Archives
Archive I
Archive II

Why did you do it?

You're makin' sport of deleting? Haven't you clearly seen that entry was empty? You may check that artname is surely mine www.hyperwind.net I can prove it e.g. by placing something on the main page - after you request.

I don't doubt you're the person the article described, but in Wikipedia we don't have articles on every living person. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Unless your article makes a claim to notability, it will be deleted. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ОК, but which LOGIC is used when segregating worthy from unworthy? By one's great services? Which are great and which are not? Or by handle from sold CDs? Mr. Sumner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting) is NOTHING to ME, for example, do you believe it? The word "sting" has many meanings while "hyperwind" - only a few.

Waiting for logic, Gennady Panfilov.

It has nothing to do with whether someone is a good person or is good at doing something. It's whether someone is known to a lot of people. The introduction to your article "Although music is likely to be not more than his hobby, some of his works show a profound comprehension of musical spirit & mood...." show that the article is concentrating on something private, not public. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read all of the guidelines and didn't found any mention of what you say. I might be wrong, but it seems that you simply misuse your powers. Meant no offense.

Which guidelines did you read? Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. A7. How can something be important if it's the private life of one person? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." The rule that's not been followed. And why you prefer to wait for somebody to fill in another info to the article if there's already some? What sentiment are you driven by?

If you read my userpage, my sentiments are that deleting articles is something I don't like to do. It's a last resort- when it couldn't be kept, or merged, or redirected. But anyway, even if the article had "information" I direct you to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not- not an indiscriminate collection of information. Meaning, just because something is true and accurate doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. As for being controversial, I was not the only person to delete your article. Besides the creator, no user has shown up telling me they thought it was either deleted out of process or salvageable. I can see even User:Kappa at one point thought it was inappropriate, and he is the most staunch opponent of deletion sentiments you can possibly find. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I would consider your objections to be a sign of controversy, but you're new and I'm trying to explain things to you. If I can't convince you, I'd take that as controversy. At this point as well, you don't need me to take it to AfD. You can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. http://psytrance.spb.ru/music/hyperwind The site (as you can find) doesn't belong to me neither to my friends, more likely ideologic enemies :) But this people found my worjs worth net-publishing and the link points to the place.

Thus, you can see my artname/project included in St. Petersburg's trance & ambients artists' registry http://psytrance.spb.ru/music (St. P. is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._petersburg) I HATE saying all of this, but situation is weird.

Have anyone at least TRIED to suggest a text for an article "hyperwind"? Rather than to erase another people's work? ;))

P.S. My english is not so good as it's not my native language nor first foreign language learnt (1st is French), therefore it's much harder for me to argue with you but I still try.

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage...[1]MONGO 11:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been decidedly a wise deed of you to reinstate that what is verily just. Thank you. Gennady Panfilov.

I don't mind that you recreated it. --Shanel 17:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you delete the first entry in the [2] as i have learnt about the account system and would prefer my i.p address not to be visible anymore. If you can't could you at least delete the page and refresh the new one with the same information. Thank you. --34223423 12:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hi, you recently moved the page age of consent africa to age of consent in africa. This may make gramatical sence, however, this page is one of 6 subpages to the main age of consent article's restructure and I think a consistent naming method is important.

It was: Age of consent -Age of consent Africa -Age of consent Asia -Age of consent Australia (and pacific regions) -Age of consent Europe -Age of consent North America -Age of consent South America

Having it redirected like you've made it causes it to become complicated. We either need to rename all the pages to your method and get rid of the redirects or put it back how it was.

What's your opinion of how this could be made better? Cheers --Monotonehell 12:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename 'em all. Either to Age of consent in Wherever or Age of consent (Wherever). I don't see much reason to delete the redirects, though. Also the orange boxes in each article ought to be moved to the talk pages as well. Cheers, CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's no point in having the redirects since age of consent is the only page that points at them now, and without the redirects there wont be any in the future. Yes the orange box should be on the talk page, however there's been a constant history when all the separate sections were on the main page for people to add information ad-hoc without any referencing. In fact this restructure has seen about 3 pages of unreferenced material deleted. It was decided to have the request for references VERY VISABLE as even with comment tags asking people to reference their edits in the body of the text ad-hoc, unreferenced edits were occuring (and are still occuring). I think I'll take onboard your half-assed edit and do the other 5 pages, but remove the redirects as they are messy.

