User talk:Tone/Archive 14

Welcome to my discussion page. I prefer having all the conversations on the same place, so I mostly answer here. -- Tone. Click here to leave me a new message

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Free image question

You wouldn't know if this is a free image, would you? It would be perfect for ITN... --candle•wicke 04:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It says all rights reserved on the right. So, no, too bad. --Tone 12:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maltese people

Hey there. You semi-protected Maltese people yesterday after a sockpuppeteer posed as an anon and began disrupting the article. He has since threatened to stalk my future edits on Wikipedia. Is there anything I can do to counter-act this, or somewhere suitable to raise this issue? Cheers, we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't really help with that, everyone can see your edit history. However, there are some remedies if this leads in edit warring (block) ;-) Don't worry. --Tone 13:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, hopefully it won't come to that! Although now he's back and just arguing :-( not pleasant. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's some additional information regarding the IP's connection to User:Iamandrewrice and it's trolling MO: it is from the same range as a third of known accounts used by this editor, and traces back to the exact same place as all of them. The editor's bizarre behaviour is identical, as are the articles edited. User:Knepflerle offered this salient suggestion on a possible course of action: (Only a handful of fairly narrow bands of IPs are being used) - someone ought to look into which of them can be rangeblocked without collateral damage. Pietru (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I don't have many experiences with rangeblocks, maybe you should ask at the ANI again? --Tone 14:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid

Hi Tone! I understand the reasons for the deletion of the article, but I had just begun. He would be improved. My goal is that by May the articles related to the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics bids become between FA and GA. So I would like to recreate the article Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid, so that readers of the article Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid can temporarily have access to a poor article but detailed. Felipe ^{( talk )} 14:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Let's say I recreate the article and you userfy it so that we avoid another speedy tagging? Greetings. --Tone 15:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I watch the page and avoid speedy tagging. Regards; Felipe ^{( talk )} 16:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I marked the page with {{advertising}}, though, because it's still the same old ad-brochure copy. Much of the text comes from a publication of the Brazilian government.[1] The text needs to improve rapidly, or this goes to AfD. --John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested above, it should be usefied until the useful content is moved to the central article and then deleted. --Tone 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Old AFD cleanup

It appears you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politism back in January and deleted the page Politism, but missed the related subarticle Politist, which still has an AFD notice on it. When you get the chance, could you delete that one as well? Thanks! JavaTenor (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing. --Tone 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the responsiveness. JavaTenor (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RFID Article

Hi i am trying to post this article and it keeps getting rejected for blatant advertising. I really don't see it as advertising at all. In my opinion its informational. Please help!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.67.165 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above link leads to Radio-frequency identification. Could you be more specific where you want to post your article? Greetings. --Tone 14:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Cubic Compass Article

Trying to understand the reasoning behind deleting the article on software company "Cubic Compass". The stated reason was "blatant advertising", however the article actually contained a chronological history of company events with several valid references.

Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion

This article was required as part of a geographic categorization of "Oregon Software Companies".

Looking forward to more constructive feedback or suggestions (instead of destructive deletion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.201.14 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. One of the problems with the article was that a user tagged it with a problem of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Still, I suppose, the article could be rewritten if the following is considered:

• the intro gives no real assertion of notability.
• milestones should not be given in a table but rather in prose, besides, this part needs a cleanup. It's good it has references, though.
• criticism section isn't really about criticism, at least I think it's just comments, besides, should be sourced.
• company data could be sorted in an infobox.

If you can address the issues, I can provide you the content of the deleted article. Greetings. --Tone 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughtful feedback. Will explore if other companies in this category are using a particular template as a basis for the revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.201.14 (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Currency image at Germany article

