User talk:Wickethewok/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click here to leave a new message

I will respond to messages left on my talk page here. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there. This prevents fractured discussions.

Archived[edit]

  • Last archived on January 4, 2006. Please put any comments on the current talk page. Wickethewok 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsbad Gap[edit]

Why delete the article? This is up: [[1]] and it could have simply been expanded. Doctor Lyles Carlton III 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • El Toro should be deleted, too, in my opinion. If you have some sources, feel free to apply for undeletion at WP:DRV. Wickethewok 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

prod'd SkipperGuide[edit]

Hi Wickethewok, you've marked this article for proposed deletion. Just to know it: I've recently added some notability criterions and some reference. Is it still not enough, or what do you think? --Lowfly 15:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The objective criteria for articles on web-related matters is listed in WP:WEB. Right now, this website appears to fail all three listed criteria. Wickethewok 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exmortis[edit]

  • I would like to repost Exmortis it is not a fake article. And I feel it was unfairly deleted. Please allow me to repost it for consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladb2000 (talk • contribs)
  • I have already written to you on your talk page about this (probably just as you were writing to me). Wickethewok 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mistake[edit]

I'm afraid you and several other admins have made a mistake, the onions are indeed a notable band by personnal, objective, and even wikipeda standards, they have been recogized by third parties other than people who know them personally and have distributedd records, they have gone on tour and been played on the radio, their history is important to be on wikipedia and is indeed a notable band, that happens to be independant and not signed to any record label, this doesnt mean that they arent meeting the standars of wikipedia, I would appreciate it if you could give the OK GO on leaving this page up. Thank you for your cooperation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jenna741 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • If you decide to repost this or apply for undeletion at WP:DRV, please include some sources citing your claims. In almost all cases, if you have sources attesting to a subject's notability, it will not be deleted. Wickethewok 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Norman notibility info[edit]

Dear Wickethewok,

Thank you for your note on notability in regard to my article that I added on film director Matt Norman. I am a journalist in Melbourne Australia and have it on good authority that Matt's work has been documented by many Australian and O.S journalists. Matt is considered an outspoken advocate of Racism and has used his ability as a film-maker to make what is becoming known as the very last film about what happened during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. He is the only person to have filmed all three men involved with the Black Power protest before Peter Norman's tragic death in October 2006. I suggest to you that in the coming year, Matt Norman will be a major part of information relating to one of the most historic moments in Olympic history and for this I suggest you re-look at keeping the article on Wikipedia as a resource for people to know more and stay informed.

Please see; Tommie Smith, John Carlos, Peter Norman, Salute - The Peter Norman story(film) on Wikipedia for more information. To me it would be a little silly not being able to directly link those stories without an internal link to Matt Norman's article within Wikipedia.

Thank you. I look forward to your comments. Filmnews2007

  • First off, I should note that this article is not marked for deletion. I suggest that you include some independent sources of which Matt Norman is the subject, rather than just his work. All details about individuals should be able to verified by independent reliable sources of information. Wickethewok 03:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wickethewok,

  • Thank you for your response. I'm not sure if this is how I reply to you by editing this message, apologies if this is wrong. Here are some links for you to view reputable news coverage articles on filmmaker Matt Norman.
  • IF MAGAZINE - search on this site to find dozens of articles relating to this filmmaker.
  • THE AGE NEWSPAPERAustralia's biggest selling newspaper.
  • THE 7.30 REPORT - ABC AUSTRALIATop rating current affairs program on ABC Australia
  • [2] THE AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION - Australia's funding body and film hub.
  • News Online

There are hundreds more?

