User talk:Giftiger wunsch/Archives/GA3

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: News-Service
Hello Mono, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on News-Service to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — m o n o   00:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mono is your name ;) I felt that creating a page with little more than the company's contact address and a bit of puffery was sufficient to file it as G11 but I'll wait and see how your PROD replacement goes.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  06:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal, I just look for blatant ads. I won't object if my PROD fails... — m o n o   01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The creator removed the PROD without trying to fix it so I nominated for AfD with the same argument as your PROD. Too early; I was thinking of a different article and a different PROD.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  06:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert M. Rucker update
Greetings Giftiger Wunsch,

Please let this wiki through (Robert M Rucker)...even though Mr. Rucker organization has noted his accomplishments, we have found other sources of documentation noted on the article 'conflict of interest'

Please override it is marked for proposed deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingsetq (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC) --Swingsetq (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the PROD since its rationale no longer applied with the addition of a third-party source, but the article is in serious need of cleanup, and in particular that long list of "notable" performers with which the individual has worked needs to be both condensed and sourced with inline citations. You have also been introducing many edits which are making the page very messy; I recommend taking a look at WP:MOS, as well as some well-established articles. I'm going to help to clean the article up a bit when I have time.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Paxcoder
Sorry for the confusion. Paxcoder readded a post to User talk:DIREKTOR after DIREKTOR deleted it. My reference to WP:OWNTALK was a warning to him not to do it again. Looks like he has anyway. That guy appears to be trying to bait Direktor.  N419 BH  17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the thread in AN/I, it seems both users need to spend some time on the naughty step; I haven't really analysed the situation in any great detail though so I can't say for sure that they're equally responsible. I took exception to DIREKTOR making inappropriate comments to uninvolved editors attempting to assist on AN/I though.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost told him he was acting like a fish for taking the bait. Oh well. We'll see if they both figure it out. If not, blocks. Seems he didn't take kindly to my mention of WP:CIVIL either.  N419 BH  17:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

McYel
Oversighted. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I noticed. Thanks for informing me though.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're Welcome :) -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lobat Vala
Hello Giftiger wunsch. Thank you very much for your work on this article. During your cleanup you've removed a link leading to an article in The NY Times, stating that the link doesn't include the subject. The content is hidden behind the paywall, but when you look here, you can find her name mentioned in the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, feel free to re-add it as a reference if you feel it will be beneficial to the article.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  06:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Signature
I know it's been discussed before, but it still drives me batty. I don't know if it's the size, the font, or the color, but it just jumps out and says "LOOK AT ME, NOT THE CONTENT!!!!!11!!"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; you can use personal CSS targeted to the "gw_sig" id to modify whatever is driving you batty about it though.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Add this to your css, Sarek. You may also be interested in commenting here. – xeno talk 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger Wunsch adds this code to his sandbox for future reference  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Slightly better, at least... Thanks, Xeno! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks... Xeno? Stealing my thunder :p I went to special effort to add that identifier to my sig as well.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Gw deserves credit for it. I think the bolding and colouring can be taken out as well, but not how =).– xeno talk 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also if you want to really be boring, you can remove the colour with color:#000000 !important; <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't think the bolding can be changed? Not working over here, anyway. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm it worked for me when I tested it, but I tested it with a bold CSS property. I assume you bypassed your cache? One sec, I may have an alternative solution. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops; the reason is that no part of my signature is actually emboldened. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I bypassed the cache. Don't sweat it too much, I find your sig fine with just the background removed. (But for the record, it's bolded using the wiki way) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you're right, it is. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be removed with this:

