User talk:Wickethewok/Archive 1

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Wickethewok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 04:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I dont know if the admins actually respond to these or not. but here is a thank you for fixing up my page on Summer Storm. It was my first page, but i hope to do more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsantro (talk • contribs)

You are quite welcome, though I am not an admin, as much as I would like to be. ;) Wickethewok 05:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

As in the case of Jeremiah Winans, if someone deletes a valid CSD tag, just put it back on. I trawl through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion pretty often, and can see you're trying to please all with AfD votes. When something is junk, label it as such, and make sure it gets deleted. Keep up the good work. Harr o5 07:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Lea Thomas[edit]

Just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that the article on Taylor Lea Thomas has undergone significant changes and will continue to improve with time. I appreciate you reading the article in the first place. We are trying all we can to make the article better suited for Wikipedia because Ms. Thomas has accomplished a lot and has received many awards and press for it and therefore, appropriate for this medium. I hope that you will soon see this for yourself and opt instead to keep the article. Thank you kindly. Peter Sanders 14:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imad Latheef[edit]

Hi, Wickethewok,

Why not we remove / request to remove AFD tag from the article on biography of the journalist Imad Latheef. I respect your reason for tagging. deviathancy 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be removed when the voting period is over. No worries about it. --Oblivious 13:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Wolman[edit]

There's already a pending Afd, adding a speedy deletion breeds confusion. Simply go to the AfD, vote and give your reasons. Bobak 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the CP violating materal and rewrote those sections, thus I have removed the speedy. Bobak 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, fine by me. Wickethewok 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation with some guy[edit]

how do you know someone has worked with someone? you are either clairvoyant or presumptuous. and, ever heard of due diligence or personal contributions? maybe, but certainly massively inapplicable to your wikipedian philosophy. Chensiyuan 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who you are or what you are referring to. Wickethewok 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think it be rude when someone completely unqualified in a subject matter go around tagging articles to be deleted, predicating his whim on well, whim. look at the Kent Roach article and if you wish, contribute to the discussion constructively. Chensiyuan 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did not include any indication of notability, so I tagged it. I don't need to be an expert to judge whether or not your article says anything of notability. Wickethewok 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i differ. 'professor' signifies tenure, 'law clerk' signifies the zenith of academic achievement for law students, without first mentionig that being a once strong affiliate of the 'supreme court of canada' is quite notable. still think you can delete things without knowing what they are about? you judged completely on brevity of article and proferred a completely speculative justification for the deletion. in the same way you cannot comprehend what i am saying, why don't you go ahead and delete it then? Chensiyuan 05:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do not do your homework for you. That is the simple reason I prod'd your article. I am not going to Google everything that people put on WP. That is why YOU must assert notability. If you have changed this article to assert notability, thats fine. The sooner you stop taking personal offense to others on WP, the sooner you'll contribute more efficiently. Wickethewok 05:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you just lack general knowledge, simple as that. the more you brush up in that aspect, the more you can contribute to knowledge instead of being counterproductive. Chensiyuan 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. WP:NPA - don't make things personal. Its just more work for everyone then. Wickethewok 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Level of Warning Too Far[edit]

I understand that you maybe doing some invaluable good by guiding someone who's new to Wikipedia such as me, however over zealousness is not particularly encouraging. Jumping down one's throat so to speak for merely testing mark-up is no way to welcome anyone. I added one line and removed it one minute later. You sent me two warnings in quick succession, the last stating that I was on a second level warning. As I have already mentioned, I added one line to a new page and deleted it within one minute so why the second patronisation? I will assume that you aren't a school prefect after all and that you were just mistaken with your over efficient correction of my ignorant fumblings. Giftexpert 06:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I added two if there was only supposed to be one. I think I thought at the time that you had written this article twice and it had been deleted. If I was incorrect, I apologize. Wickethewok 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. As I am new, I don't know everything there is to know about correct form on Wikipedia. The second reactivation you saw that triggered your reaction was infact an attempt by me to edit and delete the single line of content. The duration from initial creation to final attempt to delete was a minute or so. As there was no actual article written plus no links to the page so I saw no harm in it and was attempting to demonstrate to someone else the concept of wiki editing and page generation. I will be reading the guidelines as you suggested before creating live content again.Giftexpert 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and all that! Enjoy your time at WP. Wickethewok 06:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion, Economic history of Mexico[edit]

You recently put a speedy deletion tag on a article I created, Economic history of Mexico. This article is made using public domain from the Library of Congress Country Studies. The other site happens to use the same text. Please remove the tags, this is obviously not copyvio.--Bkwillwm 06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Bkwillwm 06:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okies. Note that when I added the speedy tag, the article did not claim that. Just make sure you slap on the public domain notice sooner, or else I might copyvio it again ;-) Wickethewok 06:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Traveller Film Series[edit]

What have you got against this article? The international coverage the said films have received proves that they are notable and are a valid addition to Wikipedia. If fan films are accepted then I really don't understand why an independent series can't have a home here. I really don't see where your coming from. -- Hepburnsprings 13:07, 1 April 2006

Thats nice. Please don't repost articles that have already been deleted. If you want an actual reason, please choose from the many stated in the previous and current discussion. Wickethewok 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TransLink[edit]

Excuse me Wickthewok, but the TransLink content is not intended to be duplicated. I am rmeoving references to TransLink (Brisbane) and replacing them with TransLink (South East Queensland), and other references to Brisbane generally, as TransLink affects a much wider area. I actually authored most of this content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SM247 (talk • contribs)

Okies, as long as you are removing the content that seems to be featured on other websites. Cheers n that! Wickethewok 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am doing that (or trying to, there are many and I may miss some). Shall I remove the copyvio (if you have no objections)? SM247 03:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidomination Document[edit]

Oh come on. It's meant as a dumb April Fools joke (I thought I made that clear). Can't you just leave it alone till April 2nd? Dr. B 03:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of a change of WP policy on April 1 only. If I am mistaken, please show me where I can obtain standards for different days of the year. I am curious as to what articles I am allowed to post on October 19. Wickethewok 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CountBoris[edit]

You just proposed his article for deletion. He's been making several other articles of the same irrelevant matter for some time. See here for the list and then decide what to do with him. He can merge all in one, and then something has to link to that. Bye! Death2 03:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Lost[edit]

Why was James Cafarelli marked for deletion? -Caf3623

See here: AFD:James Cafarelli Wickethewok 06:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Bleszinski[edit]

The article is not just about a guy who created a blog, he is also one of the first bloggers to be given a press credential, next to the blogger who got a White House press conference pass after Jeff Gannon incident. Also accordig to blog traffic ratings at truthlaidbear, SB nation ranks as having the highest traffic of all sports blogs and #27 overall.Dspserpico 07:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent it to AFD, you may make your argument there. Wickethewok 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McNeill[edit]

I see you've prodded this article. Since it's a duplicate of the existing article we have on the guy, I'll take the liberty to delete it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Cable Corporation[edit]

A friendly reminder: don't forget to list copyright violations on WP:CP after you've tagged them. The link is in the template. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies. Didn't realize you needed to do that. Wickethewok 14:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Port Authority Police Department[edit]

I removed your {{db-copyvio}} tag. You should know that PANYNJ, of which PAPD is part, is an interstate agency co-owned-and-operated by the states of NY and NJ, and as such is quasi-governmental. Certainly not a for-profit concern, so CSD A8 does not apply. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 17:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug, it was a copyvio. I don't think WP should endorse sticking up copyrighted material and then forcing other Wikipedians to deal with their copy violations. If you're willing to fix it, you're welcome to it. Wickethewok 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk[edit]

Can I delete things from my talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caf3623 (talk • contribs)

If I'm not mistaken, you can delete/change your own comments, however, modifying other editors comments/warnings/etc in any capacity is not allowed. Wickethewok 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Simmons[edit]

Why did you put the page up for speedy deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsey8417 (talk • contribs)

It has been deleted many many times. Please don't recreate it. Wickethewok 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not reposted information from a previous deleted page. I'm not sure I understand why you want to delete the page.

Lindsey8417 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Because she is not notable. Wickethewok 04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Deletion[edit]

I really think that [[1]] should not have been deleted. He is very notable seeing that he designed and built the House of Blues chain, which is one of the most profitable and well known nightclub chains in America. Also, look at Todd English. He designed and built most of his restaurants and is already mentioned on both pages. He has even done work for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. If all those things are notable enough for Wikipedia, why isn't he? I feel it was deleted too soon. Could you look into it? Thanks Caf3623 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, no thanks. Wickethewok 02:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy complaining about some other guy, neither of which are relevant to me, but are nonetheless posted here[edit]

I have a complaint about an administrator who styles himself aeropagitica and takes upon himself the duties of deleting articles he has not taken the trouble to understand. Ironically the aeropagitica was an essay by Milton which attacked censorship. I am against any anonymity which is a direct cause of dishonesty and this is a perfect example. Wikipaedia has an appeals procedure which is so involved and tortuous as to be impractical. Wikipaedia is so vast that publication in it is like adding a drop to the pacific. My page on the canonical oscillator makes sound sense only if you take the trouble to read it intelligently. To threaten me with exclusion because I stand up for honest behaviour by your anonymous administrators is a betrayasl of those principle of free speech which Milton wrote about in his aeropagitica,perhaps your Mr aeropagitica should take the trouble to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennig james (talk • contribs)

I have a complaint about an administrator who styles himself aeropagitica. The areopagitica was an essay by Milton which attacked the practice of sensorship. Your Mr Aeropagitica has evidently never read it. He uses anonymity to cloak his malice and passes off envy as moral indignation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennig james (talk • contribs)

Why are you talking to me about this? Also, many of your contributions have been deleted. Perhaps you should read some of the Wikipedia stuff regarding writing articles and WP:NOT. Wickethewok 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of the claimant[edit]

An amagingly quick analysis of a potential copyright violation. As a matter of interest what word or words is it suggested are copied from the source you identify and what proportion of the whole do those words represent? David91 17:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google search for a few phrases, as I'm always suspicious of new large articles. I don't remember which phrase it was exactly, but I found a few portions of this article on a few sites. If you want to discuss this any further, use the talk page for the article in question. Cheers n all that! Wickethewok 17:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like most of the five hundred or so pages that I have created, this page will continue to grow larger and it will repeat terms of art and phrases that you will find on hundreds of other pages, both paper and electronic. In future, before you jump in so quickly, it would be courteous to ask the editor before invoking the copyvio procedure. And, I do not monitor user talk pages, so if you are going to reply, please do so on the talk page of the relevant article. David91 18:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thats why added stuff to the talk page of the other article also. And clearly you do monitor talk pages. Our time is finished. Wickethewok 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tutorial[edit]

So that all authors may state the law from a case with certainty and predictability, we all identify the ratio decidendi and then either quote it or paraphrase it accurately without substantially changing any of the words used by the judge, i.e. we all go back to the original source and acknowledge that fact by the relevant in-line citation which is the full name of the case as it appears in the law report and the unique page reference number. It should therefore not surprise anyone when they find a ratio quoted successively in multiple sources. The more significant the case, the more often other authors will have cited it. But, let us assume that I had simply copied the words from the site Wickethewok identified. Having now examined the URL given, the probable overlap is about 70 words. Before I had identified the alleged infringement, I asked on Wickethewok's talk page: "As a matter of interest what word or words is it suggested are copied from the source you identify and what proportion of the whole do those words represent?" I have not received a reply.

There are 4621 words on the page identified. The possible overlap was actually some 68 of those words. To be an infringement under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, a "substantial" number of words must be copied. This is both quantitative (and 68 from 4621 is not substantial) and qualitative i.e. like a plot twist or slogan in an advertising campaign (and there is nothing to distinguish these few words from any other words used as the examination questions). Thus, even if Wickethewok had been correct that I had copied from that site (whereas we had both simply used the same original source), the amount copied would not have been an infringement.

