User talk:Giftiger wunsch

This editor is a Most Excellent Grognard and is entitled to display this Wikipedia Vest Pocket Edition.

If you left a message and it's no longer here, it's probably in one of my talk archives.

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: News-Service

Hello Mono, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on News-Service to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 00:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mono is your name ;) I felt that creating a page with little more than the company's contact address and a bit of puffery was sufficient to file it as G11 but I'll wait and see how your PROD replacement goes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal, I just look for blatant ads. I won't object if my PROD fails... —mono 01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The creator removed the PROD without trying to fix it so I nominated for AfD with the same argument as your PROD. Too early; I was thinking of a different article and a different PROD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert M. Rucker update

Greetings Giftiger Wunsch,

Please let this wiki through (Robert M Rucker)...even though Mr. Rucker organization has noted his accomplishments, we have found other sources of documentation noted on the article 'conflict of interest'

Please override it is marked for proposed deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingsetq (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC) --Swingsetq (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the PROD since its rationale no longer applied with the addition of a third-party source, but the article is in serious need of cleanup, and in particular that long list of "notable" performers with which the individual has worked needs to be both condensed and sourced with inline citations. You have also been introducing many edits which are making the page very messy; I recommend taking a look at WP:MOS, as well as some well-established articles. I'm going to help to clean the article up a bit when I have time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Paxcoder

Sorry for the confusion. Paxcoder readded a post to User talk:DIREKTOR after DIREKTOR deleted it. My reference to WP:OWNTALK was a warning to him not to do it again. Looks like he has anyway. That guy appears to be trying to bait Direktor. N419BH 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the thread in AN/I, it seems both users need to spend some time on the naughty step; I haven't really analysed the situation in any great detail though so I can't say for sure that they're equally responsible. I took exception to DIREKTOR making inappropriate comments to uninvolved editors attempting to assist on AN/I though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I almost told him he was acting like a fish for taking the bait. Oh well. We'll see if they both figure it out. If not, blocks. Seems he didn't take kindly to my mention of WP:CIVIL either. N419BH 17:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

McYel

Oversighted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I noticed. Thanks for informing me though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lobat Vala

Hello Giftiger wunsch. Thank you very much for your work on this article. During your cleanup you've removed a link leading to an article in The NY Times, stating that the link doesn't include the subject. The content is hidden behind the paywall, but when you look here, you can find her name mentioned in the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, feel free to re-add it as a reference if you feel it will be beneficial to the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Signature

I know it's been discussed before, but it still drives me batty. I don't know if it's the size, the font, or the color, but it just jumps out and says "LOOK AT ME, NOT THE CONTENT!!!!!11!!"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that; you can use personal CSS targeted to the "gw_sig" id to modify whatever is driving you batty about it though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) Add this to your css, Sarek. You may also be interested in commenting here. –xeno^talk 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

span#gw_sig {background:inherit !important;font-weight:normal !important;text-decoration:none !important;}

Giftiger Wunsch adds this code to his sandbox for future reference GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Slightly better, at least... Thanks, Xeno! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... Xeno? Stealing my thunder :p I went to special effort to add that identifier to my sig as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Gw deserves credit for it. I think the bolding and colouring can be taken out as well, but not how =).–xeno^talk 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

span#gw_sig {background:inherit !important;font-weight:normal !important;text-decoration:none !important;}

Also if you want to really be boring, you can remove the colour with color:#000000 !important; GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think the bolding can be changed? Not working over here, anyway. –xeno^talk 17:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm it worked for me when I tested it, but I tested it with a bold CSS property. I assume you bypassed your cache? One sec, I may have an alternative solution. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops; the reason is that no part of my signature is actually emboldened. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I bypassed the cache. Don't sweat it too much, I find your sig fine with just the background removed. (But for the record, it's bolded using the wiki way) –xeno^talk 17:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right, it is. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be removed with this:

span#gw_sig b{font-weight:normal !important;}

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool! By the way, you might consider changing the id from gw_sig to simply sig, just in case that WT:SIG proposal goes through you'll already be consistent... –xeno^talk 17:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Might be a good idea; I'd better inform Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) if I do, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I was gunna mention that. –xeno^talk 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd appreciate that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed the id to sig. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a Barn...

(edit conflict) Barnstar and comments moved to User talk:Giftiger wunsch/Awards GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like fun times; I've had a bad couple of hours, but that's largely comments on here by an individual who shall not be named, so never mind. By the way, why is the CSS for your talk link "color:Black;White;"? o.O GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, I honestly couldn't tell you. I had someone work on that for me as the background showed up as white on shaded talkpages, now it blends in. The user tinkered with it, so you might have to ask them. As long as it works, I just go along with it. :) Hope things clear up in your day as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My userpage...

...thanks! I have no idea how people even find my userpage - my sig only links to my talkpage. Second time in two days it's happened, and I'm inclined to think both were good faith attempts to communicate (both editors eventually did find my talkpage). I think I need to make things clearer on my userpage! Anyway, thanks again. TFOWR 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might have been an attempt to communicate, which is why I added the ? in edit summary and gave him a level 1 template (though removing part of your page was a strange way of trying to leave a message). Anyway, no problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, looking at their contribs, it appears their userpage experience was after posting on my talkpage. Ho hum... TFOWR 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Time to break out the WP:TROUT methinx. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome message

Thank you for this - I've been contributing for some time now and am aware of the basics of editing, but it is still kind of you to care. cheers Androstachys (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you'd had a fair few edits to your talk page, but had never been welcomed, so I thought I'd fix that; hopefully you'll find a couple of the links useful also. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Press Releases

