Why did you delete Young Hot Rod without discussing on Talk:Young Hot Rod; this was a contested speedy deletion. I was responding to the statement made there and you deleted the article out from under me without bothering to say a word on the talk page ... as far as I can tell. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the content of what I was composing on the talk page ...
I did some investigating into the history. Back in Nov 2006 'Young Hot Rod' was moved to 'Hot Rod (rapper)'; on 7 December, 'Hot Rod (rapper)' was deleted after discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Rod (rapper)). The content that you have created indicates that you are working toward creation of an article of identical topic to the deleted article Hot Rod (rapper). The best course of action, if you feel that the outcome of the deletion discussion was not correct, is to pursue restoration of the 'Hot Rod (rapper)' article via Wikipedia:Undeletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the person realized they were re-creating it (unless you have evidence to the contrary) ... which is why the simple courtesy of responding to the statement on the talk page was in order. Your haste is disconcerting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you go - I'm caught being a sucker again, too soft on crime and too soft in the head to see my own wallet being lifted. The only real opposition to my RfA came from someone who was concerned I'd be too soft on crime, and there it is, in black and white. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right after I posted the message on the AIV reporter's talk page, I saw the section of the policy that covers them. My mistake. Sorry about that. I'll take care of the blocks if you haven't already.--KchaseT23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know you deleted this a good long time ago, but I just restored it. The reason: I actually merged it more than a year ago, before it was de-merged and AfD'd. The result of the AfD was redirect more so than delete anyway, IMO. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?06:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now totally revamped/stubified this article in order to deal with the POV issues. Please take a look at the new version if you like. Thanks, Bwithh08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The disambig does not comply with WP:D, the subjects in the list are not notable enough in relation with their connection with the term "islam" hence disambiguating from a mainstream article is non generic. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic. I have inserted a "see also" to cover disambig to the shia and sunni islam articles into the Islam article. Cheers. frummer02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop redirecting it to 'Land of Oz'.
The World of Oz were a 1960s band that released an LP on a major label, and had a hit in a number of countries, they therefore count as worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia.
If need be do you want it moved to "World of Oz (band)" or someting similiar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonchapple (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi there! Thank you SO MUCH for writing the article for Chapter 17. I've been intending to do that for the best part of 3 years, but have been continually waylaid. We still have to do chapters 12-16 (the source text to work with is already there); if you want to help out there, I will be extremely grateful. Of course, it's up to you. Otherwise, I might get it done over the next 12 months. Have a happy new year. David Cannon00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, CanadianCaesar! A couple of editors have been cleaning up this article during the AfD to add sources, remove original research and come up with clear criteria for the list. I haven't been able to find that Entertainment Weekly article you refer to, but I did find a very good Washington Post article on this phenomenon. Cas51014:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where else to come with a major Canadian Wiki issue than the Proconsul and Pontifex Maxiwikimus? I noticed among your imperial mottos The people have the right to know, damn it! In the spirit of that, please visit Erik Bornmann and follow the link to its AFD, also BC Legislature Raids. One of the messier bits of politics in the country intruding into Wikiworld. I'm one of the protagonists...or is it antagonists? Long story; I'm got blocked for confronting the principal problem (User:rascalpatrol) on his talk page, but the block was revoked (see the Unblock statement and retraction section following on my talkpage) but, being a Scorpio, once I got the block lifted I wasn't about to let sleeping dogs lie...Sleeping turtles? No, they're not turtles, but I wish they were. Actuallly, come to think of it, they behave like turtles, ducking their heads into their shells...but they're snapping turtles. I'm tempted to quote some nasty bits of Catullus to them, but there's enough people around Wikipedia who understand Latin I could get in trouble for virulent, vulgar attacks of the kind quoting Catullus could only be seen as. Other than that I'm something of a maven and resource for BC history and geography, as a peruse of my user contributions will serve to demonstrate. Don't know where in Imperial Canuckistan you are, but if you're interested in BC history or "where to go to get away from it all", I'm the guy to ask....Skookum108:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. Presumably if I recreate the entry with information you consider notable, you will not delete it? However, what happens if you and I disagree about what is notable? How do we prevent a cycle of re-entry and deletion? Thanks. (Wilsonjtd20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, you've expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion of this article. I've recently suggested a compromise in hopes of improving the article while keeping both sides happy, and would appreciate if you could revisit the issue. Thanks. --Wafulz18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that it's still at start class. But I would consider it at the highest rank of start class, just below B class (if that makes sense!). I think that the production and reception sections should be expanded if possible. Is there any information about the box office take? Try looking over at BoxOfficeMojo.com for some information. Maybe include a rating from RottenTomatoes, add a soundtrack (if it has it, I know nothing about the movie), try searching to see if there is anywhere that has some more plot details that can be included. The assessments can be performed by anyone, so when you think it is ready to reach B class, you can change it. I'd also recommend that once it reaches B-class that you bring the film to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review and let some other reviewers look it over. I hope this helps, and if not let me know if there needs to be any other clarification. Finding sources for information can be the hardest part for an article, so keep up the good work. --Nehrams202004:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your article and it's great to have you back Caesar. You have served us outstandingly in the past and I am sure it will continue into the future. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the welcome[5], but as you can see, I already have an account. Only, I often don't bother logging in unless I'm going to do a whole series of edits. My habitual stomping grounds is the French Wikipedia, where I am currently working on translating
Every. Single. Article.
