User talk:Tikiwont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page.
  • Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
  • Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
  • Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics.
  • Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
  • I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] CSD A1

Okay, sorry about that! I was just really confused as to what they were pertaining to, but I now see that there is a main La Liga article that does provide context. Thanks.I feel like a tourist (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake, I misunderstood it. King iMatthew 2008 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:W.GUGLINSKI

I know it's this guy. The article clearly should be deleted and an AfD would be pointless. If I were an admin I would block him right away and delete his stuff. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well blocked isn't banned. Repeated block evasion might result in banning, though. Moreover, I actually deleted an artcile of his per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory. That mentioned some Naveen Dankal, so the latest account might be also be like-minded person. I'll give him a welcome page and then we'll see.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you're an admin? I thought there was some sort of rule that admins had to say so on their user pages.
He might not be technically banned, but as long as he continues to do the same thing he should be treated as if he were. I don't know how else to deal with this. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about the rule, but I actually forgot to restore my user page after latest wikibreak.
For the moment I assume the two accounts are not the same. If not we'll certainly notice and can take action.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heisenberg's Scientific Method

Dankal.naveen (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Naveen DankalDankal.naveen (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC) With due respect to Heisenberg and his contribution to science, I don not mean to use wikipedia to express my ideas and opinions about the works of any indvidual.I have only stated some of the limitations of Heisenberg's works with due references and just brought out a fact how Heisenberg's method is unable to resolve the mystery of scarcity of dineutrons and in a way "lope-sidedness" of our universe.

I just disaggree with you whether not this is is a good addition to wikipedia. On the other hand, I also disagree with the block you received resp. the unblock denied and have raised that point.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Unblocking...appreciate your step...will try to keep wiki rules in mind!!! Dankal.naveen (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008

Well, let me know once you have further concerns or questions.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dankal.naveen (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Naveen DankalDankal.naveen (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC) i am making a few changes in the article on Heisenberg's scientific method.I would like to know wether any refernces to banned members' works jeopardizes the articles chances of getting hosted or such refernces can be incorporated without any hitch. Moreover, before hosting the articles, can they be e-mailed to the administrators for a review so that the users are not lead to the worries of being blocked or banned?

There are two different issues. The User:W.GUGLINSKI has been blocked for disruption. His theories have been deleted as fringe theories. While that doesn't mean they can never be cited, it is unlikely to go without discussion. Your main problem still seems to be that this is an encyclopedia, while your article starts with a concrete question about the dineutron and the Isospin and then drifts away into more general considerations. What is missing is the intermediate step: what reliable sources have written about e.g. "the mystery of the scarcity of the dineutron" or limitations of the Copenhagen interpretation. Without including such secondary sources it will be a personal synthesis which is not accepted here. You first question, however, is what exactly is your topic. If it isn't anything for which there already is an article, it should be precisely delineated and notable, in the sense of sufficiently covered in existing literature. Technically, you can write drafts in userspace, e.g. at User:Dankal.naveen/Sandbox, but maybe you want to work on existing ones first.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
While it seems that you've noticed above, I thought you wanted to have the draft reviewed first before posting again at Heisenberg's Scientific Method. On the other hand it is not clear to me whether you actually read other articles such as Copenhagen interpretation that has a section on criticisms, Bohr-Einstein debates and Interpretation of quantum mechanics that touch on some the questions you treat, or dineutron that is rather too short. So how would your article relate to those. Who would be the main proponents of that criticism of / view on Heisenberg and QM? The term "Heisenberg's scientific method" certainly isn't known to anyone.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dankal.naveen (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Naveen DankalDankal.naveen (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I did put the article in my sandbox .However I did not get any feedback for 2 days so i thought that maybe the sandbox is not accessible to users other than me and had a doubt as to wether such thing as a "review process" does exit on wiki.So I posted the article directly to make it "visible".I did have a cursory glance on copenhagen interpretation.It mostly touches the aspects of "acceptance" of Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and talks very little about the concern which stand against it.I do agree that Heisenberg's scietific method may not be a common term however a lot of work has been done on "Heisenberg's philosophy" (which in a way describes Heisenberg's Scientific method, that of concerning the "observable" as the prime object of investgation and not the "cause", and advocating an inemittable use of mathematics to describe physical phenomenon). Well the artcle serves to those who still believe in keeping the "causality" intact. I might edit this article in future to add more on dineutrons while not stating the "original" ideas and opinions.