Thanks for your contributions! --Monotonehell 12:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the talk page Talk:Greater_Iran Diyako has not proposed why this article should be deleted, he even agreed to a rename from the old name Iranian continent to the new Greater Iran, instead of deleting it.

Now he has put it up for deletion without any proper reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Iran, this is part of the Anti-Iranian actions I described to you before. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and sort it out --Kash 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome :D It was indeed an odd attack, but then again aren't all attacks on userpages ;-) --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, three times no less. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 14:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this macrophage, a particularly hungry white blood cell on your talk page, I just finished a rewrite of its article and realized they're not so different from administrators, as they keep their surroundings clean, doing away with anything that's not supposed to be there...
Anyway, with that short lecture on cell biology done with, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my RfA, which passed with (49/2/0), I'll do my best to not let you down, and if you see me heading towards a common newbie mistake, please nudge me in the right direction :)

--Obli (Talk)^? 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CanadianCaesar/archive C, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Caesar! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. If there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. ×Meegs 05:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA has passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I thought long and hard about what I could give you by way of thanks - what can you get for the aspiring Canadian empire-builder who has everything? So here's something that turns round at a maddening pace. Hope you don't have one already. Flowerparty■ 18:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I doing this "talk" thing right?

Anyway, I don't exactly have a source for my posting, but I participated on a few message boards over the years and held discussions with fellow fans where we came to this conclusion, one of which was the Batman forums on the SuperHeroHype website, the others are long gone by now. The article is my own summarization of the conclusion of those fan discussions. Though, reposting this article today (I hadn't known it was an authority figure who removed it [Also with reason], I was under the impression that it was removed by some hooligan for some reason), I made sure to note (as I hadn't before) that Tim Burton has never implicitly discussed or confirmed such an arc, it was only fan discussion.

Well, wouldn't it be allowed based on it's notation as fan discussion and nothing more, as long as it was labelled accordingly?

DocLathropBrown 02:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of susprised you didn't get to it first, you're that good. Would you like my bot to watch your user page and revert it if anyone starts blanking or adding repetition or stuff like that to it? :) -- Tawker 06:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and from another: you're welcome... and thanks for doing new pages patrol; it can be a thankless job, with vandalism its only reward. Keep up the good work! Antandrus (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. And no thanks, I don't think the vandalism is that bad to get the bots watching it- it's on my watchlist anyway. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I read through the article and it appeared to say nothing more than artificial limbs were A Good Thing and that their use would improve the life of amputees and that technological advances would make them even better. The example given was Luke's hand at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. The article didn't really touch on any issues in the development or application of artifical limbs in general or artifical hands in particular, context that I would consider to be essential for any researcher exploring this topic.  (aeropagitica)  22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CanadianCaesar, thank you for your welcome message. Please be patient, I am still learning. :) M.C. 03:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Sir, I congratulate you on your smugness. :) However, I would herewith like to point out to you that my statement in Turtles and tortoises in popular culture, "The head and neck of the eponymous character in the 1982 film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial bear strong resemblance to those of a tortoise." and the passage in the article E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, "E.T.'s face was modelled after poet Carl Sandburg, Albert Einstein and a pug dog." (emphases mine), do in no way conflict.

I'm willing to have my contribution rejected on the basis of WP:NOR or Wikipedia:Verifiability, but not on the basis of the reason you gave. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support your indef block of this user. IMO he was given enough warning for vandalism/nonsense articles, and if he only has one edit that is (questionably) not vandalism, then it looks like your indef block was appropriate. He can always email you or request an unblock anyway.--Shanel 07:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a member of farsi wikipedia, the picture of rebuzar turz is drew by my friend Mahmoud Zeinali and he decided to share it with others for free, so dont worry there is no copyright for it and we will not charge anybody for watching ir :) --Buttercupgreen 11:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to thank you for the welcome and assistance. I made a comment in the "Harold Klemp" talk page about adding the titular "Sri" to the article title... could you check that out? Appreciate the help while I learn...