User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 10

"Roland Nicholson"

Thank you Tikiwont. I am working on this entry on Prof. Nicholson. We are on break but I hope to finish it by next week. If I need help can I reach out to you? Happy New Year. Columbia Student--Columbia Student (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Answered there.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

foxcow

Shadowwolfs (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC) foxcow (who i have seen in person) made a account with a name similar to rangersarecool, my friends account. foxcow has then made vandalism and wikipedia has blocked ramgersarecool.check the ip addreses, there the same! Shadowwolfs (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC) p.s the account foxcow used is called rangerarecool1234. please i beg of you! in school I promised darknesswolfs id get him ironed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowwolfs (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is indeed possible that rangerarecool1234 has not been created by rangersarecool. But I can't check the IP. On the other hand we just issue these accounts to help editing an encyclopedia. Here we now have a number of accounts that are related on real life and / or via Ips but without any siginificant contribution to content and some vandalism. And you have now been blocked for evading your block as Darkwolfs.. All that just costs everybody's time. So please refrain from creating more accounts for the single purpose of getting things 'ironed out.' But consider to contribute. Maybe you find it rewarding and you can tell your friends that.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Fate: Undiscovered Realms

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fate: Undiscovered Realms. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SharkD (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored as contested deletion per WP:PROD. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reconsideration for Alejandro Alcondez Article

Hi Tikiwont, I'm a fan from "Alejandro Alcondez". I have been looking for his article in the wiki and I've noticed that it has been deleted several times for not being someone notable. Besides that, they tried to recreate the material, which was wrong, I want to apologize for whoever did that.

I want to ask you (and please forgive my ignorance on the wiki, I did reseach), is there anything I can do to restore Alejandro Alcondez article?

I appreciate your time and collaboration.

Thanks, Andrew J. Santos.

Andrew.santos (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is something that can be done, as we have no intention to lock away possible articles forever. That is writing a draft in your userspace, say at User:Andrew.santos/Alejandro Alcondez trying to address the reasons that let to its deletion and then bring this to a deletion review. Having a look at the notability criteria for actors might help, but the most important thing is to look for independent reliable sources (other than IMDB). Unless you can find any of those, it is hardly worth writing much content or opening a review. As you say you're a fan you will be familiar with his work, but it is sometimes best to forget everything you already know and review first what others have written about him.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response, I'm working on the article and the indepedent reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.santos (talk • contribs) 07:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of backlinks to Leet

Leet was not deleted, only dubious redirects to it. May I ask why you're deleting direct links to Leet? Cheers, Stannered (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Gross error in using twinkle. Working on remdiyn it, firts restoring incorrectly deleted redirects and then cosidering backlinks.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be repaired now. That was really @ç§}{£ by me.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the quick response :) Stannered (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that cool, actually, and thanks for your friendly heads-up that didn't rub salt in the wounds that I already had from flagellating myself. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CBp Carbon "Conflict of Interest"

Heya, you sent me a notice about conflict of interest,

can you please specify what part of the CBp Carbon page could be considered as "conflit of interest" ? Please bear in mind the page is far from being done and lots of content is going to be changed/added/removed/modified (we are 2 people going to work on the page thus making it on a sandbox wouldn't work I believe). The sole purpose is to inform people that there actually is quite an effective and ecological way to dispose old tires, not to present any products nor trying to compete other companies. I want to depict the use of CBp Carbon technology and what we done - basically a variant of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft - which you host on wiki, so I'm not sure about any conflict of interest here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcvengros (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you mention Microsoft of all companies. I'll elaborate on your page.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well was just to contrast out how the page should be taken. If I would like to point out a more "matching" example it would probbably be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_group --Pcvengros

Heya, please any update on this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcvengros (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Update in which sense or on what? I've dropped you a general note about your role as editor as already explained on your page. I haven't done any anything with respect to the CBp Carbon page itself which is still tagged as an unresolved copyright problem. Maybe User:Stifle who applied the last tag knows more.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A'dam Deletion

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from A'dam, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

While I agree with you that Portal Stones and Fire Blossoms are not notable and should be deleted (I didn't even know we had articles on them, otherwise I probably would have nominated them for deletion myself, especially fire blossoms), the a'dam should not. The a'dam are major fictional items in the Wheel of Time series that play a major role in every novel of the series after the first. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't have a strong opinion on it. If you want you can use {{prod2}} for the endorsing the deletion of others. Moreover, you may want to comb through Category:The Wheel of Time for other stuff that should be merged or deleted.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have endorsed your PROD of Portal Stones and Fire Blossoms, and will go through the category later on today. Maybe after lunch. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NOMORE