Well, from the timestamps it still looks to me as if you created the draft on 19 and put it into mainspace directly afterwrads.[1]. While there is no formal review process for drafts, it was visible and could have been reviewed if you had let know. Moreover, please keep in mind that existing articles such as the Copenhagen interpretation can and should be expanded and edited by anyone as can your article now that it is up. We also try to avoid articles that cater for a specific audience. In as far as it represents a specific view on Quantum mechanics and Heisenberg: what would be a more common name and would it be possible to be more clear about who has written about it or is a proponent, how it fits into general scheme of Interpretation of quantum mechanics and what its own criticisms are. An example of this type of editorial treatment might be the Ensemble interpretation listing Einstein and Ballantine as supporters.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dankal.naveen (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Naveen DankalDankal.naveen (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I have made a mental note of the points described by you about the way of doing articles on wiki....Thanks.Also I guess you are right about the time stamp..maybe I may have kept the article in sandbox only for a day or less and may have shown a bit of a hurry at my end in posting the stuff.

[edit] ANI

The article has been brought up at WP:ANI#Would someone delete this junk?, if you'd like to comment there. --barneca (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented there why I don't agree with the block. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you took the time to unblock, will you watch out for this user, helping him/her learn the ropes and ensuring that they understand the expectations here? Thanks and regards, Antelantalk 14:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, actually I was trying to do that when the ANI got somewhat in the way. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Antelantalk 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not that I am necessarily effective. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Control2k2

can you please help me as i have put 2 pages up and both was deleted the main one was "Welsh Automotive Forum" ‎....what am i doing wrong??? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Control2k2 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talkpage--Tikiwont (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St Edwards

Could you please explain to me why u think my comments constitute as vandalism? I am not some person purposely trying to ruin wikipedia for everyone, i do not agree with the concept of ruining other peoples work.

The point of me putting teacher profiles onto the St Edwards page is so that parents may be able to see what the teachers in the school are like, and get a feel for things before they commit to applying to the school for their children and also realise what the school is like for their children.

I think this is totally reasonable as there is no bias and no opinions, the profiles are based on fact and a number of different sources of contribution to give an accurate account of what the teachers are like.

TheOnlyRaconteur (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ka Inu

I inquire about this articles deletion. Removed under the premise of lacking context, I feel that this is wrong. The article is equally valid to that of Bill Gates or Densha Otoko. I would like straight to the point guidelines for revival of the page. What it lack, and what content makes it less valid then any other person writing about an inspiration or idol of theirs.

The article was small, however it would have grown in time, with the subject becoming more and more widely know. More sources would have appeared and in turn more of the statements could of been backed up.

Thank you KoKoO Psy (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, could you upload the draft to my user page, so i could work on it.

KoKoO Psy (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmichele

  • Thanks for the help and advice. I'll heed it in the future. This is going to sound absurd, but how did the Persian Poet Gal get her user page to look so groovy? Keep up the good work. Hmichele (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea; my userpage is very basic and just a means anyway. Which raises the question: What is the end then? BTW user paces fall under the GFDL as anywhere else here: their layout can be ripped if attributed.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prod removal on article

I disagree with the removal or -prod on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_Aaron_Istodor

The first person who challenged it said he removed it because a quick search on Google revealed a few links to his name, but he didn't know whether the actor deserved notability or not.

What I am saying is that he doesn't deserve it yet and Wikipedia isn't a place to put one's name just to get a higher pagerank. The guy is indeed an actor but he is also is heavily supported by his mother Maia Morgenstern, a famous actress who also played in "Passion of the Christ". She plays with him in several plays to "help" him like stated here http://www.curierulnational.ro/Specializat/2005-05-28/Tudor+Istodor:+Profesia+de+actor+ma+invata+ca+e+bine+sa+explorez+tot+timpul

However, he is faaaar away from a career in acting. I strongly suggest to remove the entry until he has earned his right there. We will see in a few years if Tudor is a worthy actor or just "mama's boy".

