User talk:Cryptic/archive-8: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:41, 26 June 2008

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 16‎#Patrick A. Reid

I modified my statement on Patrick A. Reid at DelRev based on your comment--thought you'd like to know. DGG (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeuwarden (municipality)

I'm sorry that was rather silly of me, but when I say more to come I mean it will come. My intentions are to make a distinction between Leeuwarden (city) and Leeuwarden (municipality). I recently created Leeuwarden (disambiguation) to clear things up. I appreciate your concern but I assure it will soon be decent article. Baldrick90 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to tell whether a "I'll be back to work on this" note on a page really does mean someone will be back to work on it. I've found such notes on pages that were months old. In the meantime, the bluelinked page title keeps anyone else from noticing that we don't have an article there and writing one. There's no need to reserve a page name in advance. —Cryptic 01:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal edits

Thanks for reverting the edit made by Kersalflats to the Kersal page as I've done a lot of work on it. I couldn't quite work out what he'd done when I checked the history, did he remove the whole history section? He doesn't seem to understand that once you put something on wikipedia it's in the public domain and no longer your property. Anyway, to avoid an edit war I've edited out the stuff that was copied from his page - which was copied on by someone else and mostly POV stuff which I wouldn't have used myself. I've just left in the stuff that was referenced subsequently. I might add that some of his wording was a straight lift from other websites anyway so I don't know why he should be so upset! I'd be grateful if you would reply on my talk page. Richerman (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U

A page to which you have significant contributions, RfC/U, is up for deletion here. -- Jreferee t/c 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV missed?

You asked in your DRV edit summaries about John B. if you missed anything in listing prior discussion. We had this lovely RFAR suggestion, but I don't think it is worth posting in the DRV. GRBerry 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting BetacommandBot flagging an image as disputed fair use.

Regarding this edit in which you revert BetacommandBot, which added a challenge to the fair use of the image: I appreciate the intent. It annoys the hell out of me as well. But that image was not quite up to the letter of the rules. The Bot probably won't try again, but the image would be subject to any wikilawyer who wandered by. So while the Bot pisses me off, it's best to just fix whatever fiddly complaint it has at the moment. I'd be far more pissed if some administrator swooped in and deleted it without the warning BetacommandBot provides. I've fixed Image:The Meteor, the Stone and a Long Glass of Sherbet.png so we should be set. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It linked to a former title of the page which still redirects to it. Supposedly, the bot accounts for such cases, but - surprise! - it's broken (again). By all rights, it should be blocked (again), but I didn't feel up to instigating drama. —Cryptic 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Now that I've actually looked at your edit, I see you misunderstood both me and the bot: the only substance to its complaint was that the exact current title of the page wasn't linked. The image already had an adequate (if minimal) fair use rationale for its use there. —Cryptic 01:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly Minor Characters

There has been a call for deletion of the List of minor characters in the Firefly universe article. Since you've commented on the call to merge all the major characters, I thought you might be interested. Shsilver 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RickK

I was not part of the dispute RickK had. I was completely uninvolved. I was on a vacation back then. To but it bluntly I do not understand what you are getting at. -- Cat ^chi? 16:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dramatica

I'm just a random nobody, but came across this and wondered if you could be a bit more specific. Thanks. 75.161.105.130 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request Entro-P (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I don't get it.--Sonjaaa (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Royale

These guys are really good friends of mine, and I thought that they deserved a Wiki entry...then I found that there *had* been one for them, but it was deleted. I really would like to make one for them, not for advertisement's sake, but to basically show that they are hard workers, great musicians, and that they have a rather large following, especially here in their hometown. I don't know what was on the original page, but I do have access to articles, websites, photos, their manager, and the band members themselves (3 of the members are in my top friends on MySpace), so I'm sure a very accurate, reliable entry could be made about them...but I don't want to recreate something that's previously been deleted, only to be deleted again...I guess I'm asking your views and opinion on this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitterpatedxpagan (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most important question is either, "What's changed since October 2006 that makes them meet WP:MUSIC?", or "What's not accurate about the assessment at the deletion discussion?". The deleted article itself is of no use; other than the opening sentence ("Northwest Royale is a Metalcore band from Eugene, Oregon."), a list of band members, and the name of their last cd (then The Nosebleed Section), I don't see anything that would appear in a neutral, well-written article. —Cryptic 01:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

soo...if I could come up with something that's not less than a couple sentences, and meets guidelines/requirements, then my friends could once again be on wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitterpatedxpagan (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FP Delist Nom

