User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 13

Johnny Action Figure
Speedy and AFD can overlap. Why is that such a problem? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is the way you understand this 'overlap'. You're around long enough and have received lots of feedback in that area, so i am not sure if and how I can explain that, but I'll try at your page.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what makes this not a speedy. It's blatantly obvious to me. It doesn't even try to explain how they're notable. How do you think it's not possibly a speedy? At this rate, it's just going to rot in AFD limbo for ages when it (at least to me) is blatantly A7 criteria. Yes, I should stop re-tagging; at the same time, I didn't read your edit summary and thought the tag had been removed in error. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What drives me is that I think it's obviously a speedy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

the duncan
the duncan was unjustly deleted, it was not incomprehensible, it is a new measurement of length which is under debate in the 2009 salvidor conference! this matter shall also be discussed amoungst the next g20 meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil0302 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from MT Deerhound
Hello Tikiwont, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to MT Deerhound has been removed. It was removed by Benea with the following edit summary ' (declining prod, expanding, infobox, some sourcing) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Benea before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tikiwont
Tikiwont, I would like you to help me with my Rage Addicts page, and not delete it, why can't we have a wiki page but, a band such as Senses Fail can? PM me please with an explanation. I'm still fairly new to wiki, and joined so that we may make a bio, and have information for people to view about us on wiki. explain this too me. thanksDavidURichards (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion
That article has been merged and is useless as a redirect. The consensus on the talkpage is that it ought to be deleted... "speedily" if possible :). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stars Underground
Thank you for cleaning up after me. I had intended to move the article to the appropriate title after closing the AfD, but was sidetracked by some sockpuppets. :) Thanks again, –Katerenka  (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to thank you for your help with the Stars Underground page, I am still learning how to use Wikipedia. Hollywoodbabble (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're both welcome.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

?
See contribs. Contribs appear to be about and by author. How is company started in August 2009 notable? (referenced press release ). Reliable sources referenced are for another company, Mycorporation who the individuals previously were apparently involved with. Thoughts? 173.129.73.248 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah it's some time since I looked into incorporation and related services. This does indeed not yet seem to be notable and asserts at best some importance via association. As it is a different project by the same founders it isn't really a good candidate for merging, either.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

504 Loan, Inaccurate information
Hello Tikiwont, I was just looking at the SBA 504 Loan page, and noticed some mistakes in the information presented in it. Ive gone ahead and fixed them, I also plan on gradually adding more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.161.66 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. But beyond the initial changes you need to stay clear from inserting spam and copyright violations. I've seen that you also opened a thread at ANI.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Help
Dear Tikiwont

Tikiwont can you please to help my friend to build his first article and instead of deleting it, it so hard to make one and we are just poor editor its hard for us to make another one. We had all the sources from books with ISBN, I really dont know why you keep on deleting what is not yours. Please lets be friends instead of Deleting it help us please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyayusinnyonaman (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I would not know what editor / article you are referring to. I assume, though, that your friend has received a message on his talk page explaining the reson for it being tagged for a speedy deletion. Please advise him / her to review it carefully as well as the welcome message that I post also to yours. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Simon Young (musician)


The article Simon Young (musician) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Supported only by self-published sources, and even so, fails WP:BAND. Terminate with extreme prejudice as a hoax unless notability can be established.

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. Rodhull andemu  03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I merely split this off Simon Young for better disambiguation. There quite a few Ghits for The Slants, though.

THANKS
you got rid of my dads memorial Asswipe thank you SOOOOOO MUCH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.50.60 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any distress, but unfortunately this isn't a good place for memorials.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi! Thanks for commenting on my RfA. I am curious to know, however, what the recent declined speedy you found was. Cheers, Fribbulus Xax (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was Global Environmental Institute. The importance came partly from the talk page.. I --Tikiwont (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sneaky! Looks as if I nommed it then didn't review it after the hangon was given.  Looking back at it I'm still dubious of its notability; a lot of the sources only mention the organisation in passing.  However, given the review and speedy decline by DGG, I have to agree that it's not WP:CSD.  Thanks anyway!  Fribbulus Xax (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your message on my Talk Page. I see the mistake I made with the CSD tag in question. I will strive to keep the tags properly categorized. Warrah (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No sweat. I am still getting used to a tool and the ems message it send was 'stronger' that I intended. While its is important to call inappropriate pages as such, you actually did that at Tingtingtim's talk page. So let's hope they get the message.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA, after all
Hi. When you suggested that I should consider RfA, I declined because I thought with my limited content-creating record I had no chance, and the same for a previous approach from Mentifisto. A third approach from JamieS93 has now persuaded me to have a go, and she has created Requests for adminship/JohnCD which I plan to complete and transclude in the next day or two. I should be honoured if you and/or Mentifisto would be willing to co-nominate; I am sending him a similar message. Regards, and thanks in any case for helping to encourage me. JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. I've written a first draft for the co-nom, let me just check back later for a second glance. There is a live RfA that might be of interest.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jaicko
Following up on your close of the DRV, can you unsalt the page? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Didn't notice that it was protected but could have guessed.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

R3
Hi Tikiwont! Regarding what you wrote here:
 * "If there is edit history, it has to be clear that it is 'harmful' enough to also throw the content underneath away. That is not a new idea or addition. It is possible that administrators have misunderstood this.