I you want to assist fledgling actors with connections, then go ahead. But it's not fair to other actors who are working very hard to make a name for themselves on their own. 89.137.228.70 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the second prod for procedural reasons as per policy we go through that only once and then prefer a discussion. You could register and open a deletion discussion at WP:AFD. If you can't do that, please write a preferably more neutral reasoning than the one for the prod on the article's talk page, and i'll list it.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Istituto Sperimentale per la Zoologia Agraria

Cut and paste.Sorry about that. I was writing a little on Fritz Ruhl when I noticed I had misspelt Zoologia Zooogia.Now I see what I should have done and more to the point why. Many thanks for the guide notes Robert Notafly (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sgt_Pikachu5

His sig aside, his userpage states :"Hello. I am new! I created this account as a replacement to my old one (which was blocked indefinetly). I WONT VANDALIZE". I hate to escalate something just by stumbling upon it, but isn't this block evasion? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had noticed too, and mulled this over a coffee. Basically, it seems to be intended more as restart than as block evasion and in as far as it is technically a block evasion, he doesn't necessarily have to be blocked per WP:BLOCK as long as his intentions seem to be good. Still, the question won't go away, so I'll raise it with him as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Outside of his sig, which he actually agreed to fix, I haven't seen disruptive editing in a cursory glance. Maybe I'll look further. If a user wants to have such a message on their user page, do we usually ask them to identify the previous account?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I will, if you wish. Rudget (Help?) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, a real clean start under a new name would require both: to have the old account unblocked and marked as inactive, but no obvious connection on the other hand. Therefore, I'd suggest that asks e.g via e-mail for an unblock of the old account to facilitate a good faith start under the different account. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Well, he is not negatively affecting me or anything. A lot of this is help me get a better understanding of some nuances of blocking policy. For my own good, I think I'll review more of Pikachu's history to see if anything pops out as concerning. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He's been making funny edits like this to editor's talk pages that he says are now retired. Then, later, he makes this edit to the same page, with the edit summary "Quite rude". He went to Jimbo's talk with this message. He's telling someone they might be blocked here. Here he alters another editor's warning. Some more to come after I look at those "retired editors" pages he edited. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just wanted to continue editing Wikipedia. At least, with the exception of Behindthescreen, I reverted them. I should use the Sandbox instead. :DSgt_Pikachu5talk contribs 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adil Najam

Hello Tikiwont. I've restored this to article space, per your closure of the DRV. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I wasn't sure if anyone wants to work on it before.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My account.

Just unblock my old account, User:Togepi_987 and mark it retired. Then, they won't think i'm a sockpuppet. Sgt_Pikachu5talk contribs 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] talk page

Hi, I noticed you did not delete my talk page, I know it's always better to keep them, but you know, my problem is that while tying to archive my messages, I messed up! I moved them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SF007/Archive_1 and now I can't move them back! even if I delete all the stuff on my talk page! thats why I requested for them to be deleted, so I can move the stuff back, sure I can just copy and paste them back, but that would not preserve the "history". If it is possible for you to do it, I would appreciate it, if not (it might be against some poilicy or something) no problem at all... ;) thanks in advance. SF007 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem and history now merged to talk. With the 'author request' tag i just didn't realize that this was intended as housekeeping deletion for a history merge. If you want you can now reuse User_talk:SF007/Archive_1 for copy and paste archiving. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for for merging the history in my talk page! SF007 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] userfying maximum bob (singer) article