Hi, could you have another look at your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NOMORE? There is no clear call for a keep (two of the four "keepers" changed their minds to redirect), and now the keep-closure has caused a new SPA IP to claim this proves legitamacy of the proposal. I don't mind there being an honest discussion, but calling the close a keep is misleading. If you could change it to "no consensus" it would clear things up a lot. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that appears more in line with the various opinions given. NJGW (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't change the substance that much but if it clarifies... Deletion discussions decide mostly between deletion and everything else. In that sense redirects are often seen as a subcat of keep. On the other hand, you may want to distinguish more clearly between what to do about an idea and what about the page it is written onto. The question is therefore what arguing in an MfD of a idea page for a redirect actually means. (Just imagine the same had simply been posed at the village pump). As far as i see it amounts to arguing for archiving it under a redirect. Others may want to have it more visibly in Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals or the like, not least to avoid repeated proposals of the same form. Which doesn't change that in either case you first have to keep the page at MfD in some form which is too crude an instrument to actually discuss the merits. Cheers. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How does one go about 'nominating' a policy proposal for rejection? Just bring it up at the village pump? NJGW (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If they are serious, it would actually be up to the proposer to get this discussed by the community. Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Proposing_guidelines_and_policies provides some general guidance. In case things are not followed-up in that sense or sorted out otherwise locally, a (simple and neutral) post with a link to the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) village pump would indeed be the next step.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User: 203.111.235.50

Hi! I need help in dealing with this anon user. He keeps on adding hoax and unsourced info on several PBA related articles after giving him several warnings. I think he is just ignoring the warnings and goes on with his edits. Kindly assist. Thanks. -danngarcia (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin; With respect to our previous conversation, by now we're having a pattern here.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Krippled crak monkeys

• Recreated I'm afraid, author seems to be a vandalism only account. Thanks. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted once more, but someone beat me to a block, correctly for disrutive editing by pushing the article for their group. A vandalism account is something different.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Forgive me for coming back to you but I felt it was vandalism as it was patently obvious that it was not a real group, the participants had made up, obscene names etc. Am I wrong in thinking that way? Regards Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well it wasn't and still isn't obvious to me that it isn't a 'real' group as I noticed a myspace link [1] that I can't access, though, so it may turn out that it s indeed rather an idea only. In any case I was just saying that it isn't an account with the sole purpose to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not necessariliy considered vandalism.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your reply, I can see the myspace site and it is just a list of obscenities, by it appears, these three guys. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Well it had to stop in any case. I've watchlisted the capitalised version.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please re-protect this page

See here. thanks Theseeker4 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Seicer beat me to it.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jock Sanders

Thanks alot for userfying it. Now, do we go about getting this article notability? John (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For anything that doesn't obviously meet some secondary notability criteria as e.g. in WP:ATHLETE independent secondary sources that cover him in depth and not just mention him in a game report, are the key. This essay is also helpful. In any case I'd suggest to get in touch with Paulmcdonald. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maggie (TV series

You might have been busy at the time you closed the RfD - don't forget to delete it! 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted now.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome note! Much appreciated.

Hi Tikiwont. Your kind words are much appreciated.

I edited Mongolia Energy Corporation and the words on the top of the page are:

This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion. (October 2008)

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008)

So, what do I do now? When will the other editors remove these words from the page. Is there any formula or way that I must follow to get the editors to remove those words. Help me. (Nurvinwong (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)).

I've removed them as clearly referring to the previous version. This is not an assessment of the current version and other editors may still raise issues with it. This should then be discussed at the article's talk page where I commended as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please guide me - always willing to learn!

Much appreciated for your help with Mongolia Energy Corporation. Editing at Wikipedia is still new to me, but I will continue trying whenever I have time. Your assistance and guidance to me is greatly appreciated. (Nurvinwong (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

You're welcome. The links on your talk page also point to other resources to obtain help.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ip disruption

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:212.138.69.19, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors) ... with these exceptions only existing in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks for your time. Your fellow admin, Kralizec! (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Strike that; I just figured out what was going on. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. For my own and other's benefit I was actually compiling on the activities of one or more editors vandalizing Bahá'u'lláh ad cross posting and blanking on each others IP talk pages treating them as their personal ones:

212.138.47.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (seems to be the historical origin)

212.138.47.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.138.69.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.138.69.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.138.69.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.138.113.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.138.113.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.138.113.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.26.12.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Feel free to rely on above (or corros-post and amend) if activities flare up again. Any suggestions are welcome (besides adding {{SharedIPedu}} adn {{SharedIP}} that I will try to inlcude into my workset)--Tikiwont (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