I'm afraid I did not quite understand what you meant with the italicized part. Would you mind clarifying a bit? This is just a language issue. I'm an ESL speaker, so this happens sometimes, unfortunately. Regards, decltype (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to clarify. I am an ESL speaker too. Cheers--Tikiwont (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, thanks. I'll add my input when I get the chance (and once I've thought of something meaningful to say). Regards, decltype (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific society: Dead or Alive?
Tikiwont-Thank you for your quick work and prompt notification re: request for speedy delete of Scientific society. I'm quite satisfied with the resolution, but could you please explain...er...what the heck happened? You said you didn't "delete" the questionable article, but simply redirected "Scientific society" back to Learned society. So...does the article formerly known as Scientific society still exist but without a name? If it doesn't have a name, how will anybody ever find it? It appears to have been condemned to a sort of wiki-limbo, but how is that different from being deleted?--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

77-1-1
Whatever I expected, it wasn't that! Thanks again for your nomination and encouragement: expect me knocking on your door at all hours for advice on which end to hold the mop. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! You're welcome to knock anytime.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist theory of value
Hello. The said article to which you referred me is archived, and says I shd take proposed deletion up in the original article, as i did in the first place?--Sandman888 (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for the well thought out closure rationale to RFD. I can see the reasoning there, as long as no one messes with the redirect. My only real remaining quibble is that the page title of the redirect is capitalized incorrectly ("Series" should not be capitalized), but... meh. No big deal. :) — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 20:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome. Looking over the discussion and your then talk page, I put a little more into it than usual. Take care.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Karambir Kang
I don't understand why this page was deleted on copyright grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianrobertmclaughlin (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio
Your call - after your updated tag on Seminary of quebec the author blanked, so I G7'd - but then noticed your comment about the existing article. I currently have it as a redirect, but would understand a G7 also. Thanks. 7 03:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, considering also the unclear copyright status of what is underneath, I've deleted and recreated two redirects.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - thanks.  7  12:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Article traffic statistics?
May I ask whether the "article traffic statistics" table, added just over one hour before WP:RFD was closed, was influential? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the RFD, then closed another one on the same page and mulled Lord Byron over. When I came back to close there was also the table with its edit summary, but I saw it more as an illustration of the general primary topic point already made by many than as hard evidence. You made valid arguments as well, but they are of the systematic type and thus independent of actual page hits. Let me also add that I appreciate that you spent a lot of effort in improving this area and that I have myself quite some sympathy for getting things systematically right in the first place, but the more widespread feeling was that it can still be updated if the situation changes and indeed a flood of queries for another Lord Byron arrives. Best,--Tikiwont (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad it wasn't considered "hard evidence", but I regret that many reading the archived discussion may think it was. The "Hits in June 2009" column shows convincingly hard numbers for traffic to articles on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Barons Byron, with up to only 112 hits (on the 11th Baron), yeah... But the 11th Baron's article wasn't created until August; the others (and the 8th Baron's) were created November 26. Those convincingly hard numbers for June 2009 are completely spurious. I've queried the table's poster on the matter. Unfortunately I couldn't remark in the original context before it got locked, due to the timing. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I looked at it mostly from the angle whether the table and any rebuttal would cuase a substantial change of minds and I did not see that coming. FWIW, the stats is simply that: data of June which can easily be revisited next June for comparison. For those articles that didn't exist people can still click on a redlink and it gets counted. With respect to the 11th, you seem to be mistaken: it has been created in August 2007. The November data would certainly be misleading because of the RFD itself and your own activities during the creation. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tag on Talk:Lord Byron
... says: "This redirect was nominated for deletion ...." Erm, no, it was nominated for retargetting. This was already misrepresented during the RfD discussion itself, and I'd not like to see that misrepresentation enshrined. Please correct. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that was not a choice of mine but a general template Oldrfd suggested by the deletion process, so not intended as a misrepresentation of this particular nomination. The objective of the nomination was clear enough. Nevertheless that is a good point so i updated the template accordingly.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fads And Their Effects
just exchanging notes. we had an edit conflict--i was about to replace the speedy with a prod tag, &, so I added it. I don't automatically do this with every declined speedy, but when an article is as bad as this but there is no speedy criterion, I'll prod or AfD, to make sure it does not get overlooked entirely. Often the person who placed the speedy will prod or AfD, but that cannot be counted on. I know there are some people who do it always when they remove a speedy, but I do not--why should I if I think it can be improved enough to be kept? What's your view of it?  DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by! Mostly I do this in two steps: I review the speedy tags and consider other CSD especially the General ones, in which case I either remove the tag or delete. I may then take a second look and edit, tag or propose deletion or merge, but as a general rule I don't follow-up automatically or even often with another deletion request. As for this one here, I went to the creator's talk page, saw another G12 tag and then wanted to look for copyvios, but saw your prod tag which was fine as well. Nevertheless, I may rely in general too much on the 'system' taking care of harmless ons or myself coming back later to them but I simply don't want to take over responsibility by default. Jewish clock was one that just got deleted after I prodded it, though, and I'll take the opportunity to look after a few more declined ones that I've logged, before I head off for a wikibreak.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was sended a Message for acts of Vandalism on Article Vedwani which doesn't exist
... as the title says, I didn't made a article Vedwani or anything nor ever visited it.. still I got a message informing me to refrain from vandalism.. it was as below..

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Vedwani worked, so it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Versus22 talk 11:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Vedwani. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Versus22 talk 11:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

now its like dec 09 and i've got message of march 18.. hmm.. i don't know what to make of it.. plz help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.8.181 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. Warnings were for previous user under same IP. Happy editing. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Many Thanks for the Reply :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.8.181 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to say.. it was fast reply.. I saw you were on Wikibreak and it says you'd be off till next year.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.8.181 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You caught me packing and respect for (I assume) finding the deletion log and so someone to contact ;)--Tikiwont (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ha ha.. ahh well sometimes I'm lucky. Anyway.. Happy Vacations !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.8.181 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)