Hi Cryptic,

An image you have been involved with uploading has been nominated for delist at FPC. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Bunch of Grapes. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote templates

I understand the removal of the vote templates, but do not understand the removal of the templates that I personally use that are created in my own user space. Please explain your reasoning. Roguegeek (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting them in userspace does not magically make them ok. —Cryptic 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was completely no where close to being helpful. Does that mean there is no rationale you can provide? Roguegeek (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and be as helpful as I can be by providing pertaining policies that you're apparently not going to provide yourself. Here's the claim for deletion that you provided under G4:

4. Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). Also, content moved to user space for explicit improvement is excluded, although material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy is not.

So please explain to me your rationale for using this policy as the reason for deleting the templates? Honestly, I don't see it and maybe you can help me see it. Roguegeek (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, yeah, did you actually read the last sentence in that? —Cryptic 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are of no help with your vague comments. I see the last line very clearly. Which part of the deletion policy do you claim I am attempting to circumvent? Roguegeek (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you placed a block over me during the last 48 hours. Fair enough I if I was doing something wrong. Unfortunately, I'm still no where close to understanding what (if anything) I did wrong and you definitely have a clear intent to not clarify as per your actions without proper warning of any kind. It's an excellent example of your failure to communicate in this discussion which actually goes against the administrator conduct policy. Do you have any plan to remedy this at all? Roguegeek (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response? Roguegeek (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll spell it out. These templates have been consistently and overwhelmingly rejected; a sample of the debates can be seen here (fourth section), here, here, and here. These aren't likely ever to be acceptable, and making irrelevent tweaks in the formatting or just repeatedly re-creating them until folks stop noticing isn't going to get them there; the only way to "improve" these is to demonstrate consensus has changed. Putting them in userspace and calling for people to subst them like they were normal templates isn't a proper use of userspace; it's deliberate circumvention their deletion. —Cryptic 09:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, a couple of things. You're assuming I'm trying to circumvent the deletion. This is a poor and wrong assumption on your part. I originally created the templates thinking they had never been created. After the first deletion, I saw they had been discussed previously and understood they should not have been re-created. I still thought they were good tools for me to use personally. Is it wrong to create personal tools to use Wikipedia more effectively? Maybe it is wrong, but I don't see a policy against it so point me to that if it exists.

Now for the block you placed on me, I don't see any policy that shows you were able to do that within the scope of your adminship, especially without any sort of warning what so ever. Furthermore, I was asking for clarity before you even placed a block on my account. My understanding of this situation was that I did reach out to you for clarity and you blocked without warning. You have a responsibility to explain those actions to me because, honestly, I feel like you completely abused your adminship in this case. Roguegeek (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? Roguegeek (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some kind of clarity here. Also, I've found another user whose had templates like this for quite some time. Is there rationale for them being able to accomplish this? Roguegeek (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TOMS Shoes

I see you were involved in some deletion discussion regarding TOMS Shoes. This article was deleted, then recreated by the business itself, then edited by someone who claims to be a newspaper writer, but it still reads like an ad and is generally unreferenced, unless you include press releases, dead links and references to the company's own websites. I've put notices on the page and note that there is no talk page. Post on my talk page if you're interested in discussing this for cleanup or deletion. (Sheesh, Rogan's Shoes looks similar! What's with the shoes?) It looks like the only notability is that of the owner, who appeared on The Amazing Race reality TV show, then attempted to co-found a reality TV cable network. Something smells spammish. --Danorton 05:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Atlantic Estuarine Research Society (AERS)

How can an organization entry display the mission statement of the organization without the appearance of a copyright violation with said organization's web page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zednaught (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By quoting it as their mission statement and attributing it to them, instead of just dropping it into the article unlabelled and letting it masquerade as the actual content. —Cryptic 12:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for the tip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.33.72 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