The procedure suggested at Wikipedia:Copyright problems is first to check with the uploading editor (which Wickethewok failed to do); secondly, to rewrite or remove the offending words to the talk page pending clarification (which Wickethewok failed to do). What Wickethewok actually did was, without warning, to blank an entire page of 1080 words which might have had 70 or so offending words on it. To show good will, I actually changed from a reported speech version of the judgment to a full paraphrase even though it was unnecessary but even that did not move Wickethewok to any more detailed explanation of what he/she thought that I had done to breach copyright. Then Wickethewok failed to list the page on the Copyright problems page with an explanation of the alleged problem. So, at every possible point in the process, Wickethewok failed to follow the relevant Wiki rules. The Wiki rules say that I have to assume good faith on Wickethewok's part, but he/she stretches patience to the limit. David91 01:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eegads, leave me alone. I'm not reading all that mess you scribbled. I thought we were done with this. Wickethewok 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You invoked a specific procedure and I cannot remove the copyvio tag. If you had any sense of responsibility, you would conform to the procedure and put things right. David91 02:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't post things written by other people. That way, no probs. I sort through like a billion rubbish articles a day it seems, sorry if yours got all mixed up in there. No need to write giant manifesto about me, as flattering as that is. ;) Happy editing. :) Wickethewok 07:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Kite[edit]

Hi there. My Mister Kite section got deleted, and I didn't understand why. Could someone help? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackehallgren (talk • contribs)

I think it was probably because it was about some non-notable website or forum or something, I don't remember what the article was about, but thats probably what it was. Wickethewok 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedying reposts[edit]

Please be sure that an apparent 'repost' of content isn't someone trying to improve the former article, before adding a speedy tag. Cheers, +sj + 01:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rabinow[edit]

An author of 18 books published by well known presses (University of Chicago Press, MIT Press, Princeton University Press, Pantheon Books, University of California Press, and others) should be deleted as "Professorcruft"? Just because you haven't heard of him, dear, does not mean that he is not important. If you are going too fast to avoid collateral damage, slow down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.101.59.18 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you should state that in your article next time. And maybe YOU should slow down enough to register and sign your messages. Also note that editors need not have intensive knowledge of every subject - that is why you must state why YOU must state why your article's subject is important. Please do so next time. As flattered as I am that you chose to deliver this information to me instead of the article in question, perhaps you should consider adding your apparent wealth of knowledge to WP community instead of my li'l old talk page. Wickethewok 07:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NJDX Article in Wikipedia[edit]

I need your help in creating an appropriate and informational Wikipedia article for NJDX. NJDX OR-Mapper product was released in November 2005 and has been positively reviewed by prominent magazines, web sites, and industry experts as the following links indicate:

Rick Wayne in New and Noteworthy (March 2006). KISS My ORM. Software Development Magazine, p 24.

News Desk (January 2006). Software Tree Object-Relational Mapper Aims for .NET Simplicity .NET Developer's Journal

William Ryan, A Microsoft MVP A Day with NJDX. KnowDotNet.com

I have further revised the information about NJDX with just the simple facts as follows. Please edit it as appropriate and let me know what would be reasonable. You can send your comments to me at [email protected]. Thank you. Dperiwal 02:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Proposed Article for NJDX-

NJDX™ OR-Mapper for .NET

Software Tree’s NJDX™ product is a lightweight Object-relational mapping (ORM) solution for bridging the gap between the .NET object model and SQL relational model. NJDX provides an object-oriented interface to store and retrieve .NET objects using relational databases avoiding the need to write and maintain low-level ADO.NET/SQL code.

NJDX employs a non-intrusive, dynamic, and meta-data driven programming methodology supporting pure domain object models.

