User talk:Lankiveil

I request that you take back my bann

I am reposting this here since you didn't answer, you can see my reply here: [1]

I am requesting that you take back my bann here

The information the other admin gave you was not true, please take a look at what I have written. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lankiveil, thats just it! I did not do that edit that I asked about! I asked wizardman about this edit: [2] The adding of "jabal al druze" to a sentence where she talks about her childhood which I interpenetrated could be a violation against my topic bann since I am not allowed to change the ethnicity of a person, thats why I asked about it to wizard, admin cactus later told you that i did the edit and you now repeated that I did, but I did not! The edit here: [3] Is a completely different sentence that has no connection to the one I asked about. There is nothing connected to the sentence I asked about to wizard. And I did not change the meaning, I did not take out or ad anything to the meaning, I only corrected the grammar. "rather than Jabal" is like saying "rather than mountain" its either "the Jabal" (the mountain) or the complete name "Jabal al-Druze". What I am requesting is that you strike out the edit you did here: [4] And make a comment, explaining that I did not violate my topic bann or restriction. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would like you to raise the issue with a second arbitrator, please direct that arbitrator to my posts defending myself that I did not do that edit, but a separate one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Agat computer

On January 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agat computer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramon Magsaysay image

Hello. It will be a bad idea to re-upload the deleted image here. It would almost certainly be deleted again because (a) there is an image commons:File:MagsaysayRamon.jpg and (b) the image that was deleted is not PD in the US which is what matters here. It will be better to upload this on Commons and take a chance with the URAA. The correct license tags on Commons would be {{PD-Philippines}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} [doesn't exist here as you can see from the red link but does on Commons]. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Lankiveil

Sorry, I have removed your DYK for which you wanted to claim points- I'm afraid only articles worked on and nominated during 2010 are eligible. Also, in future, please link to the DYK nomination on T:TDYK in your submission. J Milburn (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg ban length

Hi, I noticed you indef blocked Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs). According to the arbcom case, they should be blocked for only one year. If there is some other explanation for the longer block, it would be helpful to note this on the users talk page. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Miss Globe International

• Please check the article Miss Globe International. The article was created by the organizers and being maintained by 7 people from the Miss Globe Organization, as per statement of the owner. The owner, Rasim Aydin, and his staff have continue to edit the article despite the issue of Conflict of Interest. They have been warned several times. The article do not meet the general notability guideline since no reliable and secondary sources about the topic. The article and the pageant has no notable third party references other than official pageant website. The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The winners of the pageant have no (or barely) any mainstream news agency (like Associated Press or Reuters) that picks up the story. If there's any publicity or promotion, it is done mostly through blogs, paid advertisements, and personal non-notable websites. The content of the article is based on original research as claimed by the organizers. They are not even sure of the history of the pageant and its previous winners. The list of winners seem fictitious and unverifiable. Please look at the article and nominate for deletion if possible. Thanks.--Angel Clinton (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the Wikipedia User Talk of the president of Miss Globe pageant.--Angel Clinton (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I need clarification from you

In this edit here: [5] You mentioned this edit of mine: [6]. I asked the drafter wizard, nr 6, about edits in violation of collaboration/consensus/mediation and I cant revert it, and he responded "If there was a collaborative consensus on it, then someone else will revert you don't have to worry about it."

During the arbitration case I stopped editing the articles in the scope of the case, Arab Cowboy had edit warred against what was agreed during the previous mediations. So the article right now is in several ways in the "wrong version". In the wrong version of what was agreed repeatedly between several people that tried to mediate between us and what the sources are saying. Every single time something was agreed, Arab Cowboy edit warred against it and this is why I requested the arbitration.

Now, I have a restriction and a topic ban. I am not allowed to change the ethnicity. But, am I not allowed to ask a neutral person to take a look at some corrections that I pointed out at the talkpage with sources? Nothing in my restriction or topic ban says that I'm not allowed to do this.

Several of these points of corrections are the very same that there had been mediations and agreements over before and that the drafter Wizard told me that if there was a collaborative consensus it would get reverted, even if I myself couldn't revert it.

I never told that person what to do, I asked him to get involved and take a look at the corrections I would present at the talkpage and that it was totally up to him what edits he wanted to make. The person I asked is a neutral and respected editor at wikipedia and he is also an Egyptian. He had seen the arguing between me and AC and left this post at my talkpage when I first requested arbitration: [7] he tried to help and fix this dispute so this is why I contacted him and asked for his help.

