User talk:VanishedUser sdu8asdasd/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

"That's my reason for an indef block"

To clarify, I said what I did more to say that not editing in mainspace was a bad thing rather than a good thing. I had other reasons above your comment for supporting a block, mostly that he has a history of beating dead horses. Also, I was advocating for 1-3 months, not indef. But the thread is closed, so who cares. pbp 19:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit exasperated at the whole thing, to be honest. I know very little of the back story; to be frank, I don't really care too much. What I do find absurd is the people who are STILL going on about the "retired" thing. I'm not saying Danjel is a particularly good editor, nor that they were flawless - but that ANI was mostly baseless, and was rightly closed as such. Besides, I also said I supported a block anyway, simply for the accusations - the rest of the stuff was irrelevant. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Biala Gwiazda

Thanks for your assistance and third opinion on the dispute between myself and User:Biala Gwiazda. I appreciate your insight on the matter. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Not a problem. I suggest you take note of the comments about your own actions - just because someone is foreign, and because they don't attend your place of education, doesn't mean they have no right to edit the article. It just means they may need a little more assistance. :) Lukeno94 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laurent Aïello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bernd Schneider (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle Test

That was fine for the ANI message; TW is a little weird at times, but what you did will count :) Go Phightins! 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm in the process of copy-pasting it into the adopt place anyway xD Lukeno94 (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagro High School

Hey no problem. Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions for closing AfD discussions yourself. Make sure you understand non-admin closure first. Cheers, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagro High School

I have removed your apeedy tag from this because, even if it was created by a banned user, there is no harm having a record of the debate, and AfD pages are transcluded in so many lists that tagging one for deletion, or deleting one, requires a good deal of red-tape unpicking to sort out (I came on this because half a dozen related pages all suddenly appeared in the CSD list). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd seen other AfDs by socks deleted before, hence why I tagged it, but fair enough :) Lukeno94 (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi talk

If you're still interested, I inserted my edits in Barelvi after it became apparent to me that the opposition was just trying to stonewall the discussion. Msoamu had a minor meltdown, as can be seen on the page's history and the talk page. You were involved in the discussion, including the mosques section which he's disputing again, so I feel that informing you doesn't count as canvassing per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Lukeno94; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

True Love

Agreed. The redirect makes sense to me. Thanks. In terms of the Kafka essay, I have to say if not being published is a reason for deletion (as listed in the nom), then nearly all of Kafka's work ought to be removed from WP. Most of his work never made it to print, in his lifetime at least, including this essay. But I'll try to find some more sources. Thanks. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, if there was coverage of it somewhere, then it may have a chance, but something being unreleased makes it highly unlikely to be notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Device - album

Well, a number of things made me think it was a terrible call:

  • It's hard to make the claim that all the sources are "about the band, not the album", when there is only one album by the band, and its a self-titled album. Once could argue they're all about the band...but one could just as easily argue that conversely, just about all the information is also relevent to the background/recording of their first album as well, because the band's entire history deals with recording said album.
  • Even beyond that argument, there are plenty of sourcessources like this regarding the special guest appearances on the album, which involve individual tracks, which would specifically be in regards to the album versus the band. (In this respect, I feel it it meets the WP:GNG.)
  • It pretty clearly meets the requirements of WP:HAMMER.
  • Let's be realistic here. The frontman of a multi-platnum band teams up with a guitarist from another platinum selling band, and have an album scheduled for release on a major record label, and it's coming out next month. I could maybe see an argument for redirect (though I'd still personally object), but there's no way it's not going to be a notable release with those sorts of traits, and it's pointless to delete now just to rebuild in a few weeks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • After a discussion with you, I'll accept it as a valid article that passes notability guidelines (the article itself was fine). That said, as highly likely as you feel the article to be successful, that part still violates WP:CRYSTAL, no matter how well reasoned (this isn't saying I disagree with you, by the way) your arguments are. Next, just because it's a new band's debut album, even if it's self-titled, does not mean that sources are interchangeable. There should be a couple, perhaps, in the album article that primarily focus on the band, but as far as I could see, over half of the reliable sources there were about the band's formation, not the album. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Chemmanam Chacko

Hi Lukeno,

I noticed you have proposed the article Chemmanam Chacko for deletion. May I know why you feel the subject is non-notable. There is a third party reference exclusively on the subject in a reliable source like 'The Hindu'. Also I had provided external references to the subjects poetic works. I request you to remove the activist reference and reconsider your decision. Thank you. JK (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I PRODed the article as, in the state it was, it was a very poorly referenced WP:BLP, and I couldn't find anything in a Google search. The references there are a start, but they're not very big, and I couldn't really see a particularly notable award in the article - which I now acknowledge was a mistake, and it is there. I'm surprised such a poorly sourced, and short, BLP passed AfC, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of "Rocky Roberts"

So what kind of criteria are you specifically looking for? It is a theme song for an Academy Award-winning film. Having information of the artist who performed the song is more than useful for the interested individual who is simply keen to find out more.

Like Celiné Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" from Titanic, "Django Theme" is as much relevant. And that fact that Rocky Roberts is (or was) a minor artist back in the day, that is even a better reason for it to be a Wikipedia article.

If You would like to delete it, then do it. Don't inform me about what I should do next, because that just defeats the purpose of my contribution.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baville (talk • contribs) 14:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Firstly, I'm sorry this has upset you, but look at this from my end. I see a one-line stub of an article, devoid of references, and its one claim to notability is not really a grounds for it - one film's theme song would mean he should have a redirect there, but as he's had some role in multiple films, then a redirect isn't valid. It is perfectly plausible that he IS notable - but the burden is on you to find some references and to expand the article, possibly by using the Italian Wiki article's sources, if there are any decent ones there. I'm perfectly happy to work with you to expand the article if you wish, but I won't dePROD it until I see evidence of notability from WP:RS.Lukeno94 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Child Star Grown Up

You have reported this user as a sockpuppet, and this accusation appears to be correct. But it is inappropriate for you to argue the ppoint further on the user's talk page, and it is cetainly wrong for you to announce the checkuser findings, particularly as they are "likely" but not "confirmed". Please avoid taking two bites at the cherry. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, VanishedUser sdu8asdasd. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

VanHarrisArt (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi Researches

As an admin you are devoting your good time on Barelvi Article.I respect your decisions and your opinions.I also respect that you might not have in depth study of the Movement,it is quite obvious.A good numbers of Researches have been conducted on this movement by Non Muslims.The Usha Sanyal is a non Muslim historian and she has been associated with Columbia university.She has done in depth study of the subject and this Barelvi article can be sourced to valid points researched by her whether they are criticism or not.I am of the opinion that a newspaper article is personal opinion and is even not fact.Why we should rely on highly incorrect personal and minor opinions to include them as facts in history.No one will object if there are in facts Barelvis have Jihadi organization and Jihadi network but fact is that they are opposed to these Jihadi organizations in Pakistan and in India and have issued verdicts against them ,their big leaders were killed by these Jehadi terrorist organizations.You can read about all organizations listed in Barelvi Article.None support this so called jihadi cause any where in the world rather they are opposing them.Prominent Islamic Scholar of Sunni Barelvis Mufti Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi passed a fatwā denouncing suicide bombings and lost his life.Hundreds of Sufi shrines visited daily by Barelvis are bombed by Jihadi groups belonging to wahabism and Salafism.Saudi Arabia funds are major source of these terrorist organizations.Barelvi organizations are just opposing their so called Jihad through peaceful means like boycott,rallies and passing verdict against suicide Bombings.Only Barelvi groups are opposing extremism and terrorism even in India and else where.To link them with non existing Jihad is factually a joke with history. Shabiha (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I am pretty sure that Lukeno isn't an admin.
2. Why are you pestering him here when this is the same stuff you posted on Talk:Barelvi, Shabiha? Why let this spill elsewhere and become needlessly complicated? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • MezzoMezzo is correct, I'm not an admin, and have always stated this. I would say it was best to keep this on the Barelvi talk, but Mezzo, that wasn't a very polite way of saying it. I'm not saying all Barelvis are Jihadi, or even that the majority are, but there is definitely a group or two that are - the sources I found prove it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You're right. I'm letting this bother me too much. This time of morning would normally be my Wikipedia time, but I'm going to log off, actually. I'll come back and see the developments in this issue later. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

BTW, it's expected that you notify someone when you discuss their behavior on ANI, whether they're blocked or not. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he wanted the ANI header - I had no problem seeing the required notification you originally added. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No. It was my bad. Disregard my comment above. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No problem, at this time of night, it really throws/panics me to see something like that xD Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Adoption final

I just wanted to let you know that I have finished grading your practical part of the exam and as of right now, with the extra credit, you have a 94.5%. Good work! Stay tuned for the written exam grade as well as comments in the next couple of days. Congratulations. Go Phightins! 22:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Titus Sicinus Sabius

Regarding my AfD tagging of Titus Sicinus Sabius, at the time when I tagged it (available here), it had one unaccessable source and did not appear to be notable. Uberaccount (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • One inaccessible source, when there are plenty of others in the article, is a terrible reason to delete the article. Also, there is a CLEAR claim to notability in that article, even someone who hasn't ever studied Roman history can tell that (like me)! You've done nothing to satisfy my concerns here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Two things:
  1. Please do not write rude comments on my talk page.
  2. When I tagged the page (LOOK HERE), there were NO reliable sources, and there was NOT a clear claim to notability. Uberaccount (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Right, OK. I partially retract my statement about the sources (the fact it's offline though doesn't matter too much), but he clearly has a claim to notability - a Roman Consul and general. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

[[2]]. Thank you. Interesting how the responses sort out. Since you have commented on this area, you might be interested to comment on a proposal for clarification of the guideline I put at WT:NPA, a page which evidently gets little traffic. The thought was prompted by comments by editors totally unrelated to the deletion. Thanks again. I saw you before with a couple of other cases, and already spotted a good egg. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I have given my response there. I didn't actually realize the user page attack was involving you, as I didn't really pay attention to whom was being attacked via diffs - just the fact that the diffs were being used as attacks. I always edit within the guidelines, as I am not here to damage the Wiki, although I will not claim to be always level-headed (or even consistent) - there are definitely times when I've come close to overstepping the mark with my comments, but I've never dedicated a user page to attacking someone - the diffs on my user page are there for light-hearted remarks (on my behalf, anyway), not to hurt anyone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, no I didn't think you did realize, but that's even better that way. Take care. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

The Adoptee Graduation Diploma
Lukeno, you have effectively graduated my abbreviated adoption course after posting an impressive 92% on the final exam after only completing about half the lessons in the course. I applaud your inquisitive spirit and your enthusiasm, but would gently suggest that you slow down a tad working in admin areas, such as WP:ANI. I have left a longer comment to this effect at your adoption final page, which I would suggest you read as I left comments after every task. But, that is my only non-positive thing to say. You have been a pleasure to work with and, if it's something you are interested in, I could definitely see you adopting some day as well. Whatever you decide to do, go forth with your head held high and never let anyone bring you down. You have been a pleasure to work with. Your humble adopter, Go Phightins! 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving draft pages to mainspace

Don't worry about moving a draft from your user space to mainspace without leaving a redirect - you can't. You just have to move the page and then tag the resulting redirect with {{db-u1}} or {{db-user}}. An admin won't mind deleting it, because U1 deletions are the easy ones, no need to think, just check that the request really was made by the owning account. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Ah, perfect, thanks. I've never moved a draft from user space before, all my previous article creations were done in main space :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Tixati

I've answered your concerns at User_talk:Jec#Current_version. Jec (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your persistent work related to the Ping Fu incident. Your work is appreciated.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, hopefully this sorry chapter in Wikipedia's history is done with now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Camille and Kennerly Kitt page being considered for deletion.