After doing a whois lookup on RIPE for each of these, it appears that they are all registered to the ------ (personal information). However RIPE also states that this range is the "---- backbone" and "all ------ web traffic will come from this IP block." The only exception is 212.26.12.34 (talk · contribs), which resolves to ------- (personal information should not be exposed). Regardless, I tagged all of these talk pages with the {{SharedIP}} header. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I find contradictory but add the missing also above. The only one having a longer block now is 212.138.47.16 at three months. All 20o9 contributions seem to be form one user only and the total is much less than i'd expect from a 'backbone'. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Shiddazi speaking here. I stopped vandalizing, for your information. I pledged to Jeff3000 in a personal note that I will be a Contributor, not a distributer. Plus, giving out information like that is kind of inappropriate. Instead, you administrators should have sent private messages to each other (through e-mail, instant messenger, etc.). I am planning on making a username and I hope I can be a faithful contributor. We all make mistakes because we are, after all, humans. What is pretty interesting is that among the list of frequently vandalized pages, Bahai never came, and my numerous ips were not listed in the lengthy list of vandals. Why? Because it didn't start as vandalizing. It started as constructive editing, yet after all my edits were ruthlessly ignored, the 'editing' grew into 'angered edits' which is, in essence, vandalizing. Why do my ips keep changing? I don't know. That's what I'm trying to find out. I only use two computers, yet this list shows far more than two. Anyhow, enough chasing me and spying on me, because today is the day I can be considered: A True Citizen Of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for your cooperation,

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.161.93 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification. I am glad that something has been cleared up and to hear about your intentions. There was no spying or intention to reveal any information, that hadn't been inserted in the first place. For what it's worth i've redacted also this page, but you can't then keep on the other hand your (disparaging) edits around on talk pages..--Tikiwont (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Shiddazi , you don't seem to have registered an account but continue to post over multiple IP talk pages. they are not yours. Please stop it and adhere to your pledge.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Venicesurfer

My nomination also included User:Yooitsbrian for the same reasons. Could you take care of that as well? ^LeaveSleaves 09:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Done now. Just tag other pages with an Mfd tag as well, so if the closing admin is sleepy, it still remains tracked.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind. ^LeaveSleaves 09:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page for Nicolay (musician)?!

Nicolay is a real musician, and many sources can be added that attest to this. I don't understand why his page was removed. Is there any way to reverse this? --IanMcGreene (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The page was deleted as uncontested proposed deletion for failing WP:MUSIC. Since you disagree, I'm restoring it. Unless some of the mentioned sources are actually brought up, it is possible, though that someone brings it up for a deletion discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for you moving back Chinese astrology ^_^ 百家姓之四 Matthew 討論 Discussion 13:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for executing my move request at Generalized processor sharing. Cheers, --EnOreg (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy R3 requests

Hi, the my WP:CSD#R3 requests for Eatb and Not the bees weren't because the redirects are implausible typos but because they are implausible (not common) misnomers. --JD554 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and sorry if my explanation wasn't complete (but neither allows a standard Twinkle tag for a more detailed reasoning) , but a misnomer would somehow suggest a wrong interpretation. As far as I see the first is an uncapitalised abbreviation, possibly uncommon, but no misnomer, while the second seems to be a tagline or quote, of which we have others, such as "Motherfucking snakes on a motherfucking plane". I agree both are hardly useful, but neither would seem to warrant a speedy deletion per R3. Please list such cases at WP:RFD.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes it's annoying what Twinkle won't let you do. I've taken Not the bees to WP:RFD, but given the discussion at the link you've given I think it might fail, hey-ho. In retrospect I think Eatb/EATB might be a useful link. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually we might have later also sth. on the European Association of Tissue Banks. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Turkey

Thanks for letting me know about this debate. The guy who nominated it for deletion didn't notify me, he obviously didn't want me to participate in the discussion about my own userspace.

Anyway, that doesn't really concern you. By userfying that specific version, I was merely saving my own work on the article. I'm not "broadcasting" anything, I do intend to work on improving the article, but unfortunately I don't have as much time these days, and there are other issues too.