NJDX has been tightly integrated with Visual Studio .NET and can be used with any CLR-based language including C#, VB.NET, and J#. NJDXStudio, the Visual Studio Add-In, simplifies many OR-Mapping related activities like forward-engineering, reverse-engineering, and mapping verification with live data.

NJDX works with Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, IBM DB2, Sybase, Microsoft Access, and any OleDB compliant data source. NJDX allows mapping of existing (legacy) relational data to .NET objects.

NJDX adheres to simplicity principles. NJDX feature list can be found here.

NJDX OR-Mapper has been used to re-architect the data access layer (DAL) of the Microsoft .NET PetShop. (NJDX PetShop Project Report)

Software Tree also offers a similar OR-Mapping product (JDX™) for the Java platform. Free evaluation versions of JDX and NJDX OR-Mappers are available from Software Tree's web site (http://www.softwaretree.com).

-History-

November 2005: NJDX 1.0 released

January 2006: NJDX 1.1 released supporting .NET Framework 2.0

-References-

Rick Wayne in New and Noteworthy (March 2006). KISS My ORM. Software Development Magazine, p 24.

William Ryan, A Microsoft MVP A Day with NJDX. KnowDotNet.com

"Software Tree Introduces NJDX, The KISS OR-Mapper™ for .NET" (Press release). Software Tree, Inc. November 21, 2005.

Periwal, Damodar (2005). "The KISS Principles for ORM" (PDF). The KISS (Keep It Simple and Straightforward) Principles for OR-Mapping Products from Software Tree, Inc (A White Paper). Retrieved 2006-03-23.

I'm not really interested in advertising your product on WP. Wickethewok 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to create an advertisement either. I wanted to address the notability issue by providing the external links about NJDX in reputed magazines and web sites. Can you suggest a minimal article based on this information? WP has articles for similar products like LLBLGen, Gentle.NET, DataObjects.NET, and Opf3. Thanks. Dperiwal 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco song articles[edit]

Alright, I understand... I wasn't aware of this being the policy of wikipedia, but your probably right.

JeffTweedyIsGod 18:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I just want to stop by and say hello. Have a nice day. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 15:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PIGUI/packages subpage[edit]

G'day, thanks for the prompt redirect of PIGUI/packages, but I think it really should be deleted instead. I made it as a subpage by mistake, not realising that subpages were not acceptable outside User pages. Not sure how to get it listed for deletion now, since it redirects... Webaware 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you accidentally create a page ever, you may use the db-author tag. I put it on the article in question for you. Wickethewok 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, mate. I'll do a bit more reading before creating or editing any more pages :) Webaware 05:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages[edit]

Hey, Wickethewok, thanks for your great work on new pages patrol. I've realized though that since some <coughlazycough> admins don't always check to see whether there's a talk page on a CSD, and since you sometimes create one, you've left some dangling talk pages (I just went through some of your contribs and deleted a few of these). If explanation is needed, just use {{db-reason}}, otherwise, the template is probably sufficient. Thanks, and keep it up. By the way, if you do run across any dangling talk pages you can just tag those {{db-g8}}. Chick Bowen 05:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure thing! Wickethewok 05:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD vs prod vs speedy[edit]

Hey, thanks for doing newpage patrol. I have noticed however that you are prodding and AfDing pages that should be marked as speedy. In particular, 3dvw where you marked it as prod, then AfD within several minutes.

AfD is intended to be used on articles where there is a debate over the article's candidacy for inclusion. Marking as a speedy delete for non-notability would probably solicit a faster reaction from the administration without the need for AfD. If the submitter repeatedly removes prod or CSD tags, then it's time for AfD. In the case of 3dvw, no debate started, hence AfD was a bit premature.

If it's non-notable mark it for speedy deletion. If the author fights with you by removing the tag, then mark it AfD and leave a comment on the author's page.

Just some tips. Keep up the patrol!