<span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! By the way, you might consider changing the id from gw_sig to simply sig, just in case that WT:SIG proposal goes through you'll already be consistent... – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea; I'd better inform if I do, though. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I was gunna mention that. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd appreciate that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed the id to <font face="Console">sig .  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  07:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a Barn...
Barnstar and comments moved to User talk:Giftiger wunsch/Awards <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun times; I've had a bad couple of hours, but that's largely comments on here by an individual who shall not be named, so never mind. By the way, why is the CSS for your talk link "color:Black;White;"? o.O <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya know, I honestly couldn't tell you. I had someone work on that for me as the background showed up as white on shaded talkpages, now it blends in.  The user tinkered with it, so you might have to ask them.  As long as it works, I just go along with it. :)  Hope things clear up in your day as well. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My userpage...
...thanks! I have no idea how people even find my userpage - my sig only links to my talkpage. Second time in two days it's happened, and I'm inclined to think both were good faith attempts to communicate (both editors eventually did find my talkpage). I think I need to make things clearer on my userpage! Anyway, thanks again. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it might have been an attempt to communicate, which is why I added the ? in edit summary and gave him a level 1 template (though removing part of your page was a strange way of trying to leave a message). Anyway, no problem. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  11:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, looking at their contribs, it appears their userpage experience was after posting on my talkpage. Ho hum... <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Time to break out the WP:TROUT methinx. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  11:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome message
Thank you for this - I've been contributing for some time now and am aware of the basics of editing, but it is still kind of you to care. cheers Androstachys (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed you'd had a fair few edits to your talk page, but had never been welcomed, so I thought I'd fix that; hopefully you'll find a couple of the links useful also.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Press Releases
I was wondering if press releases are considered acceptable materials for citing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.88.69 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only for citing purely factual information; anything which may be biased in a press release or similar source should be verified by reliable third-party sources, such as newspapers, consumer reviews, and the like. You should also make sure you always have third-party sources to establish the notability of the company according to WP:GNG.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fyi
It's no biggie but the extra notice at the bottom was to demarcate where the AN discussion had turned into the ANI one. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 12:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough. Sorry about that, I thought I was being helpful.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass Killings tag issues
per your decision here and with no reasons being presented on the talk page i remove the tags. User:The_Four_Deuces who brought the issue to ANI reverted them back in User:AmateurEditor reverted them back out and then User:Verbal reverted them back in. It is beyond parody that they continue to insert these tags and yet provide no reason for them, could you please respond to this on the article talk page? I shall place your talk page on watch should you reply here, Thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not get involved in this content dispute; I've filed a request for temporary full page protection to kill the edit war and encourage discussion.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, however it is difficult to discuss issues with those who refuse to actually discuss. Thank you for your time mark nutley (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's where page protection comes in: if edit warring continues, the protection can be extended for as long as it takes to convince all parties involved to establish consensus first. You might also formal mediation or another dispute resolution method.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
I should have probably told you I mentioned you at the article above, but as wasn't criticising or disagreeing with you I decided not to bother. Sorry if you feel I should have notified you, let me know. I don't want you to think I was talking behind your back :) Best, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know the context, I only came to the article after the initial AfD again yesterday. I was under the impression it had been cleaned up, but it turns out I was wrong. To me it reads like an American propaganda page from the 60s. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, no need to have informed me as I wasn't involved in the discussion. I was far more concerned with marknutley misquoting me and claiming that I am an admin, anyway.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic idea with the new section, and it's split up in a box and subsections like that. Now we should get this sorted. Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad I could be of help.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also want to thank you for that. It seems you have done what I tried to do a week ago. I hope you can stick with it until this is resolved. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it
It's what my talkpage is intended to be used for ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 10:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I've noticed your talk page tends to double as a general dumping ground; thanks for the assistance. Personally I think TT's going to be beaten quite hard across the head with WP:BOOMERANG if he takes this to WP:WQA, given that the reason I swore (which was a WP:CIVIL issue rather than WP:NPA anyway) was that he chose to mock me on my talk page after being asked only to leave constructive messages here. I assume he's probably reached the same conclusion or I have no doubt he would have already taken it to WP:WQA. In any case I don't intend to acknowledge any further baiting comments from him. Thanks again for helping to resolve this, you're officially my favourite admin (don't tell BWilkins I said that though :p).  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback
Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Reliable sources/Noticeboard?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

1R
@ Mass killings under Communist regimes I`m afraid you just broke the 1r restriction at this article, i will not ask you to self revert but i do ask you explain your edit on the talk page as what you have added has nothing to do with the article and would appear to be Or to me, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Count it again. I made a single revert, as did you.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, sorry you are correct, i thought you had removed some text with the first edit but you only added new, my apologies mark nutley (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

RFPP and Mass killings under Communist regimes
In case you're wondering, yes, I am ignoring this ;-) I've not got anything to do with the article, but it would be too easy to make some dubious connection between me and "an apologist for communism" (a comment I saw on the talkpage). I'm leaving it for an admin who is more obviously non-political - sorry! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh I hadn't been keeping track anyway; I'm going to back out of the discussion anyway, I started by helping in formation of consensus by guiding the process, but made a minor edit, got reverted twice, someone else reverted, they got reverted... all the time the discussion on the talk page consisted of "it was fine already, leave it alone". That article is a minefield and I think I'll just go back to trying to guide the consensus and stop them tearing each other apart ;)  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm
Don't you think the facepalm is a little insulting for a good faith user who got confused by piped links?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was for my bad joke, and I take no offense =] (maybe best to clarify though, Gw) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very possible now that I take a second look.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was facepalming xeno's joke; I hope the user didn't think it was directed at them. If so, I'll apologise to them and clarify myself.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know what they thought, entirely possible I was the only person to misunderstand. Then again a clarification couldn't hurt.  Carry on.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Brianna Gilmore
You PROD'd Brianna Gilmore, but I think it's clear WP:A7, ''After college, Brianna plans on moving out of Mississippi to start working on her music career. She wants to make a cd and be in films.'' This sentence states that she simply isn't notable. Clear deletion. I hope you don't mind. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, but the article does claim that she has performed with celebrities, and that she has a reasonable fanbase. A7 is only when there's absolutely no claim of notability. It seems fairly clear that this article isn't going to meet WP:GNG, but A7 is a much lower standard. The best option is probably just to wait for the BLPPROD to expire and be done with it. In the meantime, that's a lot of puffery and weasel words, as well as poor grammar to cut down on. I'm going to do a google search and see exactly how notable this individual is.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're giving waaaay more benefit of the doubt than I would. I mean, it's not even close. Just because she sang with someone doesn't make her, in the least, notable. You'd have to call this a WP:BAND page, and she's not even in the radar of notable bands. She wants to make a CD but hasn't. Oh my. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that she's notable, my best guess is that she's not even vaguely notable. Unfortunately I do think that this passes A7, though. My best suggestion would be either wait for the BLPPROD to expire, take it to AfD and watch it WP:SNOW (though this is a waste of users' time really), or advise the creator of policy and request that they blank it or nominate it for speedy deletion as G7 (which would be best, but unlikely). I would suggest asking them to draft it, but I don't think the individual is notable enough to be worth drafting an article for either.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why wait the 10 days to let this fluff remain? The article does not claim she has performed with anyone famous; it claims that she hopes to perform with someone famous.  Basically, this is a girl who sings on YouTube and her friends like her.  I've taken it to AfD.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I think I may have misread the article; I couldn't find the statement I thought I had read before, I could have sworn it'd said she had sung with someone or other famous in one of her youtube videos. In that case I withdraw my objection to A7; speedily delete it.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tea
I think you do great work at ANI and on BLP.--Adam in MO Talk 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've been on a wikibreak but hopefully the good work will resume soon.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  08:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Single point of resolution deletion proposal
While you are not the original author, you have done some work on Single point of resolution, so I wanted to let you know that I have proposed deletion of the article on the grounds that without more info and references it fails notability, as perWP:NOTDIC. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've contested the and left an explanation on the talk page. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 13:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per TFOWR's suggestion, I've nominated the article via AfD. If you have any comments, here's the proposal. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ping?
Not seen you about for a wee while - everything OK? Anyway, I'm assuming this is a holiday or Wikibreak, so enjoy - and see you soon! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 07:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
The user its ITSENJOYABLE and his many alliases are back on the moors causing disruption. I guess he didn't take the last warning he got from you and the other admins seriously Botsystem (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your tag on the article site