Thanks in advance. Hope this helps you decide. Kindest Filmnews2007

  • Well, most of these are still mainly about Peter Norman, but Matt Norman seems like he could be notable as well. Again, this isn't up for deletion and I don't plan on nominating it for deletion. Wickethewok 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your reply. How then do I take the reference on notablity off the cover page of Matt Norman? do you do that or is it left there? Thanks again. Filmnews2007.
  • You may remove it as long as you add the references into the article. Please put the news coverage links under a ==References== header. 'ave a good one. Wickethewok 06:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobchicken91[edit]

Hi. Just curious, do you really think we need the Bobchicken91 (talk · contribs) account? It's all vandalism and a 4-time nonsense page. Sounds like an indefblock to me. Just my two cents... —Wknight94 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dcarrtexans[edit]

Seems to me to be a vandalism only account, so an indef block would be appropriate. →AzaToth 04:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • He made a couple constructive edits awhile ago apparently, but, yeah, I went ahead and indef'd him. Wickethewok 04:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA[edit]

That's good - congrats to you! People were certainly quiet on that FAC. Sometimes no further gripes equals support, I guess. –Outriggr § 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article had specific problems, but not really unworkable ones, and was already well on its way to future article status when it arrived on the board, so I think no further comments once the couple of us changed our votes was appropriate. Actually using sources to write a popular culture article helped a lot. Then you, Wickethewok, listened to the most important thing I say over and over, what kills so many FACs, imo: know your audience and stop writing for the fan base (although you weren't a big offender in that area, either). I was a bit concerned when I first started reading it, but you dealt positively with my initial criticisms as if you really wanted the article to work as a FA. Great job--I enjoyed reading the article. KP Botany 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a list of corrections for the article I'll post on the talk page. They're not particularly critical, and you made some of the changes after I had downloaded the article and before I posted the comments. Also the text flows well, so, even though they're not substantive corrections, I won't be able to do them myself, as my prose is somewhat turgid. KP Botany 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. I'm watching the article/talk page, so I'll get right on them when you finish them up. Thanks for this and helping this reach FA.  :-) Wickethewok 07:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Broadbandreports[edit]

Could someone please provide some reliable independent sources regarding this forum? Wickethewok 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this along the lines of what you're looking for? http://www.dslreports.com/about

Obliter 01:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe, I haven't gone through all of them, but a few of them are just mentions and not particularly useful for this article. I encourage you to add references to the relevant of any of these mentions that has useful information about the website. Wickethewok 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha[edit]

Congratulations - you got there eventually! --Mcginnly | Natter 10:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heehee, yeah, much thanks for all of your suggestions during the FAC process.  :) Wickethewok 14:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh... must have missed that. Congratulations on a job well done and 10/10 for perseverance! --kingboyk 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BioPerl[edit]

I think I've satisfied the references and notability requirments for this article: BioPerl. Please confirm and remove the tags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sendu (talk • contribs) 10:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From the RAB guy[edit]

Hi there,

You were the third and last member to delete the page for my Flash series "Retarded Animal Babies." I am new to Wiki, don't know all the various functionalities involved, etc., but I can hereby verify that the content of the page was 99.9% accurate. I was wondering if you could assist me in getting the page undeleted... fans of RAB have spent 100s of hours working on its content and it's a shame the info is only available on answers.com now.

I will do whatever means needed to prove my identity, etc. I find it very frustrating that just three users with admin status can arbitrarily delete a page regarding an online animated series with millions of fans, without even so much as bothering to contact its creator for verification purposes first.

Thanks in advance,

Dave http://umop.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamsterdunce (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As I said earlier, I don't really understand Wiki, and don't have time to spend learning all its nuances, it's It's undoubtedly an invaluable resource but I believe I'd need to take a class or something to figure it all out. :o) Whatever the case, I'm more here inquiring on behalf of the fans who spent so much time working on it. I don't know how to start new talk topics, "undelete," all that jazz. I read the discussion about its deletion and I'm stunned at how much back and forth there was... all kind of talk about credibility and lack of sources, etc., and not one of the people ever even bothered to send me a simple email asking me to verify anything. "What happens in Wiki stays in Wiki?" --Dave Hamsterdunce (talk • contribs)

  • You need sources. Emails with people associated with the subject are not sources. Wickethewok 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im confussed[edit]

I am trying to post a wikipedia bio on a florida wrestler and it keeps being deleted can you explain to me why it is "nonsense" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Victor Grimm (talk • contribs) 20:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • It reads as if its just about some guy who wrestles in some made up leagues. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss him? For example, an online local paper's bio about him? Wickethewok 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im leaving 100% accurate info how is that vandalizing this is ignorant if i am blocked for this I will take imediate action —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Victor Grimm (talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

do I need to put in sources as well theres only about 100 of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Victor Grimm (talk • contribs) 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • As I stated above, you need to put sources in any articles you create. Wickethewok 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources[edit]