So am I not allowed to ask a neutral person to get involved and take a look at corrections I point out at talkpages? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I need reply.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination)

I am a bit surprised that you closed this one as no consensus; my impression is that there was a rough consensus was for "delete" there. A number of "keep" !votes were explicitly stated as fairly week (User:Kotniski, User:OlEnglish, User:Alex Bakharev) or essentially procedural (User:Abd), while the "delete" !votes were by and large better argued and more policy-rooted. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that considering all the circumstances, that the no consensus closure was a good call. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Lankiveil! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 873 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Neil Turner (Australian politician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Rob Borbidge - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination)

I'm just wondering why you closed this as "no consensus". Every keep argument but one only asserted that he was notable. Notability is proven by sources, not assertion. The sources provided by the one keep vote were extensively refuted to be insufficient. Why did you see this as no consensus despite this? Triplestop x3 18:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is my interpretation. While there were plenty of WP:JNN votes, significantly more delete arguments actually addressed the sourcing. Obviously there were many distractions, however if a article is not notable, it must be deleted, period. Triplestop x3 18:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many distractions, but no clear consensus to delete, as you can see in this nice table you have gone to the trouble of creating, as far as must be deleted goes, the only thing that must be deleted are things that are libelous, derogatry or some kind of attack article, this BLP is none of those things. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability is shown by sources not assertion. And by your logic, any non notable page at all can be kept as long as they are not defamatory. Triplestop x3 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a dispute that this person is borderline notable, I agree with this but that doesn't mean that there is some desperate need or even any need at all for the article to be deleted, there clearly isn't and the community has gone along with that position. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion. If there is a legitimate dispute that the person is notable, surely there are sources to back that up, beyond mere assertion? Triplestop x3 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are BLP problems as the subject himself repeatedly complained about BLP attacks [8], [9] and on several other pages I am to lazy to find right now. Pantherskin (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This DRV debate may also be relevant. Even though the vote count was 8 to 3 in favor of keep, the article was deleted because the keep votes were either refuted or amounted to mere assertion. In this case, the vote count was clearly in favor of delete (20 to 10 I believe), and the keep votes were either refuted or mere assertion. Triplestop x3 19:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Vote	Policy argument
Keep Tylman's team was given an Award of Excellence at Graphex (a competition sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article). That would seem to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. ... Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)	Y Well reasoned argument.
Keep Tylman does have a degree of personal notability, easily enough to warrant an article imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)	N WP:ITSNOTABLE
Keep per sources provided by Malik. Ikip 01:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)	N WP:PERNOM
Keep. The article is well written and its subject is notable per sources. Please do not make WP:Battles and WP:POINTs by nominating articles for deletion.Biophys (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)	N WP:ADHOM, WP:ITSNOTABLE
Keep. Seems borderline notable. No BLP issues. Don't see how the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting this article. --Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)	N WP:NOHARM, WP:ITSNOTABLE
Keep. Who originally created an article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and any !vote based on that argument should be deprecated... --Abd (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)	N WP:EFFORT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ADHOM
Keep. having carefully examined the evidence presented on this page and weighted all the arguments I am of the opinion that the subject of the article is notable enough to have an article.  Dr. Loosmark  15:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)	N WP:ITSNOTABLE
Keep. Good and useful article.--Paweł5586 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)	N WP:USEFUL
Keep. (weakish, however): Though only barely notable enough for a Wikipedia article in my opinion... -- Ϫ 09:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)	N WP:ITSNOTABLE
Keep Notability sufficiently established, and !votes based on personal opinions about any editor should be deprecated in analysing the reasons given for or against deletion. Author is referred to in more than a dozen WP articles (not making him "notable" but assuredly pointing out that editors of those articles found him notable). In Polish WP [10] so we should also accept that if a person is notable for their native-language WP, it is the onus for showing non-notability to remove articles in the English WP. This is, to me, the deciding issue. Collect (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)	N WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ADHOM, WP:CIRCULAR

I am about to head off to work, and don't have time for a detailed review right now, but I have to say I disagree with some of your rationales in the table above (particularly Abd's). Also, closing any AFD as "Delete" when there is clearly no consensus (ie: multiple votes for Keep) is a course fraught with danger. I'll try and have another look at this tonight, but I'm reasonably happy at this point that I made the correct call. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC).