User talk:Vianello/Archives/2013/May

Clearly don't understand the word Vandalism

Hello Vianello,

I know you just deleted my stupid article on Narcabium which is fine because it was stupid anyway. The reason you gave for deletion though was that it was vandalism. I'm sorry but this is not the correct use of the word vandalism. Vandalism is described as "deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property" which I didn't do any of. I wasn't mischievous, I wasn't maliciously destroying anything and I certainly wasn't damaging property. Can you please explain the reasons to me why you thought it was "vandalism" as so far evidence states that it's not? You could use "patent nonsense" which would be better in this situation which if you look at the title of "what is not vandalism" it clearly says "nonsense" as not vandalism. Also by my understanding reading the deletion policy, you should have technically warned me first and explained the warning and then deleted if necessary. You could have also used the "lack of understanding" section which is basically the need to discuss the topics factual content and explain why it is not allowed on Wikipedia. This would have been better.

Many thanks

SuperPhilCool — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperPhilCool (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for blocking Prateikakarsh1. If possible please extend the block period. Because that user vandalized so many times after so many warnings. Regards, Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 11:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome. However, for an account that isn't visibly vandalism-only, generally indefinite blocks aren't used for a first resort. If this user does not behave after the block is lifted, then they should be re-reported and a more stringent method can be considered. - Vianello (Talk) 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Right 2 Dream Too

I did not even have much time to contest the deletion. By the time I wrote on the talk page, the article had been deleted. This article simply needed to be expanded... which I was willing to do... --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

German inventions

• welt.de:German inventions (German)

So what do you have against Germany ??? Or are you too proud of your own country, that you can't believe that the most important inventions were not made in USA. Maybe you should travel more through the world to learn more over other countries and their inventors.

Helicopter, automobile, motorcyle, ... are all German inventions. You would never drive a motorcycle or a car without German inventors. 188.96.184.248 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Raw Engineering redirect to Raw Striker

Can you cite Wikipedia policy as to why a redirect from a company's old name to its new name would be inappropriate? Surely a redirect from a relatively commonly used name to a reasonably recently adopted name is appropriate and not an implausible typo or misnomer, but rather a commonly used alternative name (in fitting with WP:R). Someone searching for Raw Engineering (to which plenty of documentation still refers) are less likely to find this company. Nasty (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I took it from the linked discussion I was given that this was the consensus, but it would appear, from your inquiry, that isn't the case. I will recreate the redirect in that case. I actually do agree with your stance. - Vianello (Talk) 19:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

username change status

Thanks for unblocking me and allowing username change. Is there anything else I need to do? I am unsure how/when I can login with new username (POMonkey). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pissedoffmonkey (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything is working fine. Thanks for checking in.POMonkey (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ram Kumar Panday

Just wanted to check for feedback about this page. I had put a speedy delete request(which was deleted by another user - as i see a delete in the history and no contest) on this page as the person seems almost irrelevant. I am a little confused on this too... the page is under lot of corrective projects in terms of Nepal (But also see the maintenance tags in there to get an idea of other issues too). The speedy delete was deleted by another editor who probably just read the wiki and found the person of some importance (which is not actually true as the person has no other important mention elsewhere in the world except for the books being on amazon with a rating as high as any newbie). The name of the person who has written up bulk of the page is also having the same last name. Lot of COI, lack of any importance... though not of much importance, but your feedback on this will be welcome. Is the page of any importance at all? Seems like a bulk of self promotion to me by the writing editor. Amit (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Amit

Admin conflict

I was in the process of declining the A7 speedy delete of The Motherfucking Browns at the same time you deleted it, so the article ended up getting restored. I restored the deleted revisions.

My decision to decline was based on the band releasing at least two albums from independent labels, which may qualify them under WP:BAND criterion 5, as well as a weak claim of notability about one of their songs being included in a notable video game. I felt this one was best for AFD rather than speedy. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That is perfectly understandable, and I'm willing to abide by your decision. Probably best to err towards keeping when there's a dispute. Thanks for letting me know! - Vianello (Talk) 16:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

jaffa cakes vandalism question

I reverted vandalism to the articles 1217 and 1244 that added the same vandalism that has resulted in the 1272 article being included on Category:Wikipedia_pages_protected_against_vandalism. There were 3 different IP addresses involved, none of which did I see being previously warned but all adding the same silly edit about Jaffa cakes. What would you recommend as proper notification/reporting steps so that this isn't missed by administrators? Thanks Eggishorn (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks! Unfortunately, IP blocks generally require that the IPs be active presently for the block to be productive, and these were done a while ago. If you see a persistent pattern with this continuing, please report the article(s) to WP:RFPP to see about having the pages protected. That's the best I can suggest for this. - Vianello (Talk) 19:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I hope I at least ruined whatever jollies this person gets by checking in for his/her silliness. Eggishorn (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I made sure I made the page as neutral as possible, all I have written is about how the band was formed, information on music and other content, nothing to do with the personal lives or anything so there is no way I could be anything other than neutral, is there any possible way I could get the page back so I could edit it to your standards? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapdos101 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Cullen Investments

Hi Vianello,

You deleted my article on 'Cullen Investments'. It would be good if you can explain the reason for the deletion of my article.

As per deletion log, I guess the article was deleted on the basis of G8:CSD, but my article has direct linkage to many of the already existing Wiki articles one of which is on Eric Watson (Businessman) who is the founder of 'Cullen Investments".

Waiting for you reply.

Thanks Ingoddess2805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoddess2805 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange data of Lute88 and James

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Участник:Lute88 Please see the data of Lute88 (JamesBWatson), the resident of Kiev, the native!!! speaker of both Ukrainian and English!!!!, a Lutheran! (the nickname of pagans ("Cossack mujahids"), having no connections to genuine Cossacks, to the genuine Lutheran church and to Moslem communities. Lute88 has vandalized in Wikipedia for many years. Tzarnayevs brothers and their roommates have been misguided due to his disinformation and to similar one. But Russian Cossacks and Kazakhs have never been any "terrorists number 1" as these vandals claim.

I literally cannot even unravel what most of these sentences are intended to mean, but that doesn't matter. My involvement is only to emphasize this: Not taking your side is not vandalizing Wikipedia. The end. - Vianello (Talk) 19:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Dsavbaa

Looks like we edit conflicted on responding to the AIV report on this user. I was declining the report as you were blocking the user. An indefinite block without a single warning for a series of newbie test edits seems a bit harsh, don't you think? -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, that. You make a good point. Feel free to overturn the block and issue a warning in its place. - Vianello (Talk) 19:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. I'll keep an eye on them. It's obviously not a constructive start for this user, but we'll see... -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - Vianello (Talk) 19:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Dropped talk?

Hi, in passing, think something went wrong with that merge. Move Talk:Yat sang ho kau (album) Cheers. 123.120.166.198 (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up. I think it's straightened up now, assuming I got what you meant. - Vianello (Talk) 20:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ripu Daman Handa ‎

Regarding your speedy deletion of Ripu Daman Handa under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A7 "No indication of importance", I think you may be mistaken in your interpretation of policy. Please note that "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". The article claimed (citing a credible source) that Handa was a contestant on MasterChef India, which very likely wouldn't meet notability guidelines, but is nevertheless a claim of notability. Can I ask that you look again at this, and while you are at it, check whether the article had been proposed for speedy deletion before - I'm not sure, but I vaguely recollect that it may have been, and articles aren't supposed to be proposed for speedy deletion twice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's been speedy-nominated more than once, but I can see your point regarding this as a claim of notability, so I don't think restoring the article would be uncalled for. - Vianello (Talk) 04:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure it will end up deleted, but it seemed rather bitey to delete it without notification just after I'd put a note on the talk page pointing out the problems. Making sure that people understand why articles get deleted has got to be preferable, as I see it - and probably more so where language difficulties make the process less transparent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I was in the wrong here. I have gone ahead and tagged it for eventual PROD deletion if it doesn't get additional info to make it worth keeping, but speedy deletion wasn't the right route here. Thanks for straightening it out! - Vianello (Talk) 04:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)