User talk:Tikiwont/Archive 25

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect renaming
You have incorrectly changed the capitalisation of Neder-Over-Heembeek into Neder-over-Heembeek which is completely incorrect ! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neder-Over-Heembeek&action=history)

This is a Belgian toponym of a former municipaility (commune), now a section of the commune of the City of Bruxelles) and its name comes from Dutch, not English.

The term "Over" is the Dutch adjective over, which means "upper" (opposed to the Dutch adjective neder, which means "lower"), it is definitely not the English adverb over which means something else.

The problem now is that your renaming cannot be reversed and has spread across articles using the wrong capitalisation. Note that there has existed a full article named correctly with the capitalized "Over", but later someone created a duplicate article using "over": that article was merged into the correct article using "Over", and the older duplicate article was deleted (in fact it was controversial and that part merged now in the current article, about an historic character living in that area, is subject to an top alert banner for verifications).

Did you ever read the article ? Or looked at a reference to rename the article like this ? No. You would have seen that ONLY the English wikipedia now uses the lower case which is incorrect.

Neder-Over-Heembeek is official (with the median capital on "Over"), in Dutch, French, German, the three official languages of Belgium. It is also used on English pages published by the City of Bruxelles.

NEVER rename toponyms without reading it and finding references !

But now the problem is that your renaming cannot be reverted back without asking to admins.

Thanks. verdy_p (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assuming a lot about what I thought and did in 2008. The article looked like that,, not much like an official locality and with the small 'over' inside, someone did indeed duplicate the article, another editor suspected a cut and paste move and tagged it, I tried to help out as administrator and moved it, thus deleting the copied and actually newer article, nobody noticed for four years, turns out that it was wrong, good that you spotted it. Rest assured that I don't habitually move around toponyms at random, but please tone it done somewhat, if you spot a human error, will you?. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Lingjing
thanks! Azylber (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Tip-off for sock-puppetry
Hello, I have recently dealing with a user known as who was blocked for violating WP:ARBAA2 restrictions. However, while blocked he has now pointed me towards an earlier discussion with him and in which they have both raised suspicion that  and  are sock-puppets of  due to their behaviour. I have had no previous dealings with the User38563 sock-puppeteer, so I thought I would ask someone who dealt with the original account a second opinion before preceding. One obvious problem here is that the User38563 account is stale and checkuser information is only kept for a limited period of time, so it wouldn't be possible to check BearMan998 and Holyfield1998 against User38563. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello CT, User38563 was a grossly incivil user and all his socks were essentially self-identifying both with respect to their obsession to boxing record details and for the insults in edit summaries mostly directed at the Shadowcrow, and could be blocked almost on sight. I am not seeing that at all with user Bearman998 who seems to be regular wikipedian that User38563 wouldn't be able or wiling to feign for such a long time. Whether Bearman998 is using an alternate account? The Holyfield account is indeed rather knowledgeable for a newbie but seems to be mostly interested in deletion. And has moved around 'targeting' other users such as Samjohnson123 as well. Incidentally I had to block the Shadowcrow for edit warring and insulting a new user he took for User38563 /Ukboxen, so I'd thread slowly and assume good faith for now. Best --Tikiwont (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to rule out a connection with User38563 given your analysis and the general lack of evidence. As for BearMan998 and Holyfield1998, other than Holyfield starting out with a lot of editing knowledge and the similarity with usernames, there is nothing from either of them that I can see which really suggests socking. They both seem to have rather different editing styles and edit at different times of day. Even if they were the same editor, they haven't necessarily broken any policies - nothing obvious at WP:ILLEGIT comes-up here - Bearman has not participated in any of Holyfield's AfDs as far as I can see. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. I merely suggested to ShadowCrow before his recent block that it could be a possibility that these users are connected - in particular the Bearman/Holyfield accounts, mostly due to Shadowcrow and Bearman engaging in a somewhat heated debate over 1 word in the Carl Lewis article and the suspiciously named Holyfield account appearing to target Shadowcrow's newly created article on Robert Avanesyan at the same time. It could still be a meatpuppet, though I don't think the two are the exact same person.
 * I was actually more suspicious of the two IP accounts - and  who entered into Talk:Carl Lewis debate both against Shadowcrow, and thought it was odd that IPs would come out of nowhere. One or both of those are more likely to be connected to Bearman and/or Holyfield.
 * The connection with User38563 is circumstantial - based on editing patterns. I think Shadowcrow read a bit too much into my deleted post on my talk page as being more definitive, when I was only posting my suspicions without deep research. I was hoping he'd do a little more due diligence before bringing any admins on board with these suspicions.--Yankees 76 Talk 16:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first IP is still active, and clearly has quite a bit of editing experience. However, there are a good number of users who just choose to edit from IP rather than register an account so this isn't necessarily socking. Beyond Carl Lewis, the IPs other editing areas don't seem to match-up with any of the accounts. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