I'm delighted to see you back editing again. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar notice

		The Minor Barnstar
		For making exceptionally good-quality minor edits Stifle (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uncle G/On notability

Alright, I was not sure if it was supposed to be that way or not, so I decided to be bold...thanks. =) the_ed 17 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Ꙏ

I think the problem is on my end - the computer I'm on didn't render anything other than the gibberish unicode character Ꙏ, rather than any Cyrillic. That said, I think the appropriate criteria would have been A1 (No Context) which a translation from gibberish to Cyrillic would qualify as. I'm undeleting it now and tagging as a language stub and for expansion. Sorry for the confusion, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent speedy template deletion requests

Hi. Just to apologize for mistakenly listing some recent speedy template deletion requests incorrectly -- I meant to use {{db-t3}}. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly annoyed that you were replacing the redirects with the speedy tag while they were still transcluded in articles, which dropped them all into CAT:CSD. <noinclude> is your friend. —Cryptic 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd also lost track of which links I'd updated and which I hadn't. Break time, I think. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotech page deletion

Cryptic, I would not have placed the article if I have not seen similar articles describing similar products. (MoTeC) Any chance of reinstating the article? --Kilowatt-Junkie (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied MoTeC also; neither article contained any indication whatsoever why these companies belong in an encyclopedia. If you find any others, do please point them out. —Cryptic 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have opened a can of worms here, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Automotive_motorsports_and_performance_companies

--Kilowatt-Junkie (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the companies listed supply more advertising than information.--Kilowatt-Junkie (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic, I know you have to draw the line somewhere, mmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.35.68.144 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question re. Shoe Goo

Hi. I agree that the article should have been deleted, but I'd like to take a whack at doing an NPOV version of it. Would you mind terribly if I were to recreate a proper article? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Course not. Go right ahead. —Cryptic 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You iz da man. I just didn't want to go over your head. Thanks much. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it done, at least for now. It's a good, serviceable stub. Thanks for the help! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about the Sungale Group Inc

Is it because I provided to little information? Or is it because I didn't provide enough reference.

What if I want to recreate it, should I add links to it to provide the source of the contents?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliaamy (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As my deletion summary said, you have to show the company's importance or significance—that is, why it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. The relevant guidelines are here. —Cryptic 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV/2008 May 12

If you have a chance, could you clarify the statement "Wijikipeddia - Faljeirsic; Vikipeidiea - Galmoen; Wiquipedia - Raein (Galmosk); Viquarpedi - Galmoen (Retsaw)."? I've never heard of those languages. I'm just curious where you got that information from. Thanks! MrPrada (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising?

What is considered advertising, because almost every marketed product has a wikipedia page, for example Edline or Coca Cola? How can I make my article 'not an advertisment' like all the others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.173.137 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way to know what article you're talking about here. In general, make at least a passing attempt at writing from a neutral point of view with reference to third-party reliable sources, as opposed to just spewing content-free advertising copy. —Cryptic 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. do you think you can write an article on something. my last three attempts were deleted... 69.230.173.94 (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the talk page cleanup. It's nice to know I'm getting more action online than off... Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 09:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

Thanks for compressing the new logo image, that really helped. I just downloaded pngcrush myself and I was wondering if you could tell me the command line you used in this case. It would save me the time of having to familiarize myself with the extra-long readme :) Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pngcrush -brute -rem alla WikiNew.png WikiNewer.png —Cryptic 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Shelton Sanford

Hey, I just wanted to see if there was any particular reason you reverted the bot's edits to do default sorting for the categories instead of me just returning it. The bot edit looked acceptable to me at first glance, but did I miss a problem with it? Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This particular edit missorted the article in Category:Sanford family. Yes, just re-keying the one category would be ideal, but I'm rolling back/undoing wherever I can and the result is correct due to the volume; see my contributions and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry‎ for an idea of how much cleaning up needs to be done. —Cryptic 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; if there's a reason for doing it the old way, I'll trust that there is - I'm not terribly good with the technical side of everything yet (several years later), and that's why I just wanted to quick check in and see before I messed with anything. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweentown (film)

Could you undelete any Talk:Halloweentown (film) history, too?

