User talk:Heymid/2010 June

Proposed deletion of 2010 Vityaz Chekhov vs. Avangard Omsk incident


The article 2010 Vityaz Chekhov vs. Avangard Omsk incident has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Single event that fails WP:EVENT; unreferenced.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Empty Buffer (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Please note, a recently added rule regarding RfA's states

"Wait until the candidate has accepted the nomination and answered the questions before adding the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. The candidate may also transclude the page themselves. Once the page is transcluded, add [the candidate's edit stats] to the talk page of the nomination, and add their edit stats."

In other words, you should at least wait for him to answer the three questions so we can get a clearer idea of who we're voting for. Please be patient and wait for him to say he's ready, and to answer the questions.  — Soap  —  19:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I think I got a little too excited. I go ahead immediately and remove the nomination on the front page and asking him to answer the questions first. Heymid (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * EDIT: You just removed it. Good! Heymid (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A candidate should also be permitted to accept for him or herself on the page. I'm sure your candidate will do that while answering the questions, but you should remove the link to an "aceeptance" so that it's clear the candidate feels the RfA is ready to transclude.  Thank you, by the way, for being willing to nominate someone!--~TPW 19:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship
Hello again. I'm getting a lot of advice on my talk page from highly experienced admins, strongly advising me to decline your nomination for adminship, so I think it would be best to decline it after all. I'm just as pleased as punch to have received it, and please accept my sincere thanks for the strong positive feedback on my NPP and anti-vandal work, but postponing this a while really does seem to be the best course. Let's please discuss this again, in about 6 months. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to editing with you on all sorts of other stuff. Warmest regards, Empty Buffer (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, man. I think they mean it is too early. Heymid (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Editing User:Pelzkragen/Maastricht European Studies Papers
A tag has been placed on Editing User:Pelzkragen/Maastricht European Studies Papers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Heymid (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of Motto of the day entries by Secret Saturdays
He was deleting his own entries; is that not allowed? Half Shadow  18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You can go ahead and undo my reverts. Heymid (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't sure if it was allowed; some pages yes, some no. Half  Shadow  18:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. In talk name spaces, we usually don't remove old comments, due to archiving reasons. But that depends if you regret your own edits or not. Heymid (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with the red button there
This. If you're not sure, just use the middle rollback button and ask the editor to explain their edit. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. But do you direct Steve Scott to Shadowkeep in the same link? Heymid (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. That page leads to a disam page and Steve Scott the musician doesn't have his own article. Though I think I'm gonna go add him to that disam page right now. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 18:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I can simply just write "Unexplained edit" in the edit summary, which basically asks them to write an explanation in the edit summary when they are redoing the edit. But if he belongs to Shadowkeep, then it was sort of a constructive edit, but not vandalism. Heymid (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "I have no clue what's going on here" is not enough a reason to revert an edit. (What made you think it was vandalism in the first place?) The problem is that IP-users are somewhat unlikely to use the watchlist or check page history to see your edit summary at all. Some don't even come back to check if their edit is still there. So if it was a constructive edit then it's a loss for the article, I guess.
 * Though in this specific case, I'm not sure what to do either; the guy is currently in none of the three bands he's been in (DragonForce, Power Quest, Shadowkeep) so it doesn't make sense to redirect his name to a band at all, but linking to disam pages is wrong too. Having been in three notable bands is reason enough for Steve Scott to have his own article, but I don't think I'm gonna make the time right now to go and create it. I'd just leave this issue as it is for now in hopes that someone else cares enough to figure it out. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Smaller incidents, like this one, do happen sometimes. Let's leave this behind us and focus forward. Heymid (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to use that tone. I come across these small incidents all the time. Starting/continuing a discussion about it doesn't mean I think it's a big deal; I consider it standard practice. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand you. Heymid (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What act of vandalism?
Hi, Heymid. I noticed you undid my transporting of two mottos from the Review section of MOTD and you considered them as vandalism. May I ask why you think that? They were ready for decisions. Secret Saturdays  ( talk to me )  18:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand why you removed them. However, my reverts have now already been restored, so don't worry. Heymid (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

??
I cannot blank my own talk page? Why? It is MY own, is it not? I would appreciate an explanation. Thank you. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, it is for history purposes. Or you could simply just archive the previous discussions by yourself or by request. Heymid (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve."
 * Read the rules regarding page blanking before you act. Capeche?  --63.226.104.225 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:WikiProject Football
In response to your comment, I have added the required code to the sandbox of the template. Cheers, Big  Dom  10:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

NHL
Yeah, I've been trying it out... it's sort of weird. I've actually been working on WP:DPL and since I found WP:WikiCleaner, I've sort of gone crazy with that. Don't worry, you're doing an excellent job. I like what you're doing. I'll come along and copyedit those guys in a few days. Thanks! –Schmloof 10:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I thought you was a hockey guy. Or am I wrong? Heymid (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I am. I've just taken on these side projects that sort of became my main projects.  But hockey is normally my priority. –Schmloof  10:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for your answers! Heymid (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Missing reference(s) for European Trophy
Apart from the sport.cz article that for a change cites some article in Expressen what should be added? I know there are other Czech publications like iDnes but all of them cite Expressen since it's the original source. Maybe the section should be deleted altogether? Since it's currently only speculation. --IJK_Principle (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Microsoft Fix it Center
I have nominated Microsoft Fix it Center, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Microsoft Fix it Center. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 11:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle and AfDs
Hi, I've removed your post from WP:VPT again since this is, more or less, a Twinkle problem, and I thought I'd give you some details there first. If you want to get some more detailed answers on the underlying problem feel of course free to re-post at WP:VPT with the focus on the caching issue: This might actually be a problem with the MediaWiki caching infrastructure, I'm not quite sure myself. Amalthea 14:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the links in your signature link to a non-existent user, your should retarget them to your actual user name. Cheers, Amalthea  14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My current signings are properly directed. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Johan Larsson (ice hockey)


The article Johan Larsson (ice hockey) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE nor WP:HOCKEY/PPF. Article can be recreate when/if the player plays professional.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 11:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ludvig Rensfeldt


The article Ludvig Rensfeldt has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE nor WP:HOCKEY/PPF. Article can be recreate when/if the player plays professional.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 11:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)