--Chris (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had some admins tell me that, except for people and bands, lack of notability is not grounds for speedy deletion. In the case of 3dvw, I was already met with resistance over prod'ing a related article about the same subject by the same editor, so I just threw that article in with the same AFD as I was already creating one. Also, I've also been told that if the author removes a speedy tag, the appropriate course of action is to simply replace it, rather than go straight to AFD. Thanks for your comments and tips! Wickethewok 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah okay, I missed those two cases. Sorry for the confusion. --Chris (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings from Some New Editor Who is Not Very Nice at All[edit]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Pooja.bhatt

No one is attacking you, Mr. Bhatt. Leaving these messages are people's pages for no reason is an offense which can get you banned. Actually, I believe it was in fact you who attacked me using some not very nice language in an AFD instance. See his attack HERE. Wickethewok 15:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band and record company stubs[edit]

You've been adding many band and record company stubs lately. But they don't contain enough information to verify the notability of the band. It would be appreciated if you'd put enough verifiable and linked information in each one to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Otherwise, for every stub you insert, someone else first has to verify that it's not another piece of band spam, and then insert enough info that someone else doesn't have to do that again. This is wearing down the Junior Woodchucks of the RC Patrol. Thank you. --John Nagle 06:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrite, I'll go back and include some more external links verifying notability. Note that I always include who the record labels and producers are associated with (eg. who they work with, where they have released records, etc., which usually denotes notability in electronic music.). Wickethewok 20:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oranges[edit]

I wouldn't bother leaving warnings for the orange on wheels as they started that yesterday and are getting indefinite blocks as spotted. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, as long as its taken care of! Wickethewok 20:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just deleted nine pages created by that user. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in India[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you looked in on Corruption in India and noted the level of POV. Please also do have a look at Political change and Pseudo-variety, created by the same user and all looking like OR to me. The entire lot might have to be AfDed. Hornplease 05:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put Pseudo-variety on AfD myself. Not sure yet about Political change, though thats clearly OR. Waiting to hear from the page's creator. Also look at Energy wars and Credit card industry. I think an admin should just get rid of the lot. Hornplease 05:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the heads up. I'll probably put Political change and Corruption in India up for AFD for inherit POV-ness tomorrow if they are yet unchanged. Wickethewok 07:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HourDoc[edit]

To Whom It May Concern:

Being a freelance writer, I took great lengths to adhere to your style guide, yet the article was marked for deletion due to the fact it did not adhere to "CORP" but it was written in neutral style and adhereed to your policy.

Where did I go wrong, as I patterned the information directly to several other companies in Wikipedia?

I also adhered to the "more than two" articles done by a thrid party and had them listed on the bottom of the page.

I look forward to your help in making sure I don't violate W's policy, yet get the article published.

Thank you.

Philip

Deletion of Border Battle[edit]

Sir, I mean this in the most polite way possible, but I have to ask you, do you ever friggin watch sports? The Twins play not one, but 2 interleague series between the Brewers, the football rivalry has been considered one of the best in the NFL and even at the college ranks, the rivalry is acknowledged. Heard of "Paul Bunyan's Axe?" Unless you can prove otherwise, remove your reccomendation for deletion and watch ESPN once in a while. ColdRedRain 08:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, actually I'm a big baseball fan (go Pirates! :P); however, you provide no sources or outside data and your article is full of opinions. And, actually, it is YOU who must prove notability, not I who must prove lack of notability. I'm surprised I haven't heard the term if its so popular. While I recognize that MLB has set up rivalries for interleague games between certain cities, I have not heard this term in conjunction with it. If you provide some sources, I can help you out with these issuesWickethewok 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For baseball http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/content/printer_friendly/min/y2004/m06/d18/c774176.jsp

NFL Football

www.packerssuck.com

www.vikingssucktoo.com

Ran by Packer and Viking fans.

College Sports.

http://badgerherald.com/sports/2005/10/10/badgers_split_in_ope.php

http://www.uwbadgers.com/sport_news/vb/headlines/full_story.aspx?story_id=2005_09_23_23_35_03_vb

ColdRedRain 08:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okies, I'll help ya fix up the article. Keep in mind that opinions such as declaring things as "best" is not proper tone for articles. Happy editing! Wickethewok 08:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few things you missed. The Vikings and Packers play in the NFC North, not the AFC. You being a Pirates fan should know that. (I assume you're from Pittsburgh since you're a Pirates fan, if not, I apologize).