I do think the article deletion discussion was extremely unfair; the closing admin refused to discard the numerous votes by Turkish meatpuppets and sockpuppets and acknowledge the progress we made improving it. All that abuse really makes it hard to work on the article again. All the effort I've put into it seems useless when a pack of red-linked mindless puppets with a few edits to their name can come, erase everything and get away with it. Todor→Bozhinov 12:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

This courtesy notice is being offered on your talk page as you have been active in music related discussions in the past. A discussion of a proposed wording change to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" - Criteria 6 is underway on the Notability (music) talk page. Your feedback is appreciated. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I hope to chime in.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mangroves in kerala

Hi. I've gone ahead and G6ed that GFDL-infringing article with a note to the contributor of explanation at his talk page, User talk:Syrilmcj. I'm presuming this is uncontroversial, but if you think I'm wrong, please let me know.:) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks that is just fine. I wish regular editors would always link when they split something.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Me, too! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edmund Rice Camps

Fair enough! :) Rob Lindsey (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, thanks for thinking I might be suitable. I didn't dismiss the idea out of thought, I've given it some consideration. But I don't think I'm really ready for that yet. I sometimes make some rash decisions that with hindsight I would do differently. Besides, I still prefer to mainly add content to articles (even though I quite often get sidetracked!). So for the timebeing I'll pass. Again thanks, I do take it as a compliment. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance on User:Anders.adermark

Hello. Can you assist me on dealing with Anders.adermark (talk · contribs)? He's insisting on adding this link to the Yahtzee article, but I considered the link as spam. I told him to read WP:SPAM and WP:EL and look at the Scrabble article as an example before reinstating the link, but I don't think he got my message right and is still insisting on his link. What can you say and tell him about this? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, why you contact me, but i note the following: (i) The link mentions that the site "Creeps is brought to you by Anders Adermark." (ii) Nevertheless the link has actually been inserted only once and Anders has even talked to you. Nor do we seem to have many other links to that site. Real spamming looks different and it is important to assume good faith. (iii) If someone talks to you, I'd suggest to rather answer than removing the post as 'weak'. If you don't want to have it on your talk page, you can move the conversation to his or the article talk page. That helps others to weigh in if necessary. In short, no need for assistance yet. If you're in difficulty with one editor only, try also WP:3O. But it is necessary that you also make your case yourself. I'm offline now anyways.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

worldofcreeps.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Vasant Honavar

But it looks like it is a self-written article and hence it may be a candidate for deletion. Localsales (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Land Records of Haryana

Hi, Could you please tell me what was the copyright voilation in that article??? If you had properly seen at the bottom it is the content that belongs to Haryana Govt. of India.

"site Contents belongs to Haryana Government. NIC does not take responsibility of contents and data". That means developer of website i.e NIC doesnot take the responsibility for the content of the website which has been provided by Haryana Government. It no where says anything about Copyright and for your information Haryana is a state in INDIA which is democratic,sovergein and republic country where information provided by the Govt is open for all. Being a citizen of India and of Haryana i feel that this information of Land Records should be available on wikipedia and to its users. Also I would like to approach Wikipedia if they can have region wise adminstrators who can easily understand the transperancy of the information.

Thanks and Regards,

Shekhar Tagra

Junior Programmer

DITS, Haryana Govt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhartagra (talk • contribs)

Well, referring to Land record documents of Haryana, I did see at the bottom of [2] that the content belongs to Haryana Government, which is in my opinion first of all an indirect copyright claim. While I appreciate your feeling that this information of Land Records should be available on wikipedia and to its users, nothing indicated to me that this can be reused for verbatim. So I'll restore and list this for further examination, but you'll need to offer something more substantial to assure that we're allowed to have it here.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You feel that is an indirect copyright claim, I say that most of the articles on Wikipedia contains refrences and sources from websites and if you visit these websites they all have copyright claim at the bottom, for an example the article INDIA has got many refrences all of them are websites and very first refrence is of Indian Govt. Website again developed by NIC. the same way NIC has developed over 500 websites of Government of India and its states and all of them are copyrighted which implies that all the sources taking that as refrence should be deleted but it shouldnt be deleted because it is for the ease of Indian citizens that information has been provided and no voilation of copyright exists if it is on wikipedia also. In most of its websites NIC has declared that its not responsible for the content. In the same way it states in that refrence also therfore its not an indirect claim but a DISCLAIMER. --Shekhartagra (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a big difference between referencing as in Jamabandi and copying completely. Please note that i have already restored it (it si just hidden) and follow-up on the article's talk page: TALK:Land record documents of Haryana--Tikiwont (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for taking care of the -AM redirects. --NE2 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Huss

I have Huss disease. My skin falls off at a slow rate. I could have added on to the page. Please bring it back. HissingCot (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Smokin Revolver post

Again, please accept my apologies in posting the subject. If i were to wait say a 6 months, then if i were to repost somehting bout the label would that be acceptable without causing the trouble that i appear to have caused. Thank you for your advice in advance. Smokinrobin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokinrobin (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV

Hello--thanks for your recent work at DRV. I just wanted to drop by with a couple reminders about tiny technical things. Don't forget to use {{drb}} at the bottom--I think on this one you accidentally used {{rfd bottom}}. Also, remember that {{drt}} includes a sig embedded within the template, so if you add one, it'll sign twice. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Chick Bowen 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and for fixing the mixed-up bottom. As for the signatures I actually know that but got momentarily confused because I had to add some unsigned templates to Jan31 and for Jan 30 one is still unsigned, but i don't know what the reason is.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD Policy RfC

Since you closed Saint Pancake, I thought you might be interested in this Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#RfC:_Reverting_speedy_deletions_-_administrator.27s_guide. I notified the nominator of the DRV too, although he disagrees. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, I don't think the initial statement represents correctly what i tried to say in the closing statement. I've expanded there.-Tikiwont (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SWIFT portal

I have tried to discuss with the three admins who felt that the SWIFT portal was too narrow (jan 29). However i provided a defence of which I still have not received a response. My defence still lies in the fact that the UN has its portal - SWIFT, albeit being smaller, serves the same role as the UN but to a different community. SWIFT is a non-profit and non-commerical organisation involved in Standards for the financial community and collaborates with ISO and the UN CEFACT. Based on this reasoning how can one have a portal and the other not? Furthermore it has come to my attention that microsoft has its portal - if this is the case than I would have to declare that the deletion of SWIFT portal is positive discrimination. How can a profit and commerically orientated company be a valid portal topic and how is this not too narrow? A valid logical response would be appreciated. Thanks Nicolas39 (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Portals are specific entry-points to Wikipedia content maintained by the community. They reflect what people read and collaborate on, whether important or not. They are governed by a respective guideline and many portals are regularly examined if they meet these expectations, which include diversified content, enough quality content, editorial support within the community e.g. in the form of a collaborative project and not being a vehicle for advocacy. Note that commercial /non-commercial isn't a criterion. The MfD does not imply any judgment on SWIFT but simply states that there isn't enough article material and coordinated activity. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication hasn't even been rated and the only person arguing for inclusion was you. Whatever merits your comparison of SWIFT with the UN may or may not have, with respect to the criteria for portals, our activities on the UN fit the bill: an active project, good articles, biographies, images etc. The deletion review then merely affirmed that there wasn't anything wrong with the MfD, but also reflects that an aim of making the SWIFT position in the financial industry more visible comes close to our understanding of advocacy. 'We' here refers to the Wikipedia community of unpaid volunteers whereas you refer to SWIFT as 'we'. So I'll post you a standard COI advice with some useful hints on your talk.

With respect to Microsoft, it isn't correct say the they have a portal, but Wikipedia currently indeed has a portal on Microsoft. Being a commercial company does not rule that out. Moreover the argument that other stuff exists isn't considered a valid one here simply because anybody can create something. Actually the portal on MS only narrowly escaped deletion in December, so the last word may not have been spoken there. But as you mention it you may want to check out Criticism_of_Microsoft#Advertising_and_public_relations. Hope that helps.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. It has been the most constructive one I have received and is helping me to understand more about wikipedia. However just o clarify things when I refered to we - I do not work for SWIFT but refered to myself and some friends who are currently carrying out research on the financial world and are motivated to share what we discover. Yet one thing still escapes me and I would like to understand how the portal on Microsoft 'is not too narrow' as was criticized on the SWIFT portal. I still believe if Microsoft has a portal (or there is a portal on microsoft) then one should be allowed for SWIFT. You argue that there wasnt enough coordinated activity and that I was the only arguing for its inclusion. However may I ask one questions: -Just becuase people are not sufficiently aware about something or argue about it, does it still make it right to remove this content to be availably viewed? Would it not on the contrary incite to having such information available at wikipedia as to better disseminate it? Furthemore (you may check the history) the portal was up for about two months - would you consider that enough time to declare that people dont use it? Would something like this not require at least a year? I highly appreciate your feedback, dont get me wrong, I am just trying to show another point of view which I still believe is valid - especially now that I see a portal on micrsoft is permitted. Im still trying to understand exactly how does the microsoft site differ (except for amount of content) than the portal on SWIFT. What other methods do I have to recall a review or request that other people review this case? thanks alot for your help, much appreciated. NickNicolas39 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, (i) The best way to understand more about Wikipedia is to become an active editor committed to the five pillars. Currently you and your friends act as if outside. (ii) I wouldn't get hung on the Microsoft example, that barely escaped deletion last time and may or may not be removed another time (I'd be fine without), nor on any other example because by the very nature here we are never consistent here and acknowledging that helps to stay sane. (iii) Just to be clear: No encyclopedic content or information has been removed, just a dedicated gateway. Please don't put the cart before the horse here. All is about content and as additional feature we may have such portals once the depth and width of content seems to warrant this, not the other way round. (iv) Whatever time the SWIFT portal was up, its case looked sufficiently clear to to the community because of the fundamentals. (v) In that sense the decision can be revisited when those basics change. (vi) In case you want to pick up on (i), the Wikiproject finance may be of interest. I notice that there isn't a Finance portal yet.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your moral support. Syjytg (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. But I'd rather you had heeded the advice given to you by Frank...--Tikiwont (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

UniChem

I have no idea how to add references? Seriously I've put the website down and can add more but where do I put them? --UnTrooper (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CITE. I added an example, the website doesn't' really count as reliable source.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

but then again we already have an article at Alliance Unichem...--Tikiwont (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That is just typical. This one might as well be replaced with the NZ one. --UnTrooper (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Then again Alliance Unichem only covers 1997, We've been around alot longer than that. And we override the European head office I just Veto'd one of their decisions myself, since European decisions do not always benefit the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnTrooper (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Angel chix

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Angel chix, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Angel chix is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Angel chix, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Hey, I read through most of the section you directed me to. I feel like I'm missing part of the discussion as if it were archived or something. Michig's replies are hopelessly long and make want to fall asleep when I get through paragraph two. My basic feeling is that this sentence fragment, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" should be changed to, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable and is independently notable per WP:N."

I'm tired and don't feel like reading through all the long winded responses. I'll go through it tomorrow. Thanks for the redirect.OlYeller^Talktome 08:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. It may help to read from bottom up aor rather the last subsection and post there as the question is now indeed which wording to use if any.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider deleting Love and War (album)

I'd appreciate it if you could re-consider your deletion of this article. I removed the speedy from it as the original AfD was 6 months ago and there was now a confirmed release date for it. There was also a partial (but at 8 tracks reasonably long) track listing for it (admittingly unsourced). Therefore I thought there was enough significant new information that the previous AfD was invalid (although if there were no relaible sources found for the track listing I wouldn't be surprised if the result of any new AFD was delete - but now that discussion can't even be held). I am also of the believe that in general an editor removing a speedy tag is considered proof of enough uncertainity to avoid speedy delete. Dpmuk (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well first of all, I simply didn't see your removal. I went through the CSD category and once i had checked the old AfD and the current links and deleted the article it was 20:16 UTC, the same time stamp I can now see for your edit but there is no edit conflict notice in such a case. I am also not sure if this is a case where the removal of the tag actually changes the situation. As you say yourself the article was essentially unsourced and thus cannot address the previous consensus where the lack of reliable sources was an argument. Anything with a good reference would have certainly invalidated that discussion, while it doesn't really matter that this took place six month ago and whether there is now a release date or tarck info.

Now, you might be interested to know that i had already informed the creator to check if they are interested in userfying it,[3] and i still think that is the best way to move forward. It can be improved in their place or yours (with a note on the artist's talk page) and then be moved back to mainspace once you see fit, ideally even evading another AfD for the mere purpose of searching for better refs.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder if we'd somehow managed to 'edit' at the same time - as I'm not an admin I couldn't check the time of my previous edit to see if this was likely. As a general point I'm a little surprised that the software doesn't check that there hasn't been an intermediate edit before deleting. I'd have also thought that if you'd spent some time checking things out you'd double check it hadn't been updated since you started the process, although that said I'm not sure I'd think of doing so except if something like this had happened in the past.

I also thought that the release date had a reliable source and this led me to believe there may also be one for the track listing. The two combined made me think it was worthy of another AfD, especially given the six months since the previous listing and the relative closeness of release, both of which I think makes it quite likely that there may be reliable sources that didn't exist first time around. In general I believe that many pages are speedied too quickly and authors and/or others aren't given enough time to bring them up to standard and so we miss out on many worthwhile articles as why people may be willing to work on an existing article I suspect far fewer (especially in the case of new editors) are willing to work on one that has been deleted, even if it has been userfied as even this act is liekly to be disheartening.

At the moment I'm prepared to wait and see what the original author's response is as it's not an area I know much about so don't want to update the article myself.Dpmuk (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you may want to appreciate that i pondered this carefully, but it also did not take me ages and there was little reason to assume that something happened in that precise moment after the article being tagged for five hours. But I may want to watch out for that in future. It may also be worth to check on a possible software restriction but one problem might be that it is difficult to define respect to what the edit would be 'intermediate' as deletion by definition always includes all reversions.