I was wondering if press releases are considered acceptable materials for citing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.88.69 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Only for citing purely factual information; anything which may be biased in a press release or similar source should be verified by reliable third-party sources, such as newspapers, consumer reviews, and the like. You should also make sure you always have third-party sources to establish the notability of the company according to WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fyi

It's no biggie but the extra notice at the bottom was to demarcate where the AN discussion had turned into the ANI one. –xeno^talk 12:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Sorry about that, I thought I was being helpful. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass Killings tag issues

[1] per your decision here and with no reasons being presented on the talk page i remove the tags. User:The_Four_Deuces who brought the issue to ANI reverted them back in User:AmateurEditor reverted them back out and then User:Verbal reverted them back in. It is beyond parody that they continue to insert these tags and yet provide no reason for them, could you please respond to this on the article talk page? I shall place your talk page on watch should you reply here, Thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved in this content dispute; I've filed a request for temporary full page protection to kill the edit war and encourage discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, however it is difficult to discuss issues with those who refuse to actually discuss. Thank you for your time mark nutley (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's where page protection comes in: if edit warring continues, the protection can be extended for as long as it takes to convince all parties involved to establish consensus first. You might also formal mediation or another dispute resolution method. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

I should have probably told you I mentioned you at the article above, but as wasn't criticising or disagreeing with you I decided not to bother. Sorry if you feel I should have notified you, let me know. I don't want you to think I was talking behind your back :) Best, Verbal chat 08:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know the context, I only came to the article after the initial AfD again yesterday. I was under the impression it had been cleaned up, but it turns out I was wrong. To me it reads like an American propaganda page from the 60s. Verbal chat 08:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, no need to have informed me as I wasn't involved in the discussion. I was far more concerned with marknutley misquoting me and claiming that I am an admin, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic idea with the new section, and it's split up in a box and subsections like that. Now we should get this sorted. Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could be of help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for that. It seems you have done what I tried to do a week ago. I hope you can stick with it until this is resolved. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it

It's what my talkpage is intended to be used for ;-) TFOWR 10:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I've noticed your talk page tends to double as a general dumping ground; thanks for the assistance. Personally I think TT's going to be beaten quite hard across the head with WP:BOOMERANG if he takes this to WP:WQA, given that the reason I swore (which was a WP:CIVIL issue rather than WP:NPA anyway) was that he chose to mock me on my talk page after being asked only to leave constructive messages here. I assume he's probably reached the same conclusion or I have no doubt he would have already taken it to WP:WQA. In any case I don't intend to acknowledge any further baiting comments from him. Thanks again for helping to resolve this, you're officially my favourite admin (don't tell BWilkins I said that though :p). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

1R

@ Mass killings under Communist regimes I`m afraid you just broke the 1r restriction at this article, i will not ask you to self revert but i do ask you explain your edit on the talk page as what you have added has nothing to do with the article and would appear to be Or to me, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Count it again. I made a single revert, as did you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry you are correct, i thought you had removed some text with the first edit but you only added new, my apologies mark nutley (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

RFPP and Mass killings under Communist regimes

In case you're wondering, yes, I am ignoring this ;-) I've not got anything to do with the article, but it would be too easy to make some dubious connection between me and "an apologist for communism" (a comment I saw on the talkpage). I'm leaving it for an admin who is more obviously non-political - sorry! TFOWR 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh I hadn't been keeping track anyway; I'm going to back out of the discussion anyway, I started by helping in formation of consensus by guiding the process, but made a minor edit, got reverted twice, someone else reverted, they got reverted... all the time the discussion on the talk page consisted of "it was fine already, leave it alone". That article is a minefield and I think I'll just go back to trying to guide the consensus and stop them tearing each other apart ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm

Don't you think the facepalm is a little insulting for a good faith user who got confused by piped links?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it was for my bad joke, and I take no offense =] (maybe best to clarify though, Gw) –xeno^talk 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Very possible now that I take a second look.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was facepalming xeno's joke; I hope the user didn't think it was directed at them. If so, I'll apologise to them and clarify myself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what they thought, entirely possible I was the only person to misunderstand. Then again a clarification couldn't hurt. Carry on.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Brianna Gilmore

You PROD'd Brianna Gilmore, but I think it's clear WP:A7, After college, Brianna plans on moving out of Mississippi to start working on her music career. She wants to make a cd and be in films. This sentence states that she simply isn't notable. Clear deletion. I hope you don't mind. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 12:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that, but the article does claim that she has performed with celebrities, and that she has a reasonable fanbase. A7 is only when there's absolutely no claim of notability. It seems fairly clear that this article isn't going to meet WP:GNG, but A7 is a much lower standard. The best option is probably just to wait for the BLPPROD to expire and be done with it. In the meantime, that's a lot of puffery and weasel words, as well as poor grammar to cut down on. I'm going to do a google search and see exactly how notable this individual is. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're giving waaaay more benefit of the doubt than I would. I mean, it's not even close. Just because she sang with someone doesn't make her, in the least, notable. You'd have to call this a WP:BAND page, and she's not even in the radar of notable bands. She wants to make a CD but hasn't. Oh my. — Timneu22 · talk 12:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that she's notable, my best guess is that she's not even vaguely notable. Unfortunately I do think that this passes A7, though. My best suggestion would be either wait for the BLPPROD to expire, take it to AfD and watch it WP:SNOW (though this is a waste of users' time really), or advise the creator of policy and request that they blank it or nominate it for speedy deletion as G7 (which would be best, but unlikely). I would suggest asking them to draft it, but I don't think the individual is notable enough to be worth drafting an article for either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)