if that is what it takes, i accept userfication. the problem is, i did not write this article initially. Also, im confused about the concept. if it is in user space, can others still access it? how does it make a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC) also, im not very experianced with wikipedia formating and beureacracy, so yiou and other admins might have to guide me through step by step what userfying will do and how to bring it mack to regular wikipedia Ritzbitz00 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would be at e.g. User:Ritzbitz00/Maximum Bob (singer) and have at the whole history and can still be accessed by anyone, but as not being part of regular wikipedia it won't be speedily deleted, but can be improved and evaluated without hurry. If it addresses the problems of the deletion discussion, it can be moved back to Maximum Bob (singer). Otherwise it needs to be deleted once more. In that sense I can help you with the administrative actions of restoring, evaluating and moving it back (or redeleting it), but you would need to find the sources and work on the article. Let me know.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please userficate it to my page, and let me know how to access it once you do. Thanks. btw the original article will be at my disposal, es? i cant remake the article sry Ritzbitz00 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, but how will other people be able to access it to help with improvement? i linked it to some places, but will that be enough? and Im also done fixing it. whats the difference between stubs and categories, when i tried putting them in they both used stub thingies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It is accessible if people know about it. Maybe you can ask on talk pages for related articles for help. A stub is a short type of article and they have their own cats such as Category:United States rock singer stubs. The respective article cat is Category:American rock singers. Nevertheless yours is a user draft so it shouldn't be categorized at all unless its is moved back among the articles. What is still missing before doing so are reliable sources that write about him. It was understood in the Deletion review that you may know of such sources. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Not articles per se but i have videos and sound clips of him that would testify toward information about him. is that ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not okay. It neither addresses the problems that resulted in deletion nor is it acceptable to speculate on identity per WP:BLP based on a youtube video not counting as source. Do you have yourself the DvD or do you just believe that it was taken from there? In any case it is a story, and we should rather not have it here unless picked up and verified elsewhere first. Nor will we have an article on Maximum Bob unless there is some more written about him already.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I added more sections, are you able to see what ive done? it would be easier if i got direct criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
for some reason, it keeeps deleting all the sections below the career section. it happens when i add a referance to it. is this something you changed? or is something wrong? also, how do you upload sound clips? i couldn't find the page letting you do it. or do you just need to form a link? --Ritzbitz00 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That was due to a malformed tag. A ref needs to be finished with </ref>. No idea about sound clips, but try Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media filesalways consider copyright and fair use. Consider using the {{helpme}} tag. But see also below.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As already said, we're primarily trying to see whether to have an article at all. While it is also a useful exercise, there is only so much effort we should spend on it if it needs to be deleted. That isn't a question of layout but of substantial independent sources or other indication in the line of WP:Music and should have better be discussed at DRV as there don't seem to be any.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

well, do hat you have to do. I'm about to add sound clips backing my claims about the musical style, and i thought there was an article about them, but it mustrhave been deleted from the site it was on. is there anything in specific I should sources for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritzbitz00 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A sound clip may give an impression, but references that explicitly describe his style, reviews or news articles about the artist / person is what you're looking for.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Does live footage count, if not recorded by the band itself?--Ritzbitz00 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No, they can just illustrate what should have been described elsewhere. Please can you now have a (second) look at our guidelines on notability of musicians and reliable sources. And then go through a thorough google search to see what you can come up with? --Tikiwont (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to systolic geometry

Hi,

For some reason, the article appears under "I" in the list of introductions, rather than under "S". I can't figure out why. Katzmik (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is because of a missing sort key; I use now the standard template at the header. If you want to user your previous intro, you can re-add the cat as [[Category:Introductions|Systolic geometry]]--Tikiwont (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closure of Luv Addict

Thanks for fixing it. I'm not used to closing DRV discussions and didn't even notice I'd muffed it! (blush) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well at DRV it's probably better blushing about tiny formal errors than growing pale over gross procedural ones...I didn't even want to highlight it but for some reasons I had to edit the whole log to fit in the missing tag. It mystifies me anyhow why have different style templates each XfD venue. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well said. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need Help

Hye Mr. Tiki this is wikipedia user hkansagra calling for you to help me sorting my problem on Mahabharat (9X TV series). Once I found ekta kapoor creating a mahabharat series, i created the page but then a found the title was not mahabharat. The title is mahabharata, i moved the page. and now i found on 2nd june ekta give proper official name called Kahaani Hamaaray Mahabharat Ki, i remade move to that title and now i have your oppinian to mondrate my this matter give me reply what should i have to do with Mahabharat 9X TV Series page beacouse there there is three redirects on this pages