The Timberwolves don't play in the Eastern conference, although they've lobbied many times to move to the East.
And the rivalry is even cited on Wikipedia itself on significant NFL rivalries without any debates.

Many web pages even say the Viking-Packer rivalry is the best rivalry in the NFL if not one of the best. Wikipedia even mentions it. Significant_rivalries_in_the_NFL Pages that usually don't say it's the best include it in a composite rivalry that also include the Bears.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=packers+vikings+rivalry+best+in+nfl&btnG=Google+Search

ColdRedRain 10:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, my bad. Yes, I do know that the Vikings/Packers are in the NFC, twas just a typo. I don't know as much about the NBA, so thanks for the conference correction there. In the future you may make such factual corrections yourself. While in encyclopedic articles, we try to avoid the word "best", it is reasonable to state that it is one of the most significant rivalries of the NFL. Wickethewok 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu-wiki[edit]

Copyvios can be speedied, you know. Use {{db-copyvio|url=(the url)}} for it. I tagged it. Grand master ka 06:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that its only appropriate to use for "commercial content providers" as it states. Can it be extended to general copyvios? Wickethewok 06:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that's a copyvio works. It's odd that the template says that; no-one uses it just for "commercial content providers". I use it for anything that's a copyvio, and have never had it removed. Grand master ka 02:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gerald garner[edit]

hey man gerald garner is not nonsense. a famous character from the disney movie heavyweights starring ben stiller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesullivan (talk • contribs)

If you are in fact referring to a deleted article, it is because it is believed to be a subject not worthy of an article. This appears to be a not particularly notable character from a not overly popular movie. Wickethewok 07:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Lakeman[edit]

Instand Delete of Guy Lakeman Why have you done this? The viewership of the publications of Guy Lakeman have exceed the Wikipedia guideline of 5000 From speaking to Guy Lakeman he wil give me more to add to this page Will you please update the page to refelect acceptance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Lakeman (talk • contribs)

Please no vanity on Wikipedia. Wickethewok 08:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another speedy issue?[edit]

What did I post that merited this tag?

I don't recall removing any such tag anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalGoodness (talk • contribs)

Only admins may remove speedy tags. Even if you feel you have added new information which proves notability or what have you, you are still NOT allowed to remove speedy tags. Wickethewok 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question, but rather responded with further bureaucratic nonsense user:metalgoodness
I thought I did answer your question. You removed a speedy deletion tag from Waterclime (accidentally it would seem), which is why I posted said warning on your talk page. For any further issues don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers! Wickethewok 08:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who Makes Up Facts?[edit]

Is this the way you work, Wickethewok by making up facts to support your position? Isn't that what you're accusing Binky of? Talk about calling the kettle black... IamthatIam 04:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, thanks for adding this to my talk page unnecessarily. Please don't make a mess of my talk page. Wickethewok 04:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that you cut out the evidence I posted here that proves what you said isn't true. How convenient it is to be an administrator. You can create your own reality, and force everyone else to live by it. IamthatIam 05:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed it to keep my user talk neat, and most of it were my original comments anyway. Anyone may view the article in question here. Also, I'm not an admin, though you may nominate me if you like ;-). I invite you to accuse me of more things, as such accusations always weaken someone's case.Wickethewok 05:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prods[edit]

"I've never put up a PROD that hasn't been removed by the editor without explanation."

Really?? That's amazing... I've found it to be pretty effective myself. It all depends on how closely authors watch their articles. ;-)

Happy editing. Grand master ka 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, yeah, it seems like I pick the articles with very assertive authors. Keep fighting the good fight on the new page patrol! Wickethewok 05:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder + Suggestion[edit]

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I usually remember to use subst, but with all the tags I add I may have missed one. Thanks for the link on archiving. Cheers and that! Wickethewok 04:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]