Hello Giftiger wunsch, I have created in april an article which is based on german wikipedia. someone put the tag " the article has to be improved... I improved the content of the article and added a lot of external links. But there is stil the tag, now from you "This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards... I have no idea, what could I do better, as I did so many corrections already. It is possible to delete this tag? I would appreciate it for your help. kind regards Halinal (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have already resolved this now, but could you point me to the article to which you're referring? I'll see if I can either explain why I placed the wikify tag or remove it if it's no longer appropriate (if it's not gone already by now).  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  08:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found the article (KUKA Systems). A wikify tag usually means that the article could be improved by adding some relevant wikilinks to the text; there are some wikilinks in the lead section, to a number of companies, but the rest of the article contains no wikilinks at all, and some of the terminology is fairly complicated so they could be a great benefit to the article. Feel free to remove the wikify tag if you add some beneficial links to other articles. Hope that helps.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  08:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Giftiger wunsch, thank you for this information. I have already added a lot of wikilinks, which are relevant for the article and explain the complicated terminology. I followed your advice and removed the wikify tag after the editing. I really appreciate it! Thank you (Halinal (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
 * I have the article on my watchlist so I noticed you'd started adding in some wikilinks; good job.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy
Hi. Since I've mentioned your name here, I thought I should pay you the courtesy of mentioning it. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've logged in for weeks, and excellent timing it seems; thanks very much for the day in my honour! ;) I took a random wikibreak since wikipedia was becoming far too large a part of my daily routine; I planned to leave a note on my talk page but feared that if I logged in to check my talk page I'd get too absorbed into the project again. I'm going to try rationing myself, but for now I'll probably continue to stay away a bit longer.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I kinda figured you had taken a break (we all need one time and again) or were on an extended vacation due to winning the lottery. :) It was one or the other. :)  But you were on my list, so your return timing could not have been better. :)  If you need anything, please let me know.  Take Care...<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I only wish it was the latter; rest assured though, if I'd won the lottery I would be sure to leave a large notice here gloating about it ;)  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and that would probably be the only time I would ever post my bank account details online ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 00:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As would I if it were me...but you would probably know before hand when I bought Wikimedia. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of edit removing cited material
You should take a look to the reference before reverting edits, the peak is 8 in czech republic, not 3. And charly1300 isnt a reliable source, before reverting edits you should really think a lot of times.  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  14:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed referenced material without explanation, which is against policy; if the reference did not support the claim, stating that in the edit summary would have clarified the reason for the edit. As well as that, if you think that a reference is unreliable and there is no prior consensus, you should discuss on the talk page and seek to establish such consensus. I don't see any reason to believe that the reference was unreliable.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  15:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Charly1300 charts are not official charts.  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  15:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnwhale
I've created a userbox-sized variant, but it's blinking well not blinking! Anyway, feel free to move to your userspace, leave where it is, use, abuse, copy, whatever. Help with fixing the whale would be good, too. It's not quite right, as far as I can see (but I'm by no means an expert on pixelated cetacea. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 08:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at lining up the rows once I've finished migrating my mailserver. Good first attempt though ;)  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Time.
Note: this conversation started here.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK] Yeah, fixed it. Sorry, that's what I get for messing around with my time-tried preferences after a two-year absence. =/ Cheers, · <font face="Times New Roman" color="Black">Andonic <font face="Garamond" color="Black">Contact 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Professor Dr Abbas Quli Khan-e Zand Khajeh-Noori
Thank you for the response and information. I will resubmit it as per your suggestion.

Yours, ProfESo (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wet 'n Wild, North Shields
Note: this conversation started or continued here.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]

Oh my bad. I thought you were the creator for some reason. Sorry. -- Ice (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, no harm done.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  21:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Evan was the one that was causing the problem
So he can just choose to remove any info he wants and if someone restores it claim edit warring, even though it was not and that is that? The info can never be restored?74.194.176.82 (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You were both edit warring on this article; the correct course of action is to discuss changes on the talk page if there is a dispute. Please see the comment I left on your talk page.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Note: this conversation started or continued here.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]

Yeah, the link I gave shows that Malleus' addition to his comment was removed by a glitch (as Parrot of Doom says), but I don't think that conversation's going anywhere now either; I'd be tempted to collapse it as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can the irrelevant sections be collapsed, in that case? I think it's pretty unfair that a couple of disruptive editors can come along and force the entire thread (which may make a legitimate complaint) to be closed. I tried to shrink one of the blatantly unconstructive comments but it was reverted with a rather flat response from the user who left the comment; I didn't think it was a good idea to try again myself.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, given the OP's own behaviour, the entire thread should probably be closed as another heat > light.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Glycogen Phosphorylase
 Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  11:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)}}

need help
Explain how a computer virus is propagated...( may reply to [removed] ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.32.2 (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Computer viruses can propagate in one of several ways depending on the virus; may I ask how you found my username and what you need this information for?  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Karan Rangrej
Thanks for tagging it correctly. The first time I try to SD something and I get the wrong criteria...Oh well.  Nole  lover  12:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem; I think nonsense was pretty valid as well, but db-multiple has an issue with blanking the page when it's an attack page, and won't remove the warning to blank the page, so I just replaced the db with attack as the more harmful criterion, rather than messing it up by listing both with a db-multiple.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks again.  Nole  lover  12:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request declined
Hi Giftiger, I declined your speedy deletion request for Dimotiko Gimnastirio Nikaias, as there was enough context for the reader to understand the article was about a stadium. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it actually about a stadium? The article referred to it in terms of land, a stadium, a "site", and a "course" (in the material I deleted as it was just driving instructions). It implied that this was a region and that a main feature was the stadium to me, but there wasn't enough context to confirm that to me; but perhaps I misinterpreted.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  21:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it wasn't apparent on the first read, but there was just enough to understand the subject, such as this sentence: "The stadium only has three tiers, because behind the west end is a wall." Also, the article used infobox stadium. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Scolecitrichidae
Hello Giftiger wunsch. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Scolecitrichidae, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''G11: Not unambiguously promotional. This is an article about an animal - the format/citation needs to be corrected.''' Thank you. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 22:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by another admin as a copyright violation! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 22:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the article, but I'm hoping I didn't misclick twice; I just accidentally nominated an article as G11 instead of G12 by misclicking with twinkle and had to hurriedly correct the nomination. Time to call it a night, I think. Thanks for informing me of the declined speedy.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

EC's
Fyi, you need to be careful with EC's. If not you delete comments.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noticed that, sorry. Unfortunately that's just the way it goes sometimes, especially on active pages like AN/I; nothing I can do to prevent that.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Underoath
Underoath You're not reading the reference correctly then. I read "Venue : PREORDER: London Koko 11th Mar 2010". March 11 is in the past not the future. Please undo your revert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Preorder means it has not been released. It's a live album, 11th Mar 2010 was the date of the original performance. If it's on preorder on a site directly affiliated with the artist, it very clearly has not been released yet. If you can provide reliable reference(s) contradicting that, feel free to change the content to match.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not released, why do I have a copy? The pre-release was March 11, 2010 in London. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're that certain the information on the article is wrong, it shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to come up with a couple of solid references confirming that; the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The reference (albeit not an especially appropriate one, being a store), supports the existing information. That can't be changed unless you can reliably source it. Find a reliable source, and I have no issue with the change.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the fact that you can order it from the store would be a good place to start. However, it appears that it's still indicated as a pre-release when it's checked-out. It is of their March 11 show. I stand corrected. Review from April: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/36169/Underoath-Live-At-Koko/ I purchased mine on eBay. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=1943559&blogId=530575847 indicates that it's being sold at the UK/European shows. It will not be sold to the general public until the tour is over. Do does that mean it's been released or that it's still a pre-release? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The review doesn't indicate the date of release, and reviews are often available prior to release, so it doesn't really confirm that it's been released; the myspace page is unreliable and can't be used as a reference. So far the only usable reference supports that it's not yet been released. Can you find a better source indicating that it won't be released to the general public until after the tour? Assuming that's true, I believe it's still a pre-release, since it's only been released to those attending the shows, so it's not a general release.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming that can be reliably sourced, however, that may be worth explaining in the article.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, MySpace can be used as a source when it's created by the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's no guarantee it's created by the subject; myspace, blogs, wikipedia articles, etc. cannot be considered reliable sources: they could be created and further edited by anyone.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that one can create a MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter account under any name, but when it's obviously an official account, you must suspend paranoia. If you don't like the policy, please take it up with the people who crafted the primary source rules not me. I will be ignoring future requests to continue this discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars 'R' U

