User talk:Tulkolahten/Archive2

< Back to main talk

Relisitng AfDs
Hi, not a huge deal, but when you relist AfDs, like Articles for deletion/The Shops at Biddeford Crossing, be sure you remove them from the old AfD day log, otherwise they still appear there to people closing the AfDs, and can result in confusion if it accidently gets closed. Thanks. --W.marsh 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Amiot
I have to disagree. Deleting articles doesn't save disk space, or time; it takes more disk space, and more time. It's better to recycle not-useful articles whenever possible. The only circumstances when pages should be deleted is if they are, and have always been, copyvios, or attack pages. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

re procedural nomination
Well, I just meant that I was not myself nominating the article for deletion because I myself have any opinion about it (which is why articles usually get nominated). I was just initiating the AfD procedure because that seemed the best thing to do with the article - not to speedy delete it, nor (partly out of deference to the original speedy tagger) to just let it go altogether. 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD templates
Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion - we need to decide if they have headings or not - to consistent. Lethaniol 14:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers - your input would be great. Have also left link on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace to discussion so that people with interest in templates and not just CSD will also comment. Hopefully we can decide soon, because at the moment the CSD warn templates are about half and half with heading. Cheers Lethaniol 14:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, is this user a sock of a user who was banned by arbcom or jimbo, or was he just blocked indefinitely for vandalism by an admin when he used a previous account?--Kchase T 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know it for sure, but I think it is a sockpuppet of and originally  (both blocked indefinitely). Sweetbone50 and Sweetbone5 is obvious. It seems to be a pupil of that school vandalising that page day by day, I requested semi-protect under policy Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user - but declined.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One more, it is not an edit war, this user adds obvious nonsenses, but I do not have strength to revert it - warn him - report him anymore. Just check his/her edits at King and Low-Heywood Thomas School.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I reviewed all his edits. I know you're not edit warring. I've hardblocked indefinitely and watchlisted the page. Sorry for not asking faster, but thanks for your filling me in about my questions.--Kchase T 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) It's neverending fighting windmills, sometimes it is frustrating.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 00:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Newbie . ..
Hi Tulkolahten -

I'm quite new here and I need some help editing my userpage. Any suggestions?

--Gray Crown 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder
Hi Tulkolahten, I just closed the AfD you started and redirected the article to Arnold Schwarzenegger, because all information on the autobiography was already present in that article. This message is because I wanted to inform you that it is not necessary to put an article up for deletion if you want it merged and redirected. You can do that by yourself if you are confident and otherwise you can follow the instructions on tagging the article for merging on this page: Merging and moving pages. Happy editing, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy to help you out. The reason some Afd's close as a merge is because it is suggested by people who comment on the original proposal for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim Westwood
Thanks, I only flagged it up becasue the user seems to have gone to extreme measure to create a clever box and I guess they're pretty commited to their 'cause'. I think eds like that should be blocked on the spot. Escaper7 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for correcting that - that's the second time in 24 hours I've needed help with a references problem - I've only just taken the plunge to learn how to use them. Thanks again! Blood red sandman 13:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Warn yourself. You are rude and ill-informed
First, a "provocateur" is not always the same as an "agent provocateur". It can just as easily refer to a polemicist. Perhaps you don't know that or don't care to know it. Perhaps English isn't your first language. Whatever; your ignorance doesn't make it "vandalism". Second, where do you get off "warning" me and threatening to block me? And what the hell do you mean by a "last" warning? Do you go around blithely tossing around warnings and threats in your personal life? Do you find it constructive? Please refrain from posting on or editing my talk page. In case you didn't get the point, I don't wish to correspond with you if that is how you conduct yourself. Squib 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Calm down.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy to prod
Because the article asserts notability within the meaning of CSD A7. Simple as that. - crz crztalk 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that it's shady, but it's a valid assertion, and it's my job as administrator to make that judgement. - crz crztalk 15:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned comment
my brother is a moron, I tried to get him not to do it but he did. Chill out a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.241.254 (talk • contribs)

Prodding articles
Could you put your reasoning in the prod notice ( Insert reason here ) and use an edit summary when you propose articles for deletion? Without a listed reason, I'm inclined to deprod them all, but maybe it would be more fair to give you the chance to fix them. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable
I've noticed you've not adding reasoning to the AfDs here and here. Simply asserting that an article is non-notable doesn't prove anything and can (and should) be ignored by the closing admin. Notability is not a subjective matter based on whether you think something's important; it's an assessment of if there are enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. So your votes need to show you've searched for sources and come up blank, or that the existing sources are not valid. Thanks. Trebor 16:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I found sources. And according to WP:N, that means it qualifies for an article. I fail to see your point. Trebor 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Please explain explicitly why it fails. Trebor 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're misunderstanding notability entirely. It isn't a personal opinion of whether they've done anything important and so deserve an encyclopaedia article - a wishy-washy decision varying from person to person. It's a reflection of whether there's enough verifiable information to write an article and verifiable information comes from reliable sources. Their influence on the fashion world is irrelevant. Trebor 16:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, they're obviously published works. Non-trivial is described as "an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." The articles are reasonably long and focused entirely on the subject matter - they're certainly not a directory entry information. It is possible several more articles exist, I didn't look particularly hard. What would you say would need to be the minimum to make coverage non-trivial? Trebor 16:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The question doesn't really make sense. You can pick a subject covered in the newspaper. You can look at the amount of information provided about the subject, and whether that is enough to construct an article. You should then find a second source (multiple, non-trivial published works) to support and perhaps provide additional information. If the only coverage was 1 sentence mentioning a company, it obviously wouldn't qualify. But if there are reasonably lengthy stories on the subject, providing enough verifiable information to write an article then there is no reason to delete it. Trebor 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're once again arguing subjectively. "I really do not think that Fighters + Lovers is allowed to be in encyclopedia". That's your personal opinion, but it's not what policy and guidelines seem to support. "It is just a local not notable company". What meaning of "not-notable" are you using here? If it's a personal opinion of whether they are important/significant/worthy then you're using it wrongly I'm afraid. Trebor 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability is a contentious issue, and the talk page for the guideline has been very busy for a few weeks with people trying to establish what it actually is (and, of course, you're welcome to add your views to it). But I firmly believe it shouldn't be anything subjective, as it would make AfDs impossible to resolve and encourage vast systemic bias. But if Wikipedia is trying to be the sum of human knowledge then I think that everything that can be verified should be included. There's no need to delete something because in the long-run it won't have too much of an effect. It's not up to us to judge what's important in history. Trebor 17:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fashion-models aren't an area I'm particularly au fait with, I must admit. But if the coverage of the models is in enough depth for an article, and the newspapers count as reliable sources then I see no reason why articles can't exist. I don't know whether local newspapers will count, there may be a guideline on that somewhere. Trebor 17:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)