@Tone: You have removed major content from the History section without discussion. The removed image must be considered standard content in many country articles and visualizes a historic event. The image you removed is a longterm established image of an FA article. Stop your deletion actions of standard content without discussion. Lear 21 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have said all I wanted at the talk page of the article where I have given my arguments and get a wide consensus for my edit. Please, respect that. --Tone 12:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please respect that the currency image is a standard image in many country articles. At the Germany articles discussion page only one other editor has critised the currency. This editor (Husond) has also proposed an alternative image. The complete removal of the image is not backed by a majority consensus. Nor is it disputed in more than 10 country articles. Your edits need to concentrate at specific issues and not at blind reverts. Lear 21 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You think I should start a discussion on all of those articles? At least for Germany, Portugal and Slovenia there is a consensus against that image. If you prefer, I can remove the image from the other articles as well and state the reason at the talkpages. Greetings. --Tone 13:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

ITN AFD query

Do you think this would be appropriate for or worth proposing at ITN/AFD? It's been a massive news story all week but I'm not sure how well it is recognised internationally. If it is unknown it may seem a little unbelievable, especially at the top of the Main Page on AFD... --candle•wicke 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be quite amusing, if we manage to write it in non-offensive tone. Otherwise, that's the first time I've heard of this incident. The article is updated so you can put it into the good proposals section. --Tone 19:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. --candle•wicke 22:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created a sort of sample design to give a vague indication of what ITN might look like on 1 April 2009. --candle•wicke 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lovely! The first item is brilliant! The rest may need some polishing but yes, that's a great setup. --Tone 06:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Mahoran status referendum, 2009

On 30 March, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Mahoran status referendum, 2009, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 04:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete

why delete BS8485 it is a British standard that relates to gas protection in the U.K? Thanks aphex140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphex140 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the exact title of the article, I can't find it... --Tone 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Cross Sale

You have deleted this entry - why? As very many, particularly UK, retailers use this device, it seems of interest to know the origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterwiard (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That was a prod deletion. Since you object, I will restore it and send it to AfD to get a consensus. You may want to leave a comment there, as well. Greetings. --Tone 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

reasoning

I don't understand your reasoning. One sentence is saying that Serbia sees Kosovo as a province while the other is saying that the majority of the UN nations see kosovo as a province. Different subjects, different meanings. it's like saying "Tom likes ice cream" and "majority of the world likes ice cream", two very different messages.definitely not the sameMike Babic (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we discuss this here? The intro says considers it a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory... So there is no need to repeat that countries that do not recognize Kosovo do recognize it as a part of Serbia because this is more or less repeating the fact from above. --Tone 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ITN update

Can we please add the Venezuelan beauty queen error of judgement? It's updated and I've left a wording at ITN. --candle•wicke 19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What, that was actually true???!!!??? Now, with a couple of hours left I don't know if we need another update actually... --Tone 20:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes. It's been everywhere and features on this list. At the very least we can verify it with numerous sources. This too would be great if you could get anyone to do it. --candle•wicke 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In the news

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Template:In the news, but did not provide an explanation in the edit summary. Could you please explain the reason for your revert? Thank you, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops... Actually, I checked the diff, then wanted to click undo but changed my mind then and closed the tab. Apparently I clicked revert instead of undo. Sorry for that. Anyway, I think that merging was a better word in April 1 spirit. --Tone 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. No worries... it's April 2 now anyway. : ) Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re. That flag in Germany article

Argh, just when you think that something's under control... I'll get back to this issue tomorrow (and I'll also be checking the other articles too). Thanks for telling me. Best regards, Húsönd 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN query

Do the users who nominated the items for the AFD Main Page receive one of those "thank you for creating" tags on their talk pages? I got one for a DYK and was just wondering if I qualified for one of them for this? --candle•wicke 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you can credit one yourself ;-) It was on ITN after all... --Tone 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On my own talk page? Hmmm... that seems inappropriate... --candle•wicke 21:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Slovak presidential election, 2009

On 6 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Slovak presidential election, 2009, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops

Clicked rollback by mistake Tintin 13:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought so :-) No problem. --Tone 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration decision on the Republic of Macedonia article

Hello,

I am writing about your arbitration decision with regards to the move that was requested for the Republic of Macedonia article three weeks ago. I am relatively new to wikipedia and was computer-less due to a hard-drive failure during the whole move incident, so I am trying to understand your reasoning.

I understand that there has been a longstanding consensus on the naming issue. I think another administrator mentioned it's been like that since 2003. Given that the people involved with wikipedia have more than doubled in the last six years, isn't there a way for the newer members to attempt to change that consensus to something that reflects their views? I thought that wikipedia provided a possibility for a change in consensus (WP:CCC)? Of course there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening if the process is always stopped... and I think that's mainly the reason why this unreflective consensus has remained standing for so many years.

You are obviously much more experienced in all matters wikipedia than I am, so I guess the right thing would be to ask you for some advice. If some new people -like me- have read the old name-conflict discussions and have genuinely new arguments with which they wish to attempt to change the consensus, is that possible or will all attempts be stopped because of what was discussed and decided six years ago? --Radjenef (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The consensus can change, of course. However, for this, new arguments need to be presented. The right thing to do is to discuss the issue on the appropriate talkpage and until the debate is constructive and civil, noone should not stop it just because there was some consensus 6 years ago. I closed the last debate because it was becoming unproductive and because it was clear that the new consensus will not be reached then. I hope this helps. Greetings. --Tone 07:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this genuinely helps, thank you! I am a little bit confused by your use of a double negative in the phrase "noone should not stop it", but I take it you meant to say that noone should stop it if it is constructive and civil (correct me if I'm wrong!) Alright, all that remains now is to start a constructive and civil discussion (probably a first in this article) and see where it leads. --Radjenef (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I am writing to you to ask your opinion and advice since you've already been involved in this article. The article was recently renamed without prior announcement or discussion from "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia" by a wikipedia administrator. This goes against the whole rationale of maintaining what has been the result of a "six year consensus". Does this mean that the "consensus" no longer exists and that ΚΕΚΡΩΨ can re-open his old poll? --Radjenef (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I am staying out of this topic this time since I will be unable to follow the whole discussion. Since the debate is already taking place, I suggest you join and present your opinion there. --Tone 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Greece–Jamaica relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Greece–Jamaica relations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Viscultus

Hi, the page you deleted after my AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscultus) as a probably hoax has been recreated. I tagged it CSD G4, but I then realised you closed the AfD as CSD A7. Should I change it to A7, or let you deal with it, or just leave it as it is? Yours, Verbal chat 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it tagged so that another admin can deal with it. It doesn't feel right to me to G4 an article that I've speedied before. My opinion, however, is that it should be deleted (probably another CSD is applicable, blatant hoax). --Tone 20:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutoh Europe nv

Why was my page deleted? I've cited several sources to show the notability of the subject, as was requested to recover the page. I fail to see why it is yet again deleted. .IT (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G4. There was a deletion discussion about it and deletion was endorsed. If you want the article back, you need to go through that procedure again, not just recreating. Greetings. --Tone 13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a deletion discussion, during this discussion someone restored the article. He found that it was deleted too fast. Eventually it got deleted again. I contacted the person responsible and he asked me to show proof of the notability of the subject. I did so with different links showing the notability of the subject. Then there was no harm no foul and the article was not a problem anymore. You can doublecheck my contributions on the talk page of the previous user that deleted the article. So you can see my suprise to find out it was again deleted.. .IT (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I checked. The review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 19 says that the deletion was endorsed. The article was restored only for review purposes and deleted immediately when it was over. --Tone 07:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It got deleted after the review by Sandstein, I contacted him through his talk page and he asked me to prove the notability, which I did. You can ask him, I don't see why the page keeps on getting deleted. .IT (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is so, the next step is to fill in a new deletion review and then, if the result is positive, there will be no more complaints ;-) Greetings. --Tone 10:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gamelan ensembles in the United States

Would you consider reviewing the closure of this AfD in the light of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JamesBurns (checkuser results: here)? A relist with the sock comments struck or a pass at DRV would probably be a good idea. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 14:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, that's a lot of socks! Still, I believe the deletion was justified in this case (it's the arguments that count, not number of votes). --Tone 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It is isn't it? Really active too. In any case, another admin has gone ahead and relisted (as you've seen) so the point is moot. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure: You knew that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lac Motion was another such of these discussions when you closed it, didn't you? Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• There were 2 socks and 4 real users in that one, I believe it was ok to delete it. Or you think I should wait for more opinions in this case? Greetings. --Tone 07:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm just making sure that you knew about the sockpuppetry (which didn't get struck out there as it has been in most of the other re-lists so far) and took it into account. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

Could you please explain further why you redirected Richard Phillips (captain) to Maersk Alabama hijacking. Your edit summary says: "redirect, per talk". There is no sign of a prior discussion of this merge at Talk:Maersk Alabama hijacking. Why doesn't your edit summary say where this discussion occurred? Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two extensive debates with a clear consensus at the MV Maersk article and at the captain's article. Greetings. --Tone 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't readers deserve to be told where the consensus the redirector claims was established exists? I knew there had been a discussion. But it still took me a while to find it again, because the redirector -- you -- did not state the location of the discussion in the edit summary.

I strongly disagree that the discussion arrived at a "clear consensus". I suggest a consensus requires both sides actually doing their best to understand, and respond to, the arguments of the other side. This did not happen here.

Please look at the hijacking article. Is it your position that the material from the Phillips's article was properly merged? Wouldn't a proper merge have required un-linking all references to Richard Phillips? Wouldn't a proper good-faith attempt at a merge have seen finding the most appropriate place for the material about the effect Phillips's fame is having on his alma mater, the Massachusetts Maritime Academy?

Someone pasted in a brief section on Phillips, that mentions his marraige. It simply doesn't fit. Frankly, the efforts put into merging the valid material from the Phillips article look like the work of a raw newbie, or worse. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus that Phillips should not have a separate article. Maybe not everyone agreed, but it's really hard to have that in such cases. Maybe there should be a link on the talkpage to the discussion, please, add it the way you think it is appropriate. --Tone 19:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pulitzer

User:Candlewicke asked to remove the Pulitzer entry. Do you agree that it should be removed? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help me with this murder

Hey Tone, I noticed your comments a while ago concerning the Richard Phillips (captain) merge which I agreed with and had attempted to redirect previously. Therefore I thought it might be good to come to you with this which is presently in the DYK section of the Main Page. The article is the murderer himself yet the incident seems barely notable as I mentioned on the talk page. Juliancolton appears to disagree. Do you have an opinion on the matter? Thanks. --candle•wicke 18:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please God! Help Brazil!

Your assistance is required as BorgQueen and myself have disagreed over an ITN concerning the natural disaster which Brazil is currently experiencing. Alas that means we have a stalemate due to a typical lack of interest. Please help by casting the deciding vote if you are in the vicinity. If you receive this message days or weeks from now it might be better to ignore it and look at the one above since I had completely forgotten I asked you about that. --candle•wicke 02:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The matter has now been resolved. Thank you. --candle•wicke 18:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Joy Fahrenkrog

I disagree with the deletion of my wikipedia article and unfortunately did not see it until just now. If it is a simple formating issue, I understand. Otherwise, all the information in the system was correct and all details in the entry were accurate and verifiable. Jfahrenkrog (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That was a prod deletion. I have some issues with sourcing but since you contest the deletion, I'll restore the article. Greetings. --Tone 07:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Large Account Management Process (LAMP)

you deleted this on March 28th; I'd be interested in reading it.

do you have a copy of the article you might send me?

Thanks

Wel51x (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I copied the content to your userpage. Remove it when you don't need it any more. Greetings. --Tone 19:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Wel51x (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Honor Society (band)" deletion

I was about to create an Honor Society article, but I saw you had recently deleted one, citing "A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject."

Could it be reinstated, possibly with an added indication of the band's significance? What would suffice in this respect? Would it be enough to say that it is an up-and-coming band that will be opening for the Jonas Brothers?

Anyway, I think it deserves an article. Thanks.VaneWimsey (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the article, when I deleted it, was really short and really asserted no notability apart for Jonas brothers. But this itself is probably not enough... Anyway, if you try to rewrite it and give some better argumentation, it may stand a chance. Check WP:BAND to see what are the notability criteria in this case. Greetings. --Tone 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbia

I have found numerous inadequacies with the article whichh I have discussed on the talk page(bottom of the page): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbia

The users on the page however, are remaining silent and I don't know what the way forward is, I seek your assistance.

Thanks. Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, another problem for you to ponder over please. I have included an article which clarifies the constitutional status of Kosovo and makes the point that the Viyalet of Kosovo was conquered not 'split up' by Serbia and Montenegro. What do you think, Noel Malcolm is neither Kosovoan nor Serbian and is a neutral source and still my edit is removed. This is the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/26/kosovo.serbia

And this is what I have put in the article: 'In 1912 the Viyalet of Kosovo was conquered by Montenegro and Serbia, but legally, Kosovo was not incorporated into the Serbian kingdom in 1912; it remained occupied territory until some time after 1918. Then, finally, it was incorporated into Yugoslavia and had dual-status, it was called a part of Serbia; but it was also called a unit of the federation and in all practical ways, the latter sense prevailed'.

I don't think this is POV its a fact, read the article is you please

Thanks, Interestedinfairness (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mitrovica

If you wouldn't mind voting on here with regards to the name of the article: (at the bottom of the page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovska_Mitrovica#Article_title

Interestedinfairness (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Empire of New Europe

Aw, you deleted Empire of New Europe before I could make my own snarky comments.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, according to their Wikia page, their "Duce of Illinois" is 15.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lovely :-) --Tone 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My Concern about a recent deletion

Good day,

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and I feel my article was deleted simply because some thaught it to be racist when it at no time cliamed to be so in any way or displayed any racist symbols. I personally feel it was delteted because it was about a extremely new group that wanted to establish its own "White-Majority" country. The first claimed it didn't have enough information, but I tried to explain that more info was comming before two weeks from yesterday passed. And then after reading the comments in the deletion nomination I am convincent that it was deleted because it was simply aboout a Pro-White cause. If you feel that I am wrong or misunderstanding please let me know and I'll leave it alone.--Neu Euro Kaiser (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We're talking about Empire of New Europe, right? The reason it was deleted is that it does not comply with the notability guidelines on Wikipedia, WP:N, not because of any pro-cause. Greetings. --Tone 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hey, need some advice/assistance regarding the Kosovo page. It is being attacked constantly by people refusing to accept fact.

• One example; the article talks of Serbian boys taken as "slave booty" to Asia during the Ottoman period - the source is Serb historian with no reputation

• My source; Ira Lapidus - is standard university text for the study of Islamic societies (in this case the Ottoman empire), explains how Christian boys were taken from the Balkans - not from Serbia in particular - and enlisted in the Janissary corps when they got older.

Thuranx keeps editing, for no apparent reason. I have tried to instigate discussion with him here on my talk page, but he gives no specific examples of my "vandalism". I also always open a topic here, but no one seems to want to discuss, only edit war. He and 'cinema' seem to be pushing POV or in any case, they wantto maintain the status quo regarding the Kosovo article. It should be noted that the Kosovo article is tagged as not neutral and full of misleading citations. I have tried to add numerous citations but there is a huge problem with the editors (possibly administrator (s)) on the page. I would like to know what you think.

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

AstraNOS

Why did you delete the AstraNOS page? 190.19.1.145 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted it on non-notability basis. Later, there was a discussion two years ago, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AstraNOS. Greetings. --Tone 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinfo

Hi, sorry to bug you but you've dealt with this article before. It's been recreated again with nothing new... still not even an assertion of importance. Can you look into it? I think the best solution might be protecting against recreation, or creating a protected redirect. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back to a redirect and protected. This should do the job... Greetings. --Tone 14:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Wikinfo#June 2009, edit block -- PBS (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above again. You do not seem to have answered my question under which policy you have kept the block on the page. I do not think it unreasonable question and I would appreciate an answer on that talk page. --PBS (talk)