Hello,

As a Camille and Kennerly fan, and a contributor to their article (among many other articles), I thank you for taking the time to do some proper research on the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page. I am of course willing to improve it. You brought up a point when you wrote: "They also appear to have had a fairly notable modelling career, IF someone can find a decent ref for the following sentence, taken from their About page: 'for three consecutive years, Camille and Kennerly were cast as live runway models for Seventeen Magazine/JC Penney at “Rock Your Prom” fashion events.'" Well, I am unable to find an independent online source to back it up, which is why that information is not on the page; however, the page focuses on their music and acting, not on their modelling careers, so I don't think this should be an issue. There are other notable achievements of theirs that have reliable online sources, but their surname used to be different (it was legally changed for artistic purposes), and sources with their former surname would cause confusion, so those facts from earlier in their careers have been omitted.

I was wondering whether you could tell me if a Twitter link is a valid source or not. Their recent cover of the theme of the American TV series The Walking Dead was praised by the original composer, Bear McCreary, here: https://twitter.com/bearmccreary/status/300845833866334209

Also, although it's not in English, the fact that they were featured on the online version of La Repubblica is very notable since it happens to be Italy's largest or second-largest newspaper in terms of circulation. Here: http://video.repubblica.it/spettacoli-e-cultura/le-gemelle-con-l-arpa-i-metallica-nel-deserto/101881 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontreader (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally, please, how and when will the proposal for deletion sign be taken off the page? You said the article should stay, so what else has to happen? I defended it as best I could. Here's the link again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_March_26#Camille_and_Kennerly_Kitt