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BSL, Business School Lausanne

Hi! What was the problem with this article? Where are the copyright content you report? It was "handwrited" by a member of this school, so please clarify so we can rewrite it accordingly. Thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchikoo (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some bizarre definition of "handwrited" [sic] that accounts for two thirds of the content being lifted verbatim from the school's promotional materials, perhaps. —Cryptic 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oki thx but that's their own material... I'll ask him to write something more informative and less advertising.

Deleting unused template redirects

Hi again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ALebanon-related_topics&diff=215620396&oldid=213545606

I've removed the one remaining use within the encyclopedia, but had previously been counseled to use {{db-t3}} to request a speedy deletion (rather than e.g. {{db-speedy}}). I'd appreciate your advice. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a speedy at all. WP:CSD#T3's worded to get stuff like {{FootnotesSmall}} (an alternate version of {{reflist}}) or a template that does nothing but transclude another, but not template redirects; I don't have time at the moment to look through the archives to confirm this was the intention in the original discussion, but I vaguely recall this was the case. Redirects left by page moves aren't generally deleted unless they're actively harmful, and I don't see what harm these are doing at all. —Cryptic 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and apologies for the delay before mine. I reckon such leftovers are worth speedy-deleting as (1) they're clutter and (2) it releases names for subsequent templates that may suit them. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brand asset consulting

Why do you keep deleting BrandAsset Consulting? There is a link from BrandAsset Valuator which is a valid article?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewiener (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's thoroughly biased, mostly content-free adcopy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a billboard. —Cryptic 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a link from Brand Asset Valuator and a brief description of the company, not an advertisement. --EJW (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hi Cryptic, the reason I made the clarification is that it is confusing as written. It seems better to use the language that was agreed upon in the criteria. In any event, I will not undo your change. Accurizer (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Redirects

Ao no kishi‎, Ao no Kishi, Akasaka Kei-itiro‎, Kei-itiro Akasaka‎, Cyniclons Dren, Cyniclons Sardon‎, Cyniclons Tarb‎, Quiche (Tokyo Mew Mew)

Do I really have to take all those bad redirects to AfD just to get rid of them? They were excessive redirects made ages ago, are not likely search terms, with most being unlikely mispellings. I'm just trying to do some clean up as part of the overall Tokyo Mew Mew clean up. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not misspellings (as can be seen, in most cases, in the sections they redirect to), they're not at all recently created (a requirement to speedy them even if they were misspelled), and they're not speedies. You can take them to WP:RFD if you really badly want to, but there's really no reason to delete them. —Cryptic 07:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, they are NOT mispellings at all. They are not likely mispellings, they are not likely search terms, and they are not used. I've sent them all to RFD. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

re: deletion of Team Lexington

Why did you delete the newly created article about Team Lexington, an established performance collective? There are many other similar articles such as
The Wooster Group - *[[1]]
Stelarc - *[[2]]
The Cockettes - *[[3]]
We find it extremely annoying that we can not contribute and give the article the chance to grow, without your immediate "policing" and deletion of our contributions and especially before they are given a chance to be read and referenced by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamlexington (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 June 2008

Allysse Wojtanek-Watson

Can you please bring Allysse Wojtanek-Watson's article back? --76.235.133.37 (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happily, once she does something that remotely meets WP:BIO. Alternately, you could bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review and waste the time of a half dozen more people who'll tell you exactly the same thing. —Cryptic 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They chose the alternative...--Tikiwont (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objective-J

there's no good reason why to delete the Objective-J article. If you're looking for "an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location" to delete, then Objective-J is the wrong thing. Objective-J is a programming language, not a website. TheUnixGeek (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a product of a non-notable company with zero reliable sources. As I said in the deletion summary. Hurling false accusations at me, in regards to an article where you tried to use your own blog as a reference, is not the way forward. —Cryptic 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to look around for an article on objective-j and was happy to see that wikipedia had a page (in the google cache)... It is a well known language (has just been only recently used by a small startup) but there is at least a reliable source about it http://ajaxian.com/archives/an-interview-with-280-north-on-objective-j-and-cappuccino ~~(talk) 10:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)~~ 218.111.201.39 (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually listen to the podcast (I'm six hours' drive from home, and my laptop's sound doesn't work), but the accompanying text doesn't say what you say it says - rather the opposite: it implies pretty strongly that 280 North wrote the language. A podcast interview with them isn't exactly third-party or reliable, mind. —Cryptic 09:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks

Only to let you know what my thinking was on this, I saw neither the lower threshold of an assertion of importance in the text, nor any evidence of the higher threshold of notability in the article topic, neither did the tagging editor. I'm not aware of anything in WP:N that says wealth inherited by offspring is notable in itself and moreover, I didn't see any evidence this person has been widely noted except in passing as her notable mother's daughter. I let it sit in DRV only because I was curious about what other editors would have to say about this. If the editor had come to my talk page and asked me to restore the page, I would have done straight off. Thanks for your input in the DRV! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FatMan StarJumps

Just like a brief explanation of why this article was deleted thanks. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyaldinho (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Paus

I wonder if this was tagged and deleted by a mistake. [4] If it is to be deleted I would like to see a lot better arguments for the deletion. If necessary I can probably ask someone to write a better article. ;) Jeblad (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

The article has apparently been restored, so would it be possible to unprotect? I have at least one new reliable source I could use for in-line citations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 June 21

Would you kindly userfy the article in question? Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This clearly isn't something that can be salvaged by further editing here; it's going to need someone external to Wikipedia writing about it first. —Cryptic 00:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm asking for it to be userfied so that I can add additional sources, improve it further as I continue to come across them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you'd done that first instead of carrying on like a spoiled child, someone—anyone—would have taken you seriously at DRV. Essentially none of the variously unsourced and missourced text that was there would survive in an article that was written based on actual sources. If this isn't just the let-this-live-untouched-in-userspace-forever-the-sources-are-out-there-no-really-they-are ploy I think it is, anyway. —Cryptic 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Your block on Le Grand Roi just now was sketchy at best. While I'm not crazy about him leaving that user warning on your talk page, doing that once isn't grounds for blocking to me, especially since you went and did it unilaterally. I ask you to unblock. I'm positive I could get consensus to do so on ANI if you refuse. Wizardman 01:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. blocking someone you are in an edit war with is not on. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...who was edit warring? —Cryptic 01:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling? That's a real stretch. How is that appropriate at all? I mean, granted, he obviously shouldn't have templated you, but a block is a highly inappropriate response. I'd strongly recommend you unblock. GlassCobra 01:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If either of you want to unblock, go ahead; there's no need to waste others' time. The whole point, which went over his head, was to stop him wasting others' time with his incessant badgering. —Cryptic 01:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 272: / Line 272: @@
 ::That's why I'm asking for it to be userfied so that I can add additional sources, improve it further as I continue to come across them.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 :Perhaps if you'd done that first instead of carrying on like a spoiled child, someone—''anyone''—would have taken you seriously at DRV.  Essentially none of the variously unsourced and missourced text that was there would survive in an article that was written based on actual sources.  If this isn't just the let-this-live-untouched-in-userspace-forever-the-sources-are-out-there-no-really-they-are ploy I think it is, anyway. &mdash;[[User talk:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
+== Block of [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles]] ==
 Your block on Le Grand Roi just now was sketchy at best. While I'm not crazy about him leaving that user warning on your talk page, doing that once isn't grounds for blocking to me, especially since you went and did it unilaterally. I ask you to unblock. I'm positive I could get consensus to do so on ANI if you refuse. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 01:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 277: / Line 279: @@
 :Agree. blocking someone you are in an edit war with is not on. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
+::...who was edit warring? &mdash;[[User talk:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
-== Block of [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles]] ==
 Trolling? That's a real stretch. How is that appropriate at all? I mean, granted, he obviously shouldn't have templated you, but a block is a highly inappropriate response. I'd strongly recommend you unblock. [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="0000FF">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="0000FF">Cobra</font>]]''' 01:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
+:If either of you want to unblock, go ahead; there's no need to waste others' time.  The whole ''point'', which went over his head, was to stop him wasting others' time with his incessant badgering. &mdash;[[User talk:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)