Please see talk page. Saying you are out of a discussion is not the way to build a consensus. --PBS (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as seeking a consensus, I merely put the rationale behind my action and that's it. If you want to question my action, please (for the 4th time, I believe) go to the DRV. And please leave me alone on this topic, I am really not interested anymore. --Tone 19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are no longer interested does that mean I can take the block off ? -- please reply on the talk page of the article or my talk page as I am not watching your talk page.-- PBS (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As you have said that you are no longer interested in the article Wikinfo, do you have any objections if I remove the block from the article Wikinfo? --PBS (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you revert to an article without addressing the reasons for deletion, the page will probably be deleted and recreation prevented. The place to go is WP:DRV unless you truly have new sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Some ITN candidates

Hi, nice to see you have been at ITN on recent occasions. :-) BorgQueen is not interested (and neither is anyone else it would seem, at least judging by the way things have suddenly slowed down) so I would like your opinion on these for ITN. I know we've had Henry and his love of "wild, wild women" before but this time he has broken a world record that has been in place since 2007 and I'm not sure Europe holds this record very often either. Also the world is getting hungrier and the world is reporting this hunger - I left the links at ITN yesterday. What do you think of both of them? --candle•wicke 21:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Scott Klusendorf

Hi Tone

was looking for some info on this fellow and found the page was deleted

why did you delete it?

regards

Jeremy Australia

Hi. The article was deleted under the A7 CSD criteria since the article contained one sentence of prose. Curious, the deletion summary does not mention the reason, must have been a bug... Greetings. --Tone 14:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

SHECKYmagazine.com MOS, POV, etc.

Dearest Tone:

You (or another editor) noted:

"Hi. The problems with the article are:

   * It's written in first person (we've been quoted...)
   * You mention several references but you actually provide none.
   * It's written in WP:POV. Exclamation marks and words like impressive don't really fit.
   * The style is bad. See WP:MOS."

All of the first person problems were mitigated some time ago... I believe it was months after the entry was initially put up.

As for the "several references," I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I inserted paragraphs from actual articles in USA Today and Wall Street Journal-- two of each. Real articles. Each separate from the other. Hope their enough.

The POV problems were taken out after the first initial warning, probably within months or weeks of the initial upload.

The style is bad? (Rather vague, but, upon reviewing it-- and comparing it to other similar entries-- it seems fairly innocuous.)

I would be happy to go check out MOS, but I'd be thrilled if you could give it another look-see, as some of the "problems" cited above have been dealt with in previous edits.

I tried to remain neutral in subsequent revisions, so there is very little (if any) POV problem with the copy... in fact, the word "impressive" isn't evident.

And I have another question (and please take this in the spirit in which it is delivered): If I don't write a wikipedia entry on SHECKYmagazine, no one else will, so... Don't you think a good number of entries are written by folks with a "conflict of interest?"

And, as for my "Brian McKim" entry, I scoped out a few similar entries (standup comics with similar credits, level of experience, etc.) and mine is similar to theirs... in tone, in POV/no POV, in references, etc. And, just like the above, I don't have an agent or a manager, so who is going to write an entry for little old me? (Of course, I'm implying that the others are self-written... or written by agents or managers or publicists.) Further, to address the question of notability (for the Brian McKim entry), there's no shortage of similar bios on Wikipedia... but none of the comics profiled have ever started an online magazine about standup that's been around for ten years, interviewed Shelley Berman, Dick Cavett, Mitch Hedberg or Richard Lewis or been profiled in USA Today or the Wall Street Journal... so, I suppose my point is that the notability of the magazine somewhat bolsters the notability of the comedian who started it.

Just saying is all.

I await feedback. I know you're busy.

Thanks. [[[User:Bmckim|Bmckim]] (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)]

Hi. Hm... I'll have to find some time to go through all the arguments slowly. But in short, if something is notable, someone is going to write an article sooner or later, so it's not only a work of PR team ;-) By the way, what is the exact title of the article? Greetings. --Tone 14:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Hornet (band) deletion

ok, that's it, i'm through with wikipedia. i spend time for what? i wrote articles, researched, tried to understand the rules, communicated on talk pages, but the wiki-police makes it sheer impossible to do something right. so i'm outta here. good luck... sure, go ahead, and delete all my articles now...