Many thanks for your time and help,

Dontreader (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll first answer with when the AfD notice will be removed. This will happen if the discussion closes as "Keep", "No consensus", or "Nomination withdrawn". A Twitter link is a valid source, but it isn't reliable, so can't be used to show notability. The La Republica source, assuming it contains a decent length of content about them, is definitely usable to show notability - foreign language articles are perfectly valid as sources. I'm more than willing, when I have time and after the deletion debate is over (assuming it's kept, which I obviously agree that it should be) to help you rewrite the article and remove the promotional fluff that is there - there is a lot of it, and the nominator is right that it does read rather like a press release, and misrepresents/misuses sources that are actually present. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your reply, which I somehow failed to see sooner. So far, you are the only independent Wikipedian who has had the courtesy to take some time to examine the article. The discussion looks dead to me. Not even the proponent of the deletion of the article has come back to defend his decision after what I wrote in response to his arguments. I wonder how the discussion will close if it remains dead. Who might close it, please? I'm afraid that the article could be deleted if nothing happens within the seven-day period. Also, many thanks for the Twitter information, and your offer to help us to improve the article is very kind. Please let me know on my talk page when you have the time for making these improvements, or on the article's talk page. Meanwhile, I'm just worried about how the discussion will be closed. I don't want the article to somehow get deleted automatically. Thanks again... Dontreader (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • As it stands, there are 3 keep votes and 0 delete votes (excluding the nom). It's unlikely to be closed as anything other than keep at present (once the time is up), but it will run for the whole 7 days (not enough keep voters for a WP:SNOW keep). This is standard procedure in AFDs: be patient, some can take a while to sort, and I'm quite sure this one will be kept. Don't be tempted to invite people to support your cause, as that violates WP:CANVASS, and won't go down very well :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks again for your explanation and for your advice. To be honest, I'm very upset with Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) for changing the deletion proposal from WP:PROD to WP:AFD. She claims to be a seasoned Wikipedian on her talk page, yet she went for the AFD approach while stating that she had no opinion on the matter. This is a complete violation of AFD guidelines, and therefore on the discussion for deletion page I demanded an explanation from her under her own comment. I hope she won't retaliate and bring in her own people to support the deletion of the article. It's just that this whole thing has taken up much of my time so unnecessarily. Thanks again... Dontreader (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, that comment shows your inexperience in this regard. Tokyogirl is actually a fantastic editor, and works her arse off to establish notability in AfDs. Furthermore, PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions - this clearly is not the case. There's nothing wrong with procedurally bringing an article to AfD for another editor, even if they don't request it, but have bodged a PROD or whatever. And in this case, Tokyogirl has added an AfD template to an article at 11:39, when the AfD was started 2 hours earlier at 9:25 - I think you owe her an apology, because she actually followed the guidelines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have apologized to her publicly, as you suggested. Now I must apologize on her talk page. Judging from the page history of the article considered for deletion, it seemed as if Tokyogirl71 had switched it from PROD to AFD, but your research indicates that this was done at some point by the user who proposed PROD initially. I most definitely have a problem with him since he violated AFD guidelines but it's clear to me that Tokyogirl71 is innocent of any wrongdoing. I'll go now to her page and apologize. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Dontreader (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • However, I must say, for the record, that although I don't doubt for a second that Tokyogirl is a fantastic editor, I believe that she handled this specific situation very poorly, creating a bigger problem. You can see on her talk page why both Rob and I were suspicious of her, even though Rob and I had the same problem with her independently (we did not coordinate anything). And quite frankly, if an administrator helps someone to propose an article for deletion, as she did, one would expect her to express her opinion about the page she helped propose for deletion, instead of saying that she doesn't care. After all, the potential deletion of a page is the destruction of many hundreds of hours put into a page with great love, care and effort. I hope you understand my point of view. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF before judging users in future - also, it may help that you check that you're right first! Also, it's fairly standard procedure for someone to repair a botched nomination (or make an AfD on an IP's request) without making any comment either way. I can understand your point of view, but your actions show that you do need to be more careful in future. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, thank you very much for your time, your explanation, and advice. I most certainly will be more careful in the future. I did apologize to Tokyogirl79 on the discussion page and later on her talk page. There was a huge misunderstanding, which stemmed from the page history, but I should have assumed good faith on her part regardless of that situation. However, when it comes to the user who proposed the deletion of the article, am I supposed to assume good faith after viewing his contributions? This user had never proposed an article for deletion as far as I can tell; his latest contributions were one in February 2012, one in November 2012, and now this attempt to delete the article, which was a very difficult process for him, according to the message he left on Tokyogirl79's talk page. You can draw your own conclusions, of course, but this is why I believe that only administrators should be allowed to propose articles for removal, or at least I think that administrators should decide whether articles suggested for deletion by other users should go through that process or not. Just my opinion. As always, I appreciate your help... Dontreader (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Always assume good faith, unless there is something blatant that shows otherwise. This is not a clear attack of any kind: they may have been misled by what is a quite promotional article. AfD is a community decision: anyone can vote, so anyone can propose something for deletion, which I agree with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Very well. I will do that. Thanks again for your kindness... Dontreader (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishor Rohoshyo

After being notified of the article's improvements, User: Ducknish has reversed himself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


2008 Rafael Nadal tennis season

  • Hi Luke.

I just want to clear the air regarding your proposed AfD for this article. These articles are very much necessary since they provide a detailed view toward the tennis seasons of players. Several people (including myself), enjoy reading articles that provide specifics regarding tournament details, score details, etc. The volume of information in these articles cannot and will not fit in the main article. I have re-edited the article and it is now chock full of information and has multiple sources. I agree, it needs some more work, but that work will be done as soon as possible.

