Toddst1 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Three Musketeers

User talk:Three Musketeers. Mannafredo 08:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:MB

New user NotSarenne (who under various ip's has been involved over the last few days in stirring up the kib/mib/etc. issue again) is attempting to remove another person's earlier statement (from September, and located at the top of the page) on the Talk:MB entry. He's trying to claim it as "not being relevant to the article" via Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages to justify the edit, when the statement simply goes against his viewpoints as stated in his original edit (11:44, 29 October 2007 as 217.87.99.127). He's been explained that guideline is for disruptive and unrelated edits to talk pages, and does not give him permission to remove someone elses valid attempt at a contribution. However, he refuses to acknowledge any of this and continues to state it as not relative towards improving the article. As an admin, your attention to the matter has been requested in the ensuing debate. --Marty Goldberg 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Just to explain the context for some of my comments, this user (and his various IP's) is under investigation for being the previously banned User:Sarenne because of similar conduct, including harassment of users on their pages (and editing other user's talk pages), contentiousness in posts and edit summations even when initially explained the guidelines and policies, and the drive for kib/mib/etc. usage against MOSNUM and consensus. All told, he's met 6 of the Disruptive Editing violations. There is currently a report being prepared here . Another admin, Centrx, was involved with this last time around (with the original Sarenne account) and will probably get involved again. --Marty Goldberg 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably best that I limit myself to commenting on the Talk page dispute - if an RFC/U is opened or anything, I'll be happy to weigh in there as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted to make you aware of it. And thanks for the neutrality on the Talk:MB page again, it was certainly appreciated. Definitely a good move when they nominated and approved you as an admin. --Marty Goldberg 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment. :) Conflict resolution is a skill I take pride in, and I hope it continues to help people here. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an update - thought you should know that the user has been banned. After having his ip blocked for being a sockpuppet, he proceeded to use multiple ip's to do disruptive edits here, here, here, and here, on the original incident report, and even on the responding admin's talk page where he actually harassed and berated the admin for taking "our side" (one of the other admins removed that, you might still be able to get to it being an admin. He also proceeded to post Fnagton's real name, call me a terrorist, threaten an ak47 and a host of other ridiculousness before several admins finally pulled the plug on him (and can see the "dialog" on his talk page history. Man what drama you missed out on. ;) --Marty Goldberg 01:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Crude oil soaker pad centrifuge talk page

The Crude oil soaker pad centrifuge talk page still exists, even after you deleted the article page. Can you delete that? --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - missed that one. :) Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE REPLY becki-McGuire@hotmail.co.uk

The page in question was Becki McGuire. This page was deleted in accordance with Speedy-delete criterion A7, which states that articles must meet basic notability criteria in order to be considered valid Wikipedia articles. Your article was only one line long and did not contain any assertion of notability. In addition, given the similarity between your username and the name of the article, it looks like you created a page that would be more appropriate for your user page.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a hosting service or social-networking site - your user page is intended for use to describe you as a Wikipedian - just like with articles, if it meets criteria for speedy deletion, it may be deleted as well.

I hope this helps answer your question. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war, please help!

The user Mumia-w-18 persistently removes a copyvio CSD tag and a tag added by CorenSearchBot - without being an admin! He seems to want to keep this blatant copyright violation from being properly reacted upon (by speedy deletion of the article Ome Henk. Please help! 217.233.230.172 18:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it appears that consensus is against you on this issue. According to the page history, CorenSearchBot never edited that article (Ome Henk). It does not appear to be violating any copyrights, and in any event, making legal threats against Wikipedia and its editors will not help your case. There are more appropriate avenues to pursue if you feel that an article about your topic should not exist. I will not be getting involved in this dispute. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RESPOND BACK ASAP

CAn you please tell me whats is so INAPROPPRIATE with HNTTMM that you had to delete it? i am just wondering....Haukaikela 19:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The page was deleted five times previously as blatant advertising. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion - one of those criteria states that recreation of previously deleted material, in whole or in part and without addressing the original issue with the content, is automatic grounds for re-deleting the article. I sent you the warning because it appeared from the deleted history that you had re-created the article at least once after it had already been deleted, even on the same day. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for the info...but it has been deleted countless time by the same person becasue they see it as advertisment.. Where is the advertisment? I re-create it becasue this has a singifcane to teh hawaiian people...it represents us as something in our society. and the person keep deleteing it, when i was not finished.Haukaikela 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: HNTTMM

The page was recreated five times with similar content so I deleted it without a second thought, and then blocked the creator for repeatedly doing so (he had been warned many times, but cleared the warnings and kept recreating). RHaworth has also salted the page, so I'm not sure if there's anything left to do. east.718 at 19:40, 11/3/2007

Usually I'll take a look at the deleted revisions - if it's the same exact content, I'll delete it most of the time. People are warned of WP:CSD and its policies when an article they create is tagged for speedy deletion. Could the user talk warnings use some work? Sure. Could the bureaucracy with policies be a little yes? Of course. All of this is beyond my control though. east.718 at 21:21, 11/4/2007