1. Mahabharat (9X TV Series) to Mahabharata (9X TV Series)
2. Mahabharata (9X TV Series) to Kahaani Hamaaray Mahabharat Ki
3. Mahabharat (9X TV Series) to Kahaani Hamaaray Mahabharat Ki ... This Move Is edited first move non-sencely by my self

the third move will moved my user page vandal level to 3(ELEVATED) so i called you to help me on this matter to solve it and get vandal level down to 1(LOW). i am previously talked to you on old mahabharat series image uploaded to identify this article on 17 april Hardik Kansagra (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you are now sure that the new title is correct... looking at[2] I see that both Mahabharat (9X TV series) and Mahabharata (9X TV series) redirect to Kahaani Hamaaray Mahabharat Ki, which is fine. They do no harm, show where the article was in the past and guide others to the right place. With respect to vandalism, the recent edits are not many and rather amount to speculation and not vandalism, so I don't think protection is currently warranted. As long as a page is not protected, it should not be marked as such. If editing flares up in the future, you can request protection also at WP:RPP.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr Tiki, I need your one more help to correct my article page of Kis Desh Mein Hai Meraa Dil. Some IP User Uncategorised and removed channel show template so rollback it to my last edit. Tell me if wikipedia have any bot which work like watchlist but displays all changes on my selected page at my user page and count my final edit or give me any new permission like rollback rights,bot operation to control wikipedia with new primisees which never used on bot. All Information you need is found on my user page or sub page for userboxes. Hardik Kansagra (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is given to experienced editors to fight vandalism in general, not just to watch over pages thy edit. You can simply go to the revision history [3], click on (cur) next to your version to see the differences to the current one [4]. If you then click on the edit link next to 'Revision as of 19:24, 2008 June 7', you open your last version and edit form there. I use and would recommend a java script, popups to facilitate reverting and some other handy stuff, but it has to be used with care. There is also a script Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Changes since I last edited that lists all changes since you last edited, but I haven't tried that. If it isn't straightforward vandalism (and speculation about an upcoming TV series is rather not), it is best to consider always the changes and then edit edit the latest version re adding what has been lost. For more info see Help:Reverting--Tikiwont (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I Have Agree What You Said.

[edit] CSD

Thanks, I'll do that next time. Kivar2 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced

D'oh!! that's what I get for reading in tabs :) Thank you!

reg

[edit] CROSSFIRE

Re: Crossfire band page I don't see how they qualify for encyclopedic relevance in any manner. I have seen many pages qualify for deletion with more relevance and sources cited than that one. It's not that I wish to take down anyone's page, but this seems to be a clear case of not meeting the requisite standards according to the defined standards. 195.233.250.7 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They may not be notable, but there are certainly assertions of some importance. There is also a link to an Hebrew article and to the Hebrew wiki entry. Because of that a speedy deletion had already been declined in the past. Moreover their albums aren't speedy candidates anyways, so discussing all of them together at AfD seemed the best way forward to me. Let me know in case you think an AfD is warranted and need technical help with it. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

. .

I think it's quite clear that they are no different than any of the other innumerable bands who try to get themselves onto Wikipedia. I don't have the time or experience to pursue this matter, but I think that the page and the album links do not meet the criteria for encyclopedic relevance. Perhaps as an administrator you can take the appropriate action. Again, it's not that I wish to tear down someone's page, but the standards are not met in this case. There is one source which most of the world cannot corroborate due to the language, and having secured spots with notable acts as the support group does not, in turn, make "them" also notable by association. There are many, many bands who make these attempts who get deleted every day and this group is no different. So, in the end, you must do what you feel is right, but I will be taking no further action on the matter, I simply wanted to point it out, and I think it is clearly a matter for AfD. 195.233.250.7 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Charismatic Wikipedians

No it's alright, I'm not actually a member of the Charismatic Christian movement. I just included myself in that category because I'm quite vain and I like to think of myself as charismatic. It was intended as humorous. Thank you anyway. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kucinich resolution article

It was a test page. The author created another page called The Kucinich Resolution with the exact same content. But I really think that your edits and disamb page was the correct way to go. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the other page and redirected it, so i reasoned that this was not a page to test wikipedia's features, but an actual post with the editor then changing their mind about the name but not aware of the move/rename option. For duplicates its often best to just redirect them, especially if the name makes some sense. Anyway, the outcome counts most, so thanks for the feedback, and let's see if the originator agrees as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott Bay Towers

This article was deleted in late March from an expired prod, is it possible to restore it and then redirect to Frasier (as to keep what might be some relevant information)? Epson291 (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)