on the Charter of rights and freedoms from the English. Which should keep me busy for a bit, and I'll likely abandon the project and come back to it more than once before I finish it. If you'd like to help, you're very welcome to. If not, have a nice day anyway. dh ▪ 2¢ ▪ 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look at what is going on here and here. Another editor keeps changing the citations styles and adding cite templates to some of the references, claiming that I've left out publication information, ISBNs, etc. I dont' think they understand how Chicago Manual of Style references work or that the templates are optional. Dmoon123:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in particular you feel the article is missing? I think it covers all the main points, however the prose leaves something to be desired. Nevertheless, I think it should at least be upgraded to B class.--Supernumerary05:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You delete the entire article without any real explanation. You listed "copyvio" without citing any example. I know the founder, and am personally knowledgable about the items I mentioned and wrote. Yet you chose to instantly delete over an hour worth of work. What gives? Please give me specifically what you have a problem with, or hand me over to another admin.
---
After getting your updated talk, saying: "I simply Googled a few words and found they were word for word from [1], particularly where the Korean government is concerned. It's inappropriate to mix this material with your own, or even to paste it and save it and then overwrite it- hit save after you've reworded it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)"
I did a search immediately on "Tae Kwon Do": I found this sentence immediately "As with many other martial arts, Taekwondo is a combination of combat technique, self-defense, sport, exercise, entertainment, and philosophy."
So I expect you to immediately and promptly delete the ENTIRE Tae Kwon Do article following your same policy. Note you didn't ask me to fix the "sentence" or "paragraph" in question, but deleted all of the content. I expect you to be fair and do the same on this, as well as the other articles I'll promptly find meeting this same definition. Please make sure to threaten to ban the creators also.
(OK, admittedly that came off more as a flame than I meant it to. I was really just trying to make a point.)
---
While reading your waiting on your latest talk:
"If you find copyvios, please remove them. I do. I didn't see your phrase in the article; but I didn't threaten to ban you. Banning is where you can't come back. Blocks are short. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)"
I attempted to post ANOTHER revision. I guess I'll just see if this one is acceptable, or I get "blocked".
Also, JFYI the Tae Kwon Do text is the last sentence in the second paragraph. I'm not as anxious to delete articles as you, so I'll leave that to you sense you seem to get a bigger kick out of it. (BTW, I quoted the exact text in question, which I think is the more decent way to go about a problem like this.)
Lucky 6.9's blocking himself is one of two things.
He resigns as an administrator, as would his indefinite self-block would suggest, as well as this edit and this edit.
Or I understand blocked administrators can unblock themselves, and this is a theatrical stunt. I'll believe he really resigns if someone acknowledges and acts on his resignation as an administrator. His edit history is full of "I'm gone for good" I can't count them on my hand. Have a look at this edit while you're at it. This from an administrator?
I am new to this editing process. I apologise for any unintended offence caused through my editing of the Privacy Law 1988 page. I have a special interest and knowledge of this subject matter. I can now see there is a refined etiquette in building the Wikipedia. I hope to be more constructive in future.
You are welcome, you earned it. But while I have you here, do you mind checking out this Vote for Deletion. Vote as you see fit (well... duh,) but I'm just trying to get some traffic there. Carptrash03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening. Wikipedia's Deletion Review process is a bit cryptic. Since you asked only for a restoration of the history of the article, that request should technically be made here. Since the case was so clear-cut, I already processed it and restored the full history. I've closed out your request on DRV. Thanks. Rossami(talk)21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since you are the salting admin, if you are ready to unsalt yourself you can just do it and moot the deletion review. We close reviews when the admin whose action is being reviewed overturns themself - but may not if they merely argue for overturning. GRBerry21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
funny, you try to repremand me for deleting something from the gremlins topic, that was spurred by one person's psychotic views... sorry, but one person's views on gremlins does not equate to a serious issue worth smearing the entire franchise, over, on wikipedia.
also, you delete topics, but you tell me deleting topics is considered vandalism? It's a wiki!! How can editing a topic be considered vandalism? Oh, because it's YOUR topic, YOU consider it vandalism.. how objective.