end Battle of Nahr el Faliq redirect discussion
Thanks for archiving this. I notice an unintended consequence has been the creation of a redirect to a talk page for the Battle of Nahr el Faliq redirect. Could you please cut this as it was not requested nor is it needed. Thanks a lot, --Rskp (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Nevertheless, I'm not sure what redirect to a talk page you're referring to. What I did create - albeit intentionally - is a notice on the talk page referring to the Rfd discussion that I closed. That is standard practice and actually part of the community's request regarding deletion discussions in general. See here. Best --Tikiwont (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry about my misunderstanding. --Rskp (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RfD
Does RfD have a version of Categories for discussion/Working to fix the transclusions/whatlinkshere for retargeted redirects? Or is this just done manually? - jc37 01:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing regular that I know of. For some issues there seem to have been dedicated bot requests and, for many there isn't really something to do, whilst in others something should've been done but maybe actually isn't. On the other hand a need for massive fixing might also bee an argument to factor in. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Ok. Well then I think I need to find a bot owner. (Or try to struggle through using AWB : )
 * Incidentally, you might not have such a backlog if there was a set working page for bots to handle this. While everyone likes to help, I could see how someone might be be disinclined to close a discussion which would lead to a lot more work : )
 * And what we obviously don't want is someone closing a discussion a certain way just to avoid such work. - jc37 21:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously and certainly not what i meant. Rather that say 280 shortcuts actually used inside articles in a certain direction might tell us something with respect to three people agreeing it should be different. I looked at the S template yesterday briefly before logging off but decided to mull it over, maybe even to comment. Now you've closed it which is fine as well.
 * And while it is of course not really my backlog (and I rejoined Rfd only in September after a break to help as well) the fact that it may have felt a little like it, is worth reflecting about. Which a bot sure can't do for me, but otherwise it might be a good idea (I used AWB in the past but am out of practice).--Tikiwont (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies. None of my comments were directed at you, just some thoughts about the process : )
 * I dropped a note at Bot_requests about possible bot help. - jc37 07:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah no need to apologize at all, I was not sure what you meant. New insights are welcome, and thanks for the request as Rfd is rather manual, maybe because retargets with a massive impact are thew exception.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unit (abstract algebra) (speedy delete)
Thanks for taking care of that. I wouldn't have been able to figure it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, you just happened to anticipate my own removal of the tag by the tiem it took me to locate a possible target. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lycosta
I'm not active on wikipedia, and I'm not contesting the validity of the process: I'm saying that, in this case, the outcome doesn't make sense. The reason given at the RfD was that such redirects are deleted in the hopes that someone will eventually come round to write an actual article. This doesn't make sense to me, because there is an article with some information on Lycosa coelestis, and currently searching for "Lycosa coelestis" does not take you to that article. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

IPExchange
I saw your you listed on the iBridge entry. How about stating an entry for IPExchange? Steven McIntire ALLEN 01:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcintireallen (talk • contribs)

Hello, I was wondering if you could fix the incomplete closure of the RFD on ? Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_4 indicates the discussion was closed as retarget to Heart_symbol, but the redirect still has an RFD template on it. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As you are on wikibreak, I'll also post this to WT:RFD -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for noting and fixing. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Otobi article recreated
Otobi is the largest furniture maker in Bangladesh and highly visible in Bangladeshi Media. This article was deleted earlier due to blatant advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqayum (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Deletion Inquiry
Dear Sir,

I write to inquire about the page under the name Taha Al-Douri being deleted. There is a link leading to that page in Wikipedia in the notable Iraqis in Jordan page. I am not particularly worried about having a page on Wikipedia or not, but since the link does exist (not sure who created the link or why) I prefer not to have that link point to a deleted page. It just does not look good. I would like if you would kindly assist me bring this page to Wikipedia standard and make it a valid link rather than deleting it. You may contact me at tahaduri@gmail.com

Thank you.

Taha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.231.232 (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Deletion (logged in)
This message I send while logged into my Wikipedia account. Not sure if this makes a difference (I am not particularly skilled with computers), but in case it does, here it is.

Looking forward to your feedback regarding the deleted page.

Happy Holidays!

Taha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taha1313 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Taha, to elaborate on what I said then: the page Taha Al Douri was almost empty apart from a few external links. Some (unformatted) content was at Talk:Taha Al Douri which is the place where we discuss articles. I deleted it after you blanked it which I took as a request to undo the posting, so the deletion is marked as author request, that is without any reference to its subject. But you should definitively not have received the 'vandalism warning' that seems to have prompted the blanking.
 * In brief, there is no prejudice against an article, but please review our guidelines on academics, living people and autobiographies before creating it.
 * Meanwhile I have removed the mentioned link as we should should list only already existing entries. Best --Tikiwont (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)