I added sources you deleted again This is ridiculous. you have no knowledge of Kid Lethal so you assume he is made up there are you tube videos. results, interviews and roster bios what more do you need? does he need to call you on phone? send you his social security number? Do your research before you delete peoples work. ignorance is not an excuse to be an "prosterior"--Victor Grimm 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have opened up a discussion HERE. You are, of course, welcome to participate. Wickethewok 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man I don't know the rules of this game. Somebody tries to remove my page constantly. That's vandalism. Can you do anything to leave it?

That would be great, cause everything is found on the internet about this subject.

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepingturtle (talk • contribs)

  • I'm not sure which article you are talking about, but if there is an AFD notice on it, you are welcome to participate in the discussion. Wickethewok 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality[edit]

Please don't revert my edits. - RoyBoy 800 04:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, Royboy, sorry didn't mean to rv any of your edits, I was just trying to revert to a previous good version. Wickethewok 04:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Realized that just now, guess we both edited b4 refreshing. No prob. - RoyBoy 800 04:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orb article[edit]

hi wickethewok

just had a look at the orb article and can help with a few discrepancies

1 jah wobble never played live with the orb, his contribution was in the studio only

2 the beatles are an influence??????????!!!!!!!!!! get real please!

3 i am no longer in the band (haven't done anything for them for 3 years)

4 woodstock 94 our most famous performance??? even thogh we played twice we were not on the bill or announced in a program

we probably played to a maximum of 2,000 people total. the show was a complete waste of time,

the miserable fucks wouldn't even give us a beer before we went on stage.

"corporate hippy horse shit" is my best description of woodstock 1994

i blame matty silver, such a loud mouth cock promoter the likes i have never met before and hope i never meet again.

the line up "next year" was the same appart from nick burton played drums instead of

percusion and paul fergison no longer played with the orb.

5 the orb were using adats live from 1993 up untill i rejoined in 2001 and dumped the awful fu@*ing machines.


there are a few other misnomas, but thats all part of rock'n'roll history

hope i have been of some help

simon phillips —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.31.112.128 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Thanks for the suggestions.
  1. Really? I have a print sources claiming differently, I'll see if I can figure out why the discrepancy.

dont believe the press, they "talk out of their arses" or copy what some one else has said!!! most of the time they reported wobble on stage it was me, lazy fools

  1. I don't see where the article mentions the Beatles as an influence (?)

it was in reference to production techniques, king tubby would be far nearer the mark

  1. I realize this and should resolve the ambiguity by specifically mentioning that.
  1. The woodstock claim was specifically from All Music Guide, so I will look around for more media suggestions as to what The Orb's most notable performance is/was.

who in hell are "All Music Guide"?

"trekhoner" in the middle of the sea in copenhagen on a floating stage would get my vote.

I removed the "most famous" quote.

thanks, it was a horrible weekend, corporate rubbish and in terms of playing to people a complete waste of time.

So approximately, the '94 lineup was Paterson/Hughes/Burton/Phillips/Ferguson and the '95 lineup was the same personnel minus Ferguson?

exactly, nick played drums

  1. I've added the years regarding the ADAT fmt.

sweet

Thank you muchly for the corrections. If you have any print/online reliable sources that I could use as references, that would be great. Have a good one!

hmmmmm, seems like would you like "chinese whispers" from some half witted journo, to back up what is in essence "straight from the horses mouth"?

i suppose thats wikipedia for you?

thanks for your time

simon


Wickethewok 14:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, does this warrant {{Notable Wikipedian}} on his article? –Unint 05:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, we don't really have confirmation. Simon would need to send a confirmation email from his website or something imo, and probably a user account too. Wickethewok 05:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What a wondeful Wiki-contradiction!

If I wrote for any magazine or website and published articles, no matter how incorrect, you would/could (have!) believe(d) what has been written.

Just because someone is a journalist/webmaster doesn't mean they have: a Their facts right. b Done any research what so ever. c Researched from reliable sources.