 * Thanks for the award, though if anything is cheating, finding the page on someone else's contributions list after seeing the barnstar left for them probably counts :p  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes you at least the second "cheat" to get one, then. An exclusive club. :D  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Postponing a deletion
Hi, I'm not sure if it was your intention, but this edit would have cancelled a deletion process that had one day to run with one that would have run for another 7 days..... If you think something is a hoax then hoax might apply, but did you really want this article to stay up longer?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One day? Uh oh, I thought that BLP PROD had been placed today. I'll withdraw my nomination and let the BLP PROD kill it instead.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I can't do that, someone else has already !voted for deletion. Probably the best course is to wait until the BLP PROD expires, and I'll suggest speedily closing the AfD as such.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that makes sense, but I generally wouldn't bother with multiple deletion attempts on the same article unless you want to upgrade the reason for deletion - for example if you were sure something was really a hoax. Remember most of these BLPs are about real people, and an online debate as to whether someone is "notable" can seem a tad bitey to the data subject, whereas deleting an incomplete bio because the author didn't provide a reference shouldn't be offensive to the subject of the bio.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think a community discussion over deletion of an article would be more agreeable than a single user proposing deletion, but in any case I nominated it for AfD because it would result in its deletion more quickly (since I thought the BLPPROD had only just been placed, I misread), possibly even a SNOW or speedy hoax close, and it seemed that the article had more problems than not having reliable sources, it became fairly clear they didn't exist. I don't think it was enough to qualify as a blatant hoax, so I took it to AfD. Probably would have been just as effective to let the BLP PROD expire regardless of when it was placed, but unfortunately it's not so simple to withdraw the AfD now, so what's done is done I suppose.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that the author of an article might well prefer a community decision, but the subject of the article is usually not be the author, and if I were the subject of an article, I would much rather that it be deleted because whoever wrote it hadn't sourced it than because Wikipedia deemed me "non-notable". As for non-blatant hoaxes I recommend hoax, I've spotted several such and in my experience the people who keep an eye on that category are quick and efficient - if an article tagged as hoax is indeed a hoax it doesn't survive long.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm good point, I'll consider using in future.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  07:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving and edit summary
I'm not terribly happy with your decision to archive and in particular with your edit summary. ANI can play a valuable role at shining the light on all parties, and it is not "off-topic" to address the problematic editing practices of the Shakeshandman, given that part of initial complaint was that Off2riorob's comments about these were unfounded.--Slp1 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise, perhaps my edit summary could have been clearer. I was referring specifically to Roux's comment that WQA was a waste of time. I decided to archive the discussion as the user had been informed by multiple users that it didn't need admin attention and would be best continued at WQA. I have no problem with you reverting my archival if you feel that it was in error.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. I won't be unarchiving, but overall I do think it is important to look at the whole picture. No admin attention may have been needed for Off2riorob but User:Shakehandsman may be a different story if things don't change. In my view, it might have helped him if other editors had had a chance to weigh in with their opinions about his edits. And if he had a chance to respond too, of course.  Anyway, no worries, onto the next thing. --Slp1 (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Neon Sarcastic
i am trying to make a wiki account for the band Neon Sarcastic.. and i have no idea what rules that i am breaking as i am following the same rules as every other Band wiki account i have seen

Please can you point out too me what is wrong so i can change this!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzz3001 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

headlining a massive festival and signed to a production label??? also on the mainstage of the biggest tribute and new acts festival in europe.. how is a that not sufficient claim of notability??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzz3001 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article asserted importance and I'm already in the process of requesting its undeletion. Please be patient. However, you should not have simply recreated the article.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the matter more, as i think that the page 'Neon Sarcastic' has sufficient 'Notable' achievements too be able to be broadcasted on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzz3001 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is currently in my userspace, and I will work on improving it to meet wikipedia inclusion criteria. Right now it is in serious need of a clean up, contains superfluous and unencyclopaedic material, and is unreferenced. Once it reaches an acceptable standard, and if its notability can be verified, I will move it back into mainspace.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.artsinleicestershire.com/ http://glastonbudget.net/

also I think that the band 'Neon Sarcastic' deserve recognition as they are a big part of the music scene in the east midlands and have established themselves in the music business around the east midlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzz3001 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To qualify for an article, the band will need to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:N, and reliable sources will need to verify that this is the case. The links you provided are just to website home pages; the article will need specific references to confirm some of the information given in the article. Also, please remember to sign posts by ending them with four tildes ( ~ ).  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  08:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly concerned to see that the mention of this band on the glastonbudget website appears to have been submitted by "Buzz3001". If you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you should avoid editing the article. Also, the fact that the content is user-submitted means that this site won't be able to provide a reliable source.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  09:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i understand why u see this but the mentioned site (glastonbudget.net) all bands are user submitted. even the likes of bands in the past have been i.e chesney hawkes, bad manners e.t.c this still doesnt concern the fact that all of the information i have gave you is reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzz3001 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately all material on wikipedia needs to be verified by reliable sources. Sites with user-submitted information cannot be considered reliable, so that excludes the glastonbudget site, as well as social networking sites such as myspace, which appear to be the primary results when searching for the band on google. I've managed to find a few decent sources, but ideally some more should be found to ensure that the band meets the general notability guideline before I move the article into mainspace, otherwise it may simply end up being deleted as a result of a deletion discussion.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, as I've mentioned a few times now, please sign all talk page comments by ending them with four tildes like this: ~ .  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Note: this conversation started or continued here.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]