I think the guy you're responding to CanadianCaesar was trying to be sarcastic in using the word "objective". A good way to kill sarcasm though is ignore it :) LuciferMorgan23:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for blocking that Freddy guy, he was creepy, I've been cleaning up vandalism all this weekend, and then he comes along and vandalises more. But anyway, thanks! Brain40
Do people at wikipedia know the difference between a LEGITIMATE reference vs someone who just made a post at a different website, and then someone links to it? This is ridiculous. Gremlins is NOT known for having racist undertones.. some guy spews this nonsense on a website, then someone comes here and references said site, and that makes it legit? Come on... Also, please show me the rule stating that you can only delete content that's NOT referenced? Sorry, but I'm no vandal. Just looking out for reality, and I could care less about any franchise.
Now, I'm not here to vandalize again; that was a different time in my personal life I won't delve into. Now, to tell the truth, I think you seem like an alright guy. I'm an alright guy to, but I know you don't think that now. I'm here for one reason, plain and simple, that I'm not going to get lost in a wall of vocabulary and fancy writing. I want you to unban my original account, User:Freddy Krueger. I know you're laughing now, but I have a proposal: if one instance of vandalism comes from the account again, perma-ban it forever. I'm not going to vandalize or post that vreepy slash nightmare thing (except maybe on my userpage), I just want my account back so I can become a halpful asset to this encyclopedia. I like what you guys have here, and I'd like to be a part of it. I could just create another account, but my sights are set on that one I was an ass with. What do you say, vato? Freddy Krueger Version Good23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but can you think of a greater account name than Freddy Krueger? I mean, what a waste I meade. But, I am actually surprised I can edit right now, so I'll do as you wish. Give me a little bit. Oh and....Nightm-no, just kidding. Freddy Krueger Version Good23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have to worry about me vandalizing, don't worry, esse. I'm here fo good, not fo bad. But now I'm hungry, so Ima make a sandwhich. Cya Freddy Krueger00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, I wanted to encourage people to make meaningful additions, so that clearly didn;t work... anyway, I'm moving this somewhat towards the more normal methodology, thanks for piping up that it wasn't working. - brenneman07:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I been going over to recent changes, and marking the bad vandalism articles with speedy deletes! Pretty sweet, right? You think that'll get me an admin spot someday, esse? Freddy Krueger01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there - may I ask why you decided to withdraw your FAC for the CBC show? I was definitely into working with you on the feedback - I didn't "demand" that you make my changes, I just asked if you'd considered them. Anyway, it is a great article and I hope you'll consider relisting it at some point. I detected a degree of rancor in your responses to me, almost as if you weren't prepared for constructive criticism of the article. I can see discarding comments like, "This isn't serious subject matter." but I felt that none of my comments were out of line. Anyway, I'm extending an olive branch here - the article is excellent work, and I'm a hardass with degrees in English. Perhaps we can meet half way? --Mus Musculus05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've noticed that you've been giving some helpful suggestions to the Round Springfield episode page, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving some input on this page. Thanks, Scorpion06:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I have already made several changes. I left a couple questions on the article talk page, if you wouldn't mind taking another look. -- Scorpion20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After some prodding, I'm going to finally run for adminship; I think I'll time it for my two year anniversary, a week today. A few editors have offered at this point, including two very recently. Being a bit of a floozy, I've half said yes to everybody. I was thinking I may just self-nom, which would mean writing over your now six-month-old offer. Would that be a problem for you? Marskell07:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you should just delete it. I was worried I might be seen to be covering up commentary, but it's past its best buy date at six months old; plus it was your start-up. Cheers, Marskell14:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as I have never edited this article, I am not very sure where your allegations that I removed the orphan tag for this article came from. Thaurisil12:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I didn't know you were talking about the talk page. But I think it's quite illogical that a talk page should have an orphan tag, firstly because they are not part of the mainspace, and secondly because many talk pages don't have any links to them in the first place. Also, the tag itself says "There are very few or no other articles that link to this one", and a talk page is not an article. What's the point of spending time creating links for talk pages instead of creating links for proper articles? Thaurisil11:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I think I know what you're talking about now. The orphan tag is meant for the article, not the talk page, right? If that's the case, I've removed the orphan tag and moved it to the top of the main article, since that's where the orphan tag is supposed to be. Sorry for my misunderstanding! Thaurisil14:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you redirect this page [7]? That's where the article should be. It is no biggie or anything, but it is better to create the articles with the correct diacritics to begin with since they will be moved to the correct spelling one day. Cheers! Baristarim23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, however in Wikipedia we should strive to be as academic as possible. As a jurist I can tell you that ECHR rulings and texts use always the correct diacritics. See this [8]. Try using the ECHR web-site as a source instead of other books :)) The correct name is Akkoç v. Turkey (with the dot by the way). I have asked an admin to do the move since the move is not possible because of the redirects. Baristarim23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I was talking about using ECHR site only for trivial information like the name, date, case number etc - not for the analysis. As for the move, I was thinking of the v without the dot, there was a technical problem when I tried to do the move - no worries. Cheers! Baristarim23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yuser31415 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