Once one journo writes something they all follow! Wikipedia falls into this same "truth" trap, or perpetuation of untruths.

I understand why Wickthewok might think he "needs" some kind of confirmation as to who I am but what has he asked of the people he has used as source for his article? Has he asked for their credentials? Maybe they were sacked for writting an article that has been asimulated into Wikipedia?

I hope you can see why this Wiki-contradiction is so amusing.

I tell a journo something, they get it wrong or on occasion make it up (I kid you not!!!) and publish, Wikipedia believes journo and wants me to prove authenticity?

Fantastic!!!

God Bless Ya

Simon xxx

  • I understand that journalists sometimes (often?) make things up, which is why I try to view all sources with an eye of skepticism. I have removed the suspect information you pointed out, so its not like I'm disregarding your comments or anything. Wickethewok 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't feel disregarded and, i'm ok if you want to disregard everything i have said, it would make no difference to my life.

I just find your Wiki "relaible source" policy amusing.

Thanks again for your time.

Simon

You actually have the policy pretty much correct, and it can be a tad ironic tis true - we don't necessarily report "the truth" (TM) but what the printed record says. That's because we're a secondary source, with the aim of being an enyclopedia (a publication which collates and presents existing knowledge). That said, I'm sure wik will take on board what you have to say and he certainly edits with sympathy :) Nice to see you here. --kingboyk 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tranceport1.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tranceport1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Loathing[edit]

I'm curious as to why you appear to have singled out the "Kingdom of Loathing" page by putting a {{primarysources}} tag on it. Since very few computer games or online games have any books or articles written about them that would qualify as "reliable sources" in the Wikipedia sense, it seems to me you could just as easily apply that tag to, say, every article in the "Massively multiplayer online role-playing games" category. So why just this one in particular? If you try to apply those standards to articles about games that don't have reliable sources, you will have to delete nearly every computer game article in the Wikipedia. I hope that's not what you're trying to accomplish. -- CWesling 10:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umm, it just means the article needs some secondary sources. I often put this tag on articles that lack secondary sources, regardless of what the article's subject is. Wickethewok 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young American Primitive[edit]

Hey! You left a low priority tag there... Can you please explain what does it mean? Louigi Verona 14:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This tag only means that the priority of this article is not particularly high within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music. YAP isn't a particularly prolific artist (though they are quite good imho), so I rated them as a "low" for the purposes of this WikiProject. This tag is mainly for the WikiProject and shouldn't discourage you from working on it if you desire. Also, if you are interested in collaborating on any electronic music articles or require any assistance, feel free to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music. Wickethewok 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

urgent question[edit]

Hello, could you please advise me about how to know the past precedent at Wikipedia on having two separate entries for one album that has come out once on Rolling Stones Records in 1971 and then again in cd form with a different album cover and liner notes on Point Music (leased from the Rolling Stones who owned it) in 1995? The album is Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka originally spelled "Joujouka" in 1971 and which a couple of people are insisting needs two separate listings. I am trying to learn if there is actually a difference in the music on the two versions as alleged today because I've heard no difference in my copies but will recheck since I needto actually sit down with both the turntable for the 1971 release and my cd player for the cd.

Under what circumstances would we make two separate listings for the two releases? Do you know or is there a different admin who would know how Wikiproject things handle two releases? I found you from looking at the Wikiproject page edit history. A couple of people that didn't like the album being rereleased with a different cover want to separate the entries. I just want to know how we normally handle rereleases. This was a groundbreaking album that started the World Music genre. The band itself changed its name in 1972 from having "Joujouka" in the name to "Jajouka" and the rerelease in 1995 reflected the spelling the group had used afterward. The album redesign bothers a couple of people, one of whom in the past written negative opinions about the rerelease in a previous version of the article using the older spelling. Now people want to have two entries.