While I agree with you that we need to be careful about speedy deletions, consider myself careful in that respect and also often oppose at RfA for sloppy tagging, I don't think we miss out on albums in particular as they are not eligible for speedy deletion per A7. Actually one problem in that area is that people try to beat each other to write articles on upcoming or untitled albums on the flimsiest info which occasionally makes it more difficult once the time is ripe.

In this particular case we need refs or a charting, both of which are easier to come by once the album is released. The deviation through user space may seem daunting but is also an opportunity to reflect on article quality and editing habits. Moreover, whether you or I remove the speedy tag, other editors and administrators can still call us on our reasoning and the mere hope that there are already better sources for an unreleased debut album whose track listing is still not definite is a rather weak one.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(resetting indent) As I say as I'm not an admin I can't check the page history and so didn't realise it had been tagged for five hours. Had I known your actions would have been even more understandable to me than they already are. As a general comment I also realise that I am probably at one extreme of the follow procedure spectrum mainly as a result of the problems I had with Engkanto. I thought that the original article showed hints of notability and wanted to contest the speedy but it was deleted before I got the chance. Thankfully it was recreated and by careful watching I was able to save it from speedy, got it to a state where it survived AfD and was even used as a DYK. Ever since this happened I've been of the believe that speedy is often used too quickly without given the editor a chance to show notability. Personally I think an A7 (and now after this issue also G4s) should stay on a page a minimium amount of time before speedy to give editors a chance to improve the page. As this can't happen I will often remove speedys if I think there's any possibility they're not speedable even when nearly certain they're (rightly) fail prod/AfD in their current state as both of these give the author a chance to improve the page. In this case I thought the article just scraped over the not-speedable bar although I'm aware many would disagree. I'm sure you are very careful - just not as careful as I'd be although as I state my view is probably a little extreme.

Comments on the the 'concurrent edits' issue aren't really specifically related to this article or yourslef but it was this article that got me thinking hence the comments being here. I've no idea if there's a suitable answer. What if someone had updated an article with good reliably sourced information that established notability why an admin had been considering speedy deletion. If the editor was a new editor I doubt they'd go through the proccess of getting it undeleted. Dpmuk (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, somebody is always more careful, but it is also important not to 'invests' too much in one's self-image. Moreover, it's important to distinguish being careful in the sense of due diligence about a case from any interpretational differences regarding the CSD criteria. E.g I was referring to the former, while with respect to G4 I tend to think that once the community has already taken the time to evaluate the potential of an article at AfD they can expect an actual effort to address the concerns. If I see such an article I can still refrain from tagging it and and e.g. drop note at a talk page to see what happens, but to decline a requested G4 deletion I need stronger reason. The eligibility for G4 or any other criterion doesn't necessarily disappear if one editor or administrator removes a tag. Your own tag removals will be most useful where you are convincing the tagger and they learn something e.g about CSD criteria or where you commit to addressing the issues an editor. Defending on the other hand borderline calls will not always be successful and may bring you into the territory of edit warring or wheel warring as far as it involves administrative decisions. It can be pretty exhausting, too, if you're too attached to the outcome of single cases. Those will matter less if you help many and influence others. Additionally it may be worth to address any root problems you perceive e.g policies. Finally, maybe you find this essay and the included links of interest.

Meanwhile I note that the creator of our original example has removed my message.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hot carrier cell

Why did you delete Hot carrier cell that is linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.194.43 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hot-carrier cell was a redirect to Hot carriers injection and deleted as part of a bulk nomination of questionable redirects by a later banned editor. Most of them created some kind of association and editors tried to make sense of them by putting them me into different groups, partly retargeting, partly deleting. This one might have been one of the more meaningful ones, but the target also did not mention solar cells at all. If I now look at your links (that were not removed in this case as there is no prejudice against other editors recreating useful content or redirects) it might be the phenomenon that needs to be linked but i it is not obvious to me whether Hot carriers injection actually describes what is intended at Solar_cell. If you think so, just change the link. If the cell type is worth a separate article i cannot say but it might probably best be named Hot-carrier solar cell which could also be a redirect to a section anywhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Aledification page

Hi there tikiwont - just a quick not to request that the page for Aledification be reinstated. Aled Schell is a good friend of mine, and the page was created in collaboration with him and was not in any way intended as an attack! If you would like, i can specify this on the page when it is restored, and include a link to his myspace page where you can find evidence of his personal support for the article? Please let me know if there is anything further that i can do that may warrant the restoration of the article in question! Thanks, Domwilson86 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that as this is a new concept, and one which has only recently become popularised, i think an argument citing lack of reference would be unfair in this case. Thanks again, Domwilson86 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion

Sorry about that, I am a little new to the whole New Page patrolling (trying to spread out to new things on Wiki) and thought that was the best choice for that page. What would have been a better choice? - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 9, 2009 @ 22:37

thanx for deleting the page

i blanked it myself, but thanx for closing the page in the deletion log. i'll use the sandbox for other projects now. again, thanx. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Lucille

Hi, I have found your usernames from the spirituality section. I need your help and suggestion. I am trying to add an article on one of the Living spiritual teacher. but,I am facing an problem.