Ingdalevri (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Remarks on Voskos Greek Yogurt

Hi Luke,

I noticed that you recommended my article on Voskos Greek Yogurt be deleted and was curious as to why you think it should be. You should know that my original article was three times larger then the current one and had pictures too. The wikipedia editors constantly edited the article, removing paragraph after paragraph. I've worked hard on this article and now there is basically nothing left. Please do not assume this is "promotional fluff." This is purely all that's left from what the wikipedia editors left me. This article deserves to stand alone because Voskos, like the other yogurt companies, deserves a stand-alone page. Please reconsider your thoughts and remove that banner from my page. Thank you

Sincerely, (NGenerales (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC))

  • You've done nothing to address any of my concerns. This company is far from notable as per the guidelines WP:GNG and WP:ORG, so cannot have an article. Even if it did pass these guidelines, then the article is still purely promotional, as everything in it simply promotes this brand, the majority of which without establishing notability, or even giving any useful information. There's no point telling you what to remove: you'd have the company name left, and nothing else. And there's at least one person whom agrees with me, based on the AfD. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Continued query

I just wanted to further my understand of your point of view about personal attacks and I didn't want to fill up the MfD page. The Kauffner user page is about a particular user and I mentioned about a huge dump of administrative work should as strict an interpretation as you want be enforced. As an example today we have this diff from the user kauffner accuses as being a wiki-stalker diff. Now this is in a major discussion, not on a personal user or user talk page. "thanks for stalking". I see nothing wrong with this, same as Kauffner, but if it's as strict as you mention, since it's a personal attack, that line will need to be deleted and the user warned. I don't think policing these situations are what we need here at wikipedia and I see this type of thing all day long. I'd certainly like your thoughts on it though. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  • This may seem cynical, but here's the thinking behind what I'm saying. Kauffner is evidently an experienced user, and I would guess they're a fairly intelligent one. They know that deliberately calling IIO a "stalkerish dickhead whom needs to go fuck themselves" is going to be seen as unacceptable, and would be quickly removed - so they won't put something that blatant a personal attack in. Instead, Kauffner is using weasel words and deliberately marginal word choices ("the thing" being an example) to portray exactly the same message, but in a way they perceive as being "safe", by deliberately using grey-area phrases and words. As to the diff about IIO, yes, it's dodgy, but I think you're missing the point here. My entire point is that Kauffner's userpage is pretty much solely dedicated (apart from a side bit about the Vietnamese naming stuff, which gets linked to IIO later anyway) to attacking one user. This, to me, is the key difference between this userpage and the examples everyone keeps citing, where a similarly weasel-word message appears on the talk page of an article. If Kauffner's page was in mainspace, it would immediately be tagged as using "weasel words", and I don't see why userpages should be exempt of our core principles of WP:NPA and WP:AGF - by all means, state your opinion, but don't dedicate the whole page, the majority of the page, or even a section, to attacking one user (or a bunch of users) in the way Kauffner has. Hopefully that's not TL:DR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No... I read it all as I'm always interested in other viewpoints. I do look at it a little differently though. An entire user space I can see your point, but not a section of a user talk page (if it came to that). Also, a user/talk page is not usually seen by many unless they specifically go there for a purpose. A line in a discussion I find far worse as it's out there in the middle of a discussion, where many editors are adding their views and reading everything. Neither bother me enough to complain about with all the shenanigans on wikipedia to deal with, but a person venting on their user page about their dissatisfaction of another user (perceived or otherwise) seems even less worrisome than a public attack remark during a discussion (which I see he has now added to with predictable anger from the other party). So we weigh things differently I would think. I would much rather someone vent 5x as much on a personal user/talk page than in a public discussion page where fuses can be rather short. Neither seem like much to me however...from my chair they seem par for the course here. But anyway thanks for the insight. I'll think on it a bit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I am well aware that my user page has virtually no readership. I wrote it in the style I did because I find it humorous and amusing. It was never intended as some sort of trick to evade the civility rules. IIO has accused me of being "major idiot", and another user put a message on his talk page accusing me of being racist. He has no trouble filling up an RM or RFC with accusations related to edits I made years previously. So there was plenty of incivility to go around before I wrote this essay. Kauffner (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've never said IIO is innocent, but stooping below the level you perceive them to be at isn't a good idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VanishedUser_sdu8asdasd/Archive_3&oldid=1139996091"