It might solve all the bickering at talk pages to separate the two if this can be justified by finding a difference in the music (that I don't know about yet) or precedent in past articles splitting reissues from original albums here. Emerman 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know of any precedent for creating separate articles for album re-releases. Typically, if an album has multiple covers due to re-releases the second is included somewhere in the article body, with the original cover used in the lead/infobox. The only reasons I can think of that you would need separate articles would be if the versions were substantially different OR if there is so much encyclopedic information available that a single article is not pratical. Even though some people might not like the re-release version, it is impractical to create two articles imho. A section of the article discussing the differences in the versions seems like something you need though. If you require feedback from additional editors, I suggest you ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Wickethewok 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the later album cover was up as the main one, with also including the earlier one second is that the band had changed its name in 1972, and if the album is listed under the original spelling and not the later one, then a different band is implied recorded it from the one that the music owner assigned it to in the 1995 rerelease. If the band had not changed its name spelling in 1972 it would be different but it creates a misleading impression about who is connected with the work to have the older spelling prior to the name spelling correction. So, it's not a normal situation, and I thought normally the current way you can find the album in the market place would be the normal way for the album to appear, not an old spelling that changed. At the very least we'd need a second listing for the reissue if you're saying normally you just do the original album, but in this case the current spelling for the band is the later one and has been since 1972 -- there had been a confusion about how to spell the village "Jajouka" and eventually the band went with the "Jajouka" spelling the next year after their first album was released with the "Joujouka" spelling. It sounds like there is a good argument for the original listing of the album to have its own listing from what you are saying though and to separate the two since there is an important reason to show the second one, but normally I would in this case do it all in one entry and just redirect the old spelling to the current one. This is because the band led by the band leader became known by a newer spelling and another band came out with albums in 1995 that harken to the original spelling, thus creating a confusing situation if the later spelling wasn't shown (as currently is shown in the album listing we have). It sounds like maybe the confusion will have to be alluded to in the articles or something too. Emerman 14:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll go and suggest the splitting be done as suggested by another person so I can move on. I have other things to deal with than this stuff. Thanks for your valued input. Emerman 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete my page[edit]

Why did you delete my page on the u16 floodit cup, what harm was it causing, lots of people had edited and ammended it. Why waste your time and effort deleting an article based on a topic which i presume you know little about and/or have no involvement in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.229.150 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Its reason for deletion was that it is a "Non-notable local interschool competition [with] no assertion of notability". If you feel this deletion is in error, you may state your reasoning at WP:DRV. Please note that all Wikipedia articles must be verifiable through reliable sources - I suggest if you apply at DRV you link to some reliable sources. Have a good one. Wickethewok 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Editing WAS Constructive[edit]

Excuse me Wickethewok, but my editting of the Raymar Morgan page was NOT vandalism. The page displayed the incorrect information regarding his jersey number, so I took the liberty to change the page to show his CORRECT jersey number. I don't understand how that could be considered vandalism. The welcome page told me that ANYONE ad the option to change a page as long as it was constructive, and fixing an error such as this is FAR FROM VANDALISM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.191.129 (talk • contribs)

  • I don't think I know what you are talking about. I've never edited the article Raymar Morgan. Are you sure you're talking to the right person? Wickethewok 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I think you mean to contact User:Sd31415 - he/she was the one who reverted your edit, not I. Wickethewok 02:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got some sort of message from you (possibly automated) telling me that if I continue in that manner I would be blocked from editting. I naturally assumed it was you who did the editing. My apologies!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.191.129 (talk • contribs)

Thank you![edit]

This has been a learning process for me since the first day; I have certainly never been a master of the subjects I've worked on, so I never quite thought about when that would grow into something more. I'm glad to know that somebody has deemed value to the sum of this work.

I'm going to put this up as soon as I sort out something. Thanks again. –Unint 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: prod deletion[edit]

A page that you deleted via PROD has been contested, restored and is now at AFD. You may wish to participate in the debate. Rossami (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gu030[edit]

Thanks for editing GU030 :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.254.53.224 (talk • contribs)

  • Cheers! I'm a big fan of the GU series.  :-) Wickethewok 17:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question about contributing[edit]

Hi, I recently contributed, adding a list of Connecticut Projects in 3 cities to the article, "Public Housing in the United States and Canada" [see link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_States_and_Canada

and the additions show up on the page when I'm logged into my account, but not when I am logged out. Does it take a while for it to show up to the public, or has it been deleted ?