The editors who have visited this page don't understand spirituality and they have tagged it for deletion. i need your help urgently. so they are trying to compare it with other biographies in the field of sports etc. As you know,the field the spirituality is not very commercial. so I am having a hard time convincing them. could you please help and take a look at article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Lucille http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Lucille.

Appreciate all your help.

Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is already near to closing. While I don't see any comparisons to sport people many seem to feel that there has mot enough written about him (as opposed to by him and interviews) in reliable sources (as opposed to web pages and personal endorsements). If it doesn't work out keep the draft adn try to adress that.

On a further note: what would he say if you told him about your problem?--Tikiwont (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTNOW

No need to elaborate, he withdrew. Thanks, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tiki, first thanks for closing that rfa, but when you close an RfA per a withdraw, it is preferable to include a link to the withdrawal. That way others can see it and it is documented. This is particularly true when the request appears on a page other than the RfA or the RfA's talk page. I went ahead and added it to SE7's.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Need administrator intervention

I need your help on the Dana L. French article, Tedickey has all his online buddies now vandalizing the page and I need to have a restriction placed on the page until I can sufficiently cite and provide sources. Dfrench (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see vandalism a such but disagreements about the content. No need to assume that all others are 'online buddies'. If you need a quiet space, you can userfy it though, but have to refrain from edit warring. Hopefully I cleared up the deletion issue, though--Tikiwont (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thanks for helping me out with the page move (Keepin' It Real). Have a great day :) ~EdGl ★ 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Style matters Article

Hi, just wondering why speedy was declined for this article? The notability of the artist is being debated in AfD, shouldn't this article be also? I'm still pretty new to NPP so feedback would be good. Thanks Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Because A9 is explicitly restricted to albums where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted. Both had been tagged more or less together, which is fine but as another admin had declined the speedy for the artist at that point the album wasn't eligible for speedy deletion. The article for the musician has only later been nominated for AfD and if it is actually deleted the one for the album should go indeed go as well, but only then.

Two more suggestions: please always make clear in the edit summaries that you apply deletion tag and consider to notify the creators, e.g via the preformatted template message on the tag itself.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK that's cool, so would it better to now move the article to Afd or wait and see what happens with the article for the artist? I do sometimes forget to do the edit summary when tagging for a speedy delete, but I do inform the creator, and did on this occasion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, you're right about the notifications. Maybe you want to enable a prompt for edit summaries in your preferences, though. with respect to the album article, the criterion was actually introduced for orphaned articles, so you can just wait for the AfD and then it can either be tagged agian or kept or merged / redirected as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

I need your help again. Tedicky is on a rampage to eliminate anything I have ever written for Wikipedia. He is actively engaged in removing any links I have ever placed anywhere regardless of relevance. For example on the Shell script page, there was a link to my "korn shell script repository", as well as links to many other script repositories. He singled out my repository, labeled it as spam, and deleted only it from the page.

He did the same with a link to an Elevator pitch presentation template on that page.

He has had the Shell curses page deleted and is attempting to have the Data Center Automation page deleted.

Please help me with this, he is out of control and needs to be reeled back in. Dfrench (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if links come from one editor they are more likely to catch the eye. If there are other links that should go that is not only tedickey's responsibility but also yours or mine. Our basic policy here is WP:EL and that can in most cases be sorted out on the articles talk pages. Personally, I'm more of a minimalist with respect to external links and would not link to script repositories at all. Your elevator pitch link is really not helpful in any case.

Moreover, Tedicky seems to be doing a lot of useful things and most of them are completely unrelated to you, while you have hardly contributed anything not related in some to yourself and this has been noticed and pointed out now by a number of editors in the various discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shell curses and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data center automation, not even initiated by Tedickey, and resulting in clear consensus to delete.

I'm pretty sure neither Tedickey nor the community at large would want to eliminate anything well sourced and neutral not related to you or Mt Xia. But would you want to to write it?--Tikiwont (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ok Deletion of Stuart Horner

Ok dude, i was just about to correct the information and build on it and give the information , the person is an American Drumer , .Ok that is why the person is on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartjhorner (talk • contribs) 11:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, no offense meant but you may want to review Wikipedia's guideline on notability for musicians and the info regarding your conflict of interest that I posted on your page. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)