User talk:Eliz81/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15


Why do you delete imbert history. He is a significiant french personnality. He is very famous and he exists in french wikipedia. He is noticed in 2006 organised crime. IT IS STRANGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setiem (talkcontribs) 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Pique verde boricua etc

Well yes, I made the apparently erroneous assumption that a recreation of all the articles deleted at an AfD last week, by the same newbie user that created the first set, were likely to be recreations in content.... what a joy it must be to be able to see deleted revisions. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't have to delete the Blaine Carty page. it was just for fun. it's not like it hurts anybody. you guys take yourselves to seriously.

God in a cup (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)God in a Cup

Hank Green

Why did you delete Hank Green again?
You can't delete it just like that! That's not what G4 is for!
Even if I didn't resolve any of the problems that the previous article had, G4 states that you can only delete the so-called copy "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted."
I rewrote nearly the entire article. The article was nowhere near "substantially identical to the deleted version" (unless you're talking about the content which would be completely absurd)!

So either you get a better reason for deleting it, or you put it back.

JoinTheMadVender (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So either you get a better reason for deleting it, or you put it back. The appropriate venue to request a deletion review is WP:DRV, where you can make your case; veiled threats on admin talkpages are decidedly not the way to go. You might want to read up about how no one here owns articles. If you check the deletion log for the page and the most recent AfD, you'll see that this article has been repeatedly recreated in order to promote Mr. Green, with a flood of single purpose accounts participating in the deletion discussion. Your edits to the article also did not alter the substantial notability issues raised in the AfD and thus its deletion falls squarely under CSD G4. I suggest you also read up on our conflict of interest policy and edit articles on a different topic. ~Eliz81(C) 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like a threat. I just wasn't satisfied with just "G4" as a reason for deletion. At least you've given me a more detailed reason. Thanks for that. Is there any place that I can see the previous versions of the article? Otherwise it's hard for me to see whether it "substantially differs" from the previous version...
I'm going to look into the DRV now...Thanks anyway. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm confused as well. I was looking at Ben Going's article, and it mentions a project to promote internet culture articles. Hank Green certainly falls into that category. If anything, the Day the Nerds Took Over YouTube qualifies Hank, who organized the whole takeover, as a more notable person than Ben Going. I apologize for my lack of polish in this, as I just created a wiki account and am not yet well versed in the forms of editing and posting to wiki. I would recreate the Hank article myself, but am unable to after noting that the article is blocked from creation by any other than admins. I would really like an explanation for why Going gets an article and Hank Green does not. If anyone could direct me to the proper forum, I would appreciate it. Goddessofoddness (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)goddessofoddness

Brotherhood 2.0

Why on earth do you delete everything to do with Brotherhood 2.0? That's really rude. Don't delete Hank Green, and for goodness' sake, don't redirect Brotherhood 2.0! Wikipedia is supposed to grow, become more informative, more complete! When you DELETE people's work, they get upset. If you have a legitimate concern, bring it forth, don't just delete the page!

MastaIroh (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)MastaIroh


Could you please explain why you are reverting his edits, I can confirm all of these people have been buried in Calvary Cemetery, it is next to my house. Thanks. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He is a sockpuppet (now blocked) of a banned editor. Banned editors are absolutely not allowed to contribute here, regardless of the merit of their edits. Sorry for being less clear about that in my edit summaries. ~Eliz81(C) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems all of the edits pertaining to Calvary Cemetery were legit. Either the category has to be deleted or his edits should be reinstated. If not I can just add the categories back myself (so it wouldnt really be his work). Otherwise, I will not reinstate any other of his edits. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I see the parent category has been deleted, subject closed. Thanks. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Owen Roe O'Sullivan/ Eoghan Ruadh Ó Súilleabháin

Hi Eliz81, I don't really understand what is happening and who is banned-- sorry, I'm new.

What I do understand is that RiverHockey has written an article (under Eoghan Ruadh Ó Súilleabháin) about the same person I had earlier written about (as Owen Roe O'Sullivan). The two articles should be merged; the names are just English and Irish versions of the same name. Wikipedia may have a policy about that-- I chose the Owen Roe version of the name because we are using the English language wikipedia, but the important thing is just to make sure the information is linked to both names.

I had linked to the Irish-language Wikipedia article and to the name Eoghan Rua Ó Súilleabháin(which is an Irish version of the name) but not to Eoghan Ruadh, and RiverHockey did not apparently check under Owen Roe to see if there was already an article. When I tried to insert at least a link, until the articles are merged, it didn't work for some reason. Can you help? And how can we merge the articles? (And the banned thing-- who is that?) Sorry to bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangeline (talkcontribs) 05:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The user Fergananim (he writes a lot of good articles) wrote the article, not me, already told Evangeline I didnt recreate it, she should have checked the history for Eoghan Rua Ó Súilleabháin. I had made one edit to the latter which was the most recent, probably why she thought I made the article. No big deal really. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

deletion of damon jamal article

You deleted that article on damon jamal and it's not clear why. This is a individual that has a great history here in the San Francisco Bay Area and I would like to know what can be done to have this article undeleted. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter359 (talkcontribs) 00:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article Damon Jamal? I never deleted it, so I'm not sure where you got my username from. Here's why it got deleted by the administrator User:Wizardman. ~Eliz81(C) 01:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see I deleted Damon jamal, but that wasn't an article, just a redirect to the deleted article. Redirects to non-existent articles are deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion. ~Eliz81(C) 01:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Fagan

I do not know who to consult about this, so I'm graciously asking you. The user Cobaltbluetony deleted a page on Robert Fagan I had created, with had multiple online and offline sources. He cited A7 as reason for deletion, despite the article clearly stating Fagan's significance as an archaeologist (discovery of the Venus at the Capitoline), diplomat and painter[1]. I highly question his judgment and believe the article should be restored. I should have at least been notified for an AFD, if he is a moderator then it surely reflects poorly on wikipedia. If you are unaware of how to confront this issue, is there someone else I can refer this problem to? Thank you. Sincerely, -RiverHockey (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue. The article was vandalized, then simply tagged as A7 by someone else. I've restored everything so what happened can be seen. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks CobaltBlueTony™, everything is resolved now. Sorry to clutter your talk page Eliz. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Eliz81. I need some admin help, and I hope that you can help. I noticed that an account barely two weeks old and a brand new account seem to be agreeing with each other at Talk:China/DiscussRM. The fact that the two users, one whose account is less than a month old (Wruazuezoa (talk · contribs)) and ones whose account was created today (Kaeblao (talk · contribs)), are both agreeing with each other at a requested move page makes me just a tad suspicious that the latter account may be a puppet of the former, but I have no idea how to check on that, let alone prove it. Can you help? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the banned editor User:Peter zhou. There are dozens of other socks, too. Don't worry - I'll see they're blocked - Alison 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just cleaned out the sock drawer and found dozens of accounts. All blocked now - Alison 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. I may not be an admin yet, but I have been here long enough to know when something seems out of place. Take care, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Just dropped by to thank you for your post on my Talk page and interest in my situation. All resolved now, many thanks. (And, PS, I'm not really that disruptive!) --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

BRC & privacy concerns

Hey Eliz, would you mind dropping in your opinion here? Thanks. GlassCobra 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)