I'd appreciate your advice.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmel123 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • All contributions should show up immediately. When they don't, its usually that your browser is using a cached version of the page. Most of the time this doesn't happen, but sometimes it does. You can press CTRL-F5 to do a full page refresh and that will usually make any extremely recent edits visible. Wickethewok 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia[edit]

New sources have been brought up in the DRV. If you could take a second look it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proton Radio[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Proton Radio, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RJASE1 Talk 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the heads up. I'll add some sources in the next couple days. Wickethewok 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation[edit]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me[reply]

  • Very cool. Survey completed - good call putting in the option to donate to Wikimedia. Wickethewok 03:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orb[edit]

What's the state of play with The Orb article mate? Are you going to try and give it the final push to FA status? --kingboyk 12:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup, after midterms during spring break I plan on working on this. School has been keeping me a bit busy lately. Its going to be on FAC before the end of the month hopefully. Wickethewok 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Have you see also that User:Vinoir is back? :) --kingboyk 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wickle[edit]

It is brutal how you believe that this word is false. I am british so i would know that it is a real word used in britain all of the time. it is like the word unfair, but maybe you wouldnt know that! it is slang for unfair. please do not delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libraryteacher101 (talk • contribs)

  • Can you cite a specific reliable source that defines this term? Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, try Wiktionary, a Wikipedia-like dictionary. Wickethewok 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your music[edit]

I love your track amidst the raindrops

do you have any more of your music ?

if you're using software synths maybe we could collab or sth :3 you don't know me and I don't want to bother you anyways but if I could contact you somehow I would love to listen more of your tracks, evn maybe collab with you to create some ultimate power chillout tracks ever lol

ok hope to hear anything from you

bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycho6470 (talk • contribs)

  • Heheh, thanks psycho.  :-) I haven't been doing much music work recently, but hopefully I can get back into it sometime after I graduate. If you would like the full track, send me an email [3]. Cheers! Wickethewok 07:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fan mail, nice! Where's your work published? --kingboyk 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll hit you up with an email this evening, cheers! Wickethewok 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I was going to tell you about the Anthony Emmerling page, but it appears as though you read my mind! Thanks again, Wickethewok. Griffin out. M.G. In Da Hizzhouse 06:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For the fair dealing of articles in category:mailing lists. Shyamal 10:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, apparently this is one of those cats that gets lots of non-notable internet things in it and needs to be cleared out every once in awhile. Have a good one! Wickethewok 10:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal trash[edit]

Oh give me a break, it was just a joke for some friends. :P
NewYork1956 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please refrain from doing so in the future. Wickethewok 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh![edit]

That was quick work! I was just in the middle of looking up the deletion policy process. Sometimes I consider going for adminship! Anyway, cheers. :) -- Mal 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh, yeah, I assume that article was created as a joke? Wickethewok 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no - it was meant to be a category though, and not an article. There are such people as blue-eyed soul singers apparently! First time I'd heard of them to be honest, but someone asked me for help regarding the Van Morrison article. :) -- Mal 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Weston article[edit]