On second thought, you are right. When looking more carefully at the page history, I now agree with you. It just looked like vandalism-like removal of content, as I use huggle, it really looked like that when seeing the diff. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I see what you meant, which is why I took a careful look at the revision history before reverting.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

U11 and U12
Notable at Under 11 and Under 12 international? Peridon (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the subject's notability, but bear in mind that the threshold for A7 is substantially lower: it only requires a credible assertion of importance, which I believe being a member of a national team provides. If you are concerned about notability, you might consider taking the article to AfD or using a BLP PROD.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can never remember (or find) the formula for BLP prod - can you post it here? Peridon (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually use twinkle to BLP PROD, but I believe it's simply . If you have difficulty I can do it with twinkle, if you'd like.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  23:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ta for that. It works. I don't use tools - I prefer to find the things that the tool-users miss - and just remember the codes. I don't think twinkle is compatible with my setup, anyway. Peridon (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, really? What's your setup? Twinkle is javascript-based, so it should be compatible with virtually anything. Are you using an unusual web browser?  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is a known issue that firewall and security solutions such as ZoneAlarm .... can intercept and malform the http and xml webstreams that Twinkle uses." Guess what I use? (Also I use AVG, WinPatrol and SpyBot S&D - belt, braces AND a length of string and a safety-pin...) Peridon (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Good ol' twitchy "security solutions".  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox sportsperson
Hi. The reason why imagesize is not working for you is because you must add "px" for ("pixels") after the number, like this: " ". The parameter image size does not appear anywhere in the template. On the other hand, it seems to work, because if imagesize is not used, the default image size is set at 220px. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the confusion.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Stay away from my talk page
The problem has been fixed. DO not leave that message on my page again, as it is insulting. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 23:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means remove the warning I left, that's simply indication that you've read it. Redirecting your user talk page, however, is not permitted.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anway, weren't you leaving? Perhaps you could get on with that. Half  Shadow  23:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Famous?
Hi, I removed the speedy tag you placed on this article, as I was middle of correcting the redirect when you put it on! Kneale (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed; fair enough. No need for the exclamation marks.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for moving the page. I'm not sure where it needs placed Several admins deleted a page for "Joe Castillo" several years ago. He has now performed in over 15 countries, including this past year for the King of Saudi Arabia, President of Colombia and the Minister of Hajj. He is already in wiki under sand animation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_animation. I have rewritten a page for him for consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timgrable/joecastillo I'm now trying to get the ban off on his name. The admin who asked me to rewrite the page is now taking a break from wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timgrable (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see the article name has been salted. I noticed while moving it that the sourcing of the article wasn't very good, I'll take a look at it if I get time, and if it's up to standard an admin can move it back into mainspace.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

About EcoCup
Hi,

EcoCup is annual environmental film festival in Moscow, Russia with additions in other Russian towns. It should have a page in Wikipedia for both English and Russian.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okancakmak (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

lasering jesus
Really? you don`t see how people would find the idea of lasering jesus offensive? Fair enough but it seems obvious to me, laser jesus = kill jesus. O well never mind mark nutley (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well given that Jesus is a common name, laser is a noun as well as a verb (and could therefore mean something like "Jesus with lasers!!!111oneone"), and the Jesus you're most likely referring to is either already dead or never existed, depending on your philosophy, I don't see how this constitutes a "blatantly violation of the username policy", no.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok mate, no worrys. I thought usernames which people may find offensive were not allowed though, can you link me to the policy please so i don`t make the same mistake again? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:USERNAME. Usernames are only disallowed if they're either blatant violations of the policy, in which case they can be reported to WP:UAA as such, or consensus has determined that they should be disallowed. If you wish to request comments on this username, you can do so at WP:RFCN. I think it's unlikely that the username will be disallowed, however.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok mate. thanks for your time, very good of you mark nutley (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)