User talk:Tikiwont

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive "Subject/headline" for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

Archives

Talia Madison

Hi, her article was deleted and salted because she hadn't done anything notworthy. Since then however, she has signed a contract with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling and competed at their biggest PPV of the year (TNA Bound for Glory (2007). Could her article be unsalted? She has an article here at Wikipedia, but I would like to move it to Talia Madison since that is her ring name and the name she uses in public. TJ Spyke 03:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where would be her article now? Thanks. --Tikiwont 08:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fail2ban restored

I looked through all of the October deletion review logs and could not locate an entry for this article. Would you please point out where the log for this page's DRV is? --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions can simply be contested ex-post and will then be restored in case of good-faith contentions without DRV discussion but rather with AfD being an option. The diffs are these [1] [2]--Tikiwont 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click "show" to see my message.

What is meant to be and what is not...

Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia.

If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided.

All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. linca linca 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandal 24.73.211.86

Hi, You said only one recent edit was warned but he was warned twice 3 days ago and one was a final warning and he vandalizes again and he isn't blocked? I am not moaning just curious to your decision. Thanks. Doyley Talk 15:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with respect to anpnymous IP edits three days are some time. So in that sense I considered the previous vandalism stopped after the last warning, and the new edit on Uncyclopedia was rather silly and so far the only one. --Tikiwont 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK fair enough, thanks for letting me know. Is there a guideline on that or the suggested time before a warning expires that I can read up on? I have read a few guidelines on warnings and not seen anything about lengths of time. Thanks again Doyley Talk 15:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you may have read Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism but there are indeed few 'hard' numbers and I am myself still gauging things here. --Tikiwont 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Doke, thanks again! Doyley Talk 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste 04:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfDs

Just like I told Kurykh, thank you very much for cleaning up my trail of destruction. If you'd waited until this morning, I would have fixed them on my own. Cheers, east.718 at 15:06, 11/5/2007

Thank you for your support.

Especially coming after the kerfluffle started.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November?
Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007.
It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up

User talk:Daniel beggs Is appealing their block. Want me to review ? Pedro : Chat 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. You seem to know the story better...I merely blocked becasue i had seen a number of versions of the artcile form different accoutns before and thought I deleted the last one, then I blocked and noticed that my deletion attempt had had been preceded by your deletion and my block by your note..--Tikiwont 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block upheld. Obviously..... :) ! Pedro : Chat 14:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

209.158.179.181 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Could you do me a favor and block this guy? It's getting out of control... JuJube 15:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd : Sharon Gans

Why did you change the main title of this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Gans (already deleted) to "Panacea (Band)" ?

Difference here: [3]

Just a wonderin....--Sc straker 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed a numebr of wrong headers that have to go inside the Afd closure for counting and just pasted the wrong header here. Fixed now. --Tikiwont 07:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maurice Chavez

Hello Tikiwont. In the belief to be right, I requested speedy deletion for Talk:Maurice Chavez, as the article has been replaced by a redirect to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (in case you are so busy that you don't recall: you closed the AFD about an hour ago). However, the fact that you placed the recent-afd tag on the talk page made me unsure: Is the talk page really to be deleted, and meets the SD criteria? I thought it should, as the removal of the article sort of renders the talk page useless, and the article is "deleted". Sorry for bothering you, just need to know if i messed up in this case. :) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the article has not been deleted. Merge is a variant of keep in the sense of keeping content, even though not in a separte page. So also for the GFDL licences we keep the edit history and the redirect. There is thus no need and catually no case to delete the talk page. And thanks for volunterring for the actual merging! --Tikiwont 10:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, now i know something more, thank you. And thanks for removing the speedy. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motillism

Yesterday you deleted an entry which I made for Motillism on the basis that it was advertising.

How can I put this term on the site - I do need for it to be recognised widely and whilst it is relatively unknown at the moment (outside the parties that I mentioned - Pyramid Poster Pulishing, SonyBMG, Universal Music) it will very quickly become a more widely accepted term.

Any advice that you can give would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsinart (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered here. --Tikiwont 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format of AfD discussions

Thanks for that; I thought I'd done it as I followed the instructions on WP:AFD. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Isle of Mann article

Tiki, please understand that my edits to the referenced page are no more than those of Theisles, who is also engaged in an edit ware with me. I have attempted on both his/hers and my talk pages to 1) undestand his/her point of view, and 2) resolve the points underlying the edit war. His/her assertions are no more superiod than mine. If I am to be blocked, both of us should be. Thanks, in advance. 216.143.251.162 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]