Hello, thank you for improving the article regarding Mr Weston. May I ask you if you're a Orb fan? Well, apologies for not having contacted you before, I was (and am) very busy with my work activities here, I'm a freelance computing professional, and I am currently a co-worker/consultant in a lawyer office, therefore, the more I spend time with my work, the more I can improve my income; in other words, I have no spare time, virtually. I assume that you are editing in good faith, of course, you seem to me a serious editor, but I want to express my concern for those "gossips" that you wrote in both the Orb and Kris Weston articles. Mr Weston feels seriously "damaged" by such edits, and I hope that you re-consider this matter. Also, I have another question. Why the Wikipedia community is allowing such malicious behaviour (cyberstalikng, harrassment, insult, bad faith accusations) by just one user to me and some other editors? That person came in the discussion regarding the deletion of K W article addressing me as "tendecious". He assumes that, for some misterious reason, I hate any kind of music for clubs, regardless the way it is labelled. Weston and I are email friends, and I'm also acquainted with a number of people involved in music business. Why none ask him to stop?--Doktor Who 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Weston as you call him appears to want to rewrite history. He was a notable member of a notable band, and we will be writing about him. If there are any specific statements about him which you feel are both negative and inadequately sourced then of course they will be removed per WP:BLP; beyond that, "Mr Weston"'s career as a member of The Orb is a matter of public record. You might also like to advise him that coming here and shouting his filthy mouth off (as he or somebody claiming to be him has done in the past) is likely to be far more damaging to his reputation than fairly tame articles which do little more than say he was something of a production genius in one of the UK's most acclaimed electronic bands. --kingboyk 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am indeed a fan of The Orb and electronic music. The information regarding the breakup of Paterson and Weston is sourced through respectable British papers who quote Weston and Paterson. A popular music group breaking up is encyclopedic and public knowledge. Which "gossips" are you referring to? I don't know which user you are referring to as stalking you, however, if it continues I suggest you put in a notice at the administrator's noticeboard. I am monitoring the KW article so that it avoids any unsourced, contentious material. What exactly IS Weston's supposed problem/argument with the article here? I would greatly like to resolve this dispute. Wickethewok 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I tell you an episode of my life? I am into music (and electronics) since 1975 (as a hobbist, mainly, recently as a semi-professional). During early 1990s thanks to local radio stations and a records dealer, I got acquainted with the new "popular electronic" scene, the first house/techno/atmospheric works by the Orb, Aphex Twin, Orbital, Ultramarine, System 7 and others, I was so happy 'cos I realized that my old heroes' (Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream) music had got a new inheritance, and was about to conquer again mainstream notability. The days I was regarded as just a nerd were over :D.
So, it really annoys me if someone comes here and writes the following[4].
If you have some time to read his history, and read Talk:Ambient music, as well as Talk:Space music and Talk:New Age music, you will realize that he regards himself as the only legitimate owner of those articles. He is engaging battles with any other editor, since Marchs 2006. Maybe it is time for a community ban. I reported some of his misbehaviour at the noticeboard, but he's got just a warning.Doktor Who 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He does seem to be a bit prickly, but he has contributed a large amount of good work. He's been warned a few times now, so hopefully he'll cut down on various accusations. A ban though would be a bit extreme, as for the most part he is a very productive editor. I understand your frustrations at his accusations, however, these frivolous allegations make him look worse rather than you. After these warnings, if he continues this behavior for a continued period of time, an RFC might be appropriate, though I hope it doesn't get that far. Keep fightin the good fight. Very cool that you get to do stuff with electronics and music! Wickethewok 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he has been a valid editor for long. With regard to Weston identity, I have no doubts that the person I'm touch with is the real Kris Weston, indeed he emailed me from the justablip records domain. Doktor Who 18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod restoration, por favor?[edit]

I saw you deleted Andrew Keogh. I believe it may have been changed without my noticing, I'm not sure, but it was deleted via prod, so could you restore it? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I restored it for you. It needs some secondary sources and cites though so it doesn't get deleted again. Wickethewok 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural History of South Asia mailing list[edit]

This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [5] .

Thanks Atulsnischal 12:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orb[edit]

I haven't forgotten about finishing reading/tweaking the article and commenting on the FAC, I've just been busy with other things (bot approvals group, updating templates, plugin, all the boring meta stuff!). --kingboyk 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aye, no worries. :) Wickethewok 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yikes, I can hear the tumbleweeds over there. I promise (albeit with fingers crossed behind my back) to give a support or oppose tommorow. I wouldn't worry too much, if an article is really crap people pile on to oppose don't they :) --kingboyk 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I figure if I haven't had Tony or Sandy remark on my language (yet!), it can't be that bad. Wickethewok 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shipping law wiki[edit]

hi there,

I am not really sure whether I am referring to the person who conducted this deletion but it seems you may have an answer to this question: why was Shipping Law wiki deleted from the list of wikis as well as the relevant page. it makes no sense to me.

thank you for your time dimitrisandlefty

  • Shipping law wiki was deleted because it had no claims of notability. It appears to fail WP:WEB and WP:ATT as well. If you feel this in error you are welcome to ask for a deletion review at WP:DRV. Wickethewok 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with page move[edit]