I don't have any issues with any other of the articles you started... but this one was an A7, sorry. --Tone 08:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NSC-Engine

Hy Tone. I have one favour to ask, it is above my user rights. Can you please paste (if it is still available) deleted article to my work page, where we can modify it and prepare it to fit Stirling engine article according discussion on the deletion page. Thanks --Lasta 12:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The last version is copied to your subpage. Greetings. --Tone 15:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response --Lasta 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I notice back in January, you removed as trivia the table of kills from Dexter (TV series). It crept back in and I axed it again; surprise, another editor has restored it, naturally without responding to my talk-page explanation for the content's removal. Would you mind swinging past the talk page and weighing in on this? --EEMIV (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I left my comments there and removed it again. Trivia and original research, no place in WP for that... Cheers. --Tone 07:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Urgent: Interestedinfairness

As this edit shows, Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) has changed the description of Kosovo to a country, despite the fact that there was NO consensus about it in previous discussions and that people were already getting tired of his continuous POV pushing. Since there is zero tolerance on this article, I propose a permanent Kosovo-related topic ban to the above mentioned user. There is just no use discussing with someone who refuses to take all different POVs into account and, in the end, just edits how he wants on this article that is under probation. --Cinéma C 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Eric Frimpong

You deleted this article last year, and I was wondering if you'd mind restoring the contents at User:Unitanode/Eric Frimpong? I'm interested in whatever was already done as I try to formulate an article on the wrongly-convicted person. Unitanode 23:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Seems the article has been recreated by now... Do you still need my help? Greetings. --Tone 12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Active Bat

Could the article be undeleted? Would the following academic citations and the three books in this search demonstrate acceptable notability? If necessary, just stub it and I'll work on it later. Thanks. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted in the prod process, so I recreated it upon your request. Good luck with improvements :-) --Tone 12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Heavy drinking

You closed the AfD as redirect, but the page is now back as an article, with two sources, one saying that there's no standard definition. Can you take a look? I didn't see anything on Deletion review for this either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect is back, apparently. --Tone 12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FA

Congrats! Excellent work. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

N-Europe

Just wondering why the N-Europe page was taken down, as the website itself has been down since around the same time, I was hoping wiki might have some answers as to that yet I find it deleted, I'm suspecting foul play so I'm looking into this, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonTakahiro (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article was tagged as A7, notability issues, and consequently deleted. If you think it can be improved, I can restore the content for you to have a look. Greetings. --Tone 14:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reporting repeated disruptions

You might like to know that I have reported 3 users (Lontech, Sulmues, Spanishboy2006) who are violating Wikipedia consensus on Kosovo to the ArbCom probation enforcement page. Feel free to leave any comments, if you'd like. All the best, --Cinéma C 02:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Slovenian

You are invited to join WikiProject Intertranswiki and join Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Slovenian. It is intended to be a joint group between Intertranswiki and WikiProject Slovenia of which you are already a part of The aim is to draw up a directory of missing articles from Slovenian wikipedia, extract what is notable or suitable, and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge between other wikipedias. Even if you can't contribute much in starting content, your help is much needed to help draw up detailed lists of missing articles for Slovenia in the new project space and help other editors work through lists to build content more fully. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan Martin

Please can you recreate the article Alan Martin (footballer born 1989) you deleted, as he has made his professional league debut. Thanks, BigDom 09:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article is now restored but needs updates regarding the league. Greetings. --Tone 11:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN updates

Hi. Would you like me to update them? I didn't think Jacob Zuma was going to be bolded... --candle•wicke 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just leaving my comments on ITN/C page :-) Well, I think that restoration of diplomatic relations is a better candidate for today. --Tone 19:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've discovered a problem with that as there are two articles but which one? And I've been waiting days for somebody to notice it and everything... --candle•wicke 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem overcome. They are ready now. --candle•wicke 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift response. Will I tag the talk pages and reset the clock? May I just have the spam on my talk page as it would feel odd giving it to myself. --candle•wicke 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to complete the administration, you know that I am not a fan of spamming the talkpages ;-) --Tone 21:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)