I have a problem I'd like your help with. An article on a boarding school in New Hampshire is titled The White Mountain School, with White Mountain School being a redirect page to the former. However, it should be the other way around: the school is technically "White Mountain School", and "The White Mountain School" should redirect to that. However, when you try to movie "The White Mountain School" to "White Mountain School", it won't let you, because "White Mountain School" already exists. However, it's just a redirect page. Is there any way you can help with this? Thanks. – Dok(talk|contribs) 21:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems pretty non-controversial, so I went ahead and removed the redirect. You can go ahead and move the article and whatever else you like. Wickethewok 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. – Dok(talk|contribs) 22:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Filthy Truth[edit]

Once again I have to ask an admin to restore this page. TFT is one of the oldest and most active membership lists regarding the games industry. Its presence on Wiki is not in conflict with Wiki policy.

If you feel like deleting it, at least propose it first.

Thanks MrMarmite 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok[edit]

I have seen articles on here that are totally stupid! but some how they still are on!(well not anymore, it was my friends page so i edited it alittle bit and it got deleted becuz i edited it... heh heh... sorry :( but how was it on if it had no primary source, it wasnt an encyclopedia article?) YOURS TRULY, AIDENATOR!

  • It got deleted because it was nonsense. Wickethewok 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion save this ,an biographical stub!![edit]

keeping the articel. Why on earth would yo uwant to delete this? I smell conspiracy. Removing tag again. okey dokeSojcmbi Pinola

So my disagreement with you about information's worthwhile is completely pertinent, and not "vandalism" I work for cnet. We're covering this. you might remember you're last run in with CNET. So continue and ban me if you must, but know this, I've got as much right to add a biographical stub about a community activist as you've got to edit it. But in accordance with wiki rules, your steadfast denial of it's worth is "vandalism."Sojcmbi Pinola

  • AS I SAID ABOVE, THE DISCUSSION IS FOUND HERE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Mcwhinney Jr.. If you want to put forth your opinion, please do so there and stop removing the AFD tag. Removing the AFD is a clear violation of Wiki policy, if you want to discuss it, please do so at the link above. Wickethewok 03:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Wicke, by all means e-mail me about the AfD, and I'll explain further. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the heads up about the Gershenkron effect. Have you considered joining Wikipedia: WikiProject Business and Economics? We could sure use your help with assessment. Egfrank 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha, well, I understand so little about economics and business. I could help out sometime with a peer review thing for grammar/language stuff, but as far as actual econ/business content and knowledge, I'm of little use. Cheers though!  ;-) Wickethewok 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q on WP:AN[edit]

Howdy, I left a question for you on WP:AN regarding Theressa Knot. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand your response, I've followed it up with a request for clarification. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the message you left me a long time ago[edit]

I am currently working on an article about Doc Scott (talented Metalheadz dj and producer) on wikipedia. I hope this helps. When I'm not working on that project at the time I usually don't get back to people; it's a bad habit. But be sure to give me some feedback on this article I'm working on, or on anything. Thanks. Lighthead 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links removal[edit]

Hey there,

I've noticed you've removed a bunch of External Links lately. Eg. to pages like John_Digweed we (and others) had added links to our pages which include a lot of very relevant information. Can you let me know what the reasoning behind removing these links is? I fully appreciate wikipedia would want to limit link spam - but in our case (links to inthemix All About pages) the links go to extremely content rich pages which collect together all our information on the particular artist. I would have thought this would be of interest to anyone searching for information about particular artist. Let me know your thoughts..

Alackmann 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you feel the link was removed in error, you may replace it if you think it meets WP:EL. I've tried to view the website's content on a couple occasions (including now), but it hasn't been up. Some of the links I removed were redundant (there were like 3 tracklisting archives, and several general profiles). Links I generally remove in other articles include unofficial unauthoritative fansites and foreign language links that don't have unique content. Wickethewok 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo yahoo boys is not a neologism[edit]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1215/p07s02-woaf.html

In other words, yahoo yahoo boys is not a neologism. WhisperToMe 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok... I don't know what you are referring to...? Wickethewok 20:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wickethewok/Archive_5&oldid=1142691715"