This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paul Erik. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If I am indeed breaking the rules then I sincerely apologize. I have already removed the majority myself. I never, ever meant to cause trouble or break rules. Its just that while looking through Wikipedia, I have noticed that other sites have multiple links to on topic interviews and reviews so I decided to add some too. Dell182 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, although their album is being independantly released, they were produced by the producer of another band called the fully down, who have two albums on fearless records and have toured as far as japan. Two of the members were in a previous band who had two albums. Their tour manager is also tour manager for Protest the hero and their spending two months on tour this summer.
also, here's an encyclopedia metallum article featuring a legend falls, showing two of the members with (today i caught the plague) beside their names, signifying their new band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongeese (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I see what you mean, and I probably should have. No one has complained yet, so we'll see what happens. Also, thanks for the formatting :) I used to use a script, but that has since stopped working on my browser.....Now that I think about it, all of the AFD's I've closed may be wrong. Oh well.... Again, thanks. Have you seen my AFD coaching page? Just wondering. DustiSPEAK!!00:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Just butting in to say that by "weak and stale", which could be misunderstood, I meant that noone had said delete once the article was improved to address the issues that those opining delete were on about. Didn't mean it in any sort of derogatory way. And Dusti knows very well that if he gets carried away, I'll block him good, as promised..:-) If you ever see a close of his (or mine for that matter ;-) that you want clarification on, feel free to stop by my talk as well! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for butting in. :) I had figured that's what you'd meant by "stale". Thanks for your efforts to keep lines of communication open. Dusti has a very level-headed admin looking out for him. :) Best, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Angband (band)
I edited Angband (band)page and the fact that they are the first metal band from Iran to sign a deal with a european records company is confirmed (check the refrences. anyway there are man Rock band from Iran in wikipedia who dont have a music contract, Iran's situation is different.
Hello Paul, I recently had my page deleted.
I wonder if you wil assist me in getting it back up?
This is all I would like to have up. It's all verifyable. Not trying to promote. just would like a simple page. Thanks, Charlie Souza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliesouza (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 June 2008
Thanks for the info. You're fortunate. I could do so much work to improve articles, if only I had access to a database like that... --Richardrjtalk email20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There were some sources, but I thought people had objected to these because they only mentioned the band in passing. I'd suggest listing this at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think I made a mistake here. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey, thanks for your work on Brett Gaylor! I have changed my vote to keep and am pretty sure it will survive the deletion nomination now. Another article for your list of saved articles? Cheers :) -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 05:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yippie! Canada Day! (WTF is Canada day?). Ah but I see that it is the 2nd now so, yet again, I am behind the times :( Anyways, keep up the good work, I wish I had access to that database (what is the price on it?). -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 07:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on that article, now I feel it meets notability and sourcing standards. I changed my vote. YamakiriTC§07-4-2008 • 04:17:17
Ladyhawke
Hi there, bit new to this, so sorry if this is all wrong. However, thanks for expanding the Ladyhawke article, I really think they're noteworthy, and it's great to see someone else willing to contribute. Johnsmith9 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hiya, thanks for informing me - with regards to the Ladyhawke review, I haven't seen a lot mentioned, so wasn't sure whether to include it pr not. Are there any guidelines with regards to particularly new bands that might not be mentioned elsewhere? (I note that allmusic does not have any reviews at present) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith9 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Need help with your database
Hey Paul, could you do a quick search in your newspaper database for articles about "Andrew Schlafly"? If you do find any could you please email me the text of the articles. It would be much appreciated. - Icewedge (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look at the Schlafly article later on when I have some time, but I can't email you copies of newspaper articles—I'm fairly sure that would be a violation of the terms of use of the database. Sorry, Icewedge! Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)18:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There are 67 news articles that mention him, none of which are about him (at least in scanning them and clicking through to the most likely ones). The ones about Conservapedia tend to simply say that he is "son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly". Articles about court cases say "general counsel for the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons". One says, "Andrew Schlafly of the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons". He ran for Republican nomination for Congress in 1992: In the 11th District Virginia primary, "Coming in last was Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly, the advocate of conservative causes." Is there anything in particular you would like me to search for, or to cite? Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping for an article on his senate race, but if there are no major mentions then that is OK. My hopes were not high. Thanks for your time anyways :) - Icewedge (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
As per this, it is taking about generic ideas, not specific proper nouns. See the use of "John Smith" for example. A "garden of earthly delights" would be defined as Eden and need to link there, because that is the original meaning. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't believe that I'm misreading it. It's not about "original meaning"—the guideline refers to any instance in which "(disambiguation)" is included in the page name. That generally indicates that there is consensus that there is a most searched-for topic with the page title. (Otherwise the disambiguation page itself would be at that title.) In this case, someone searching for "Garden of Earthly Delights" ends up at "The Garden of Earthly Delights". If they then click through to "Garden of Earthly Delights (disambiguation)" then they are searching for something else, so it makes sense to keep the "primary topic" above the other entries. John Smith does not have "(disambiguation)" included in the page name, as it is the consensus that there is no primary topic in that case. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)01:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You just proved yourself as misreading right there. As you can see here, U2, the band, without the diambig, is not linked to at the top. Why? Because "proper" names are not linked at the top. The top line is only for definitions, or if the page has a definition, for such subjects as school. Please notice this in the future and read through MoS carefully before making such inappropriate changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up disambiguation pages for quite a long time, but if it turns out that I've been misunderstanding what the guidelines mean by "primary topic" then I will be glad to revert myself. Yet I am not following your reasoning here. Where in the guidelines does it say that proper nouns are excluded from the top line, or that it should be reserved for definitions? U2 (disambiguation) is incorrectly formatted, at least according to the MoS guidelines. Split (disambiguation) is formatted as per the guidelines—since Split the city has been deemed to be the primary topic, even though it is a proper noun, it is placed above the other links; the guidelines are like this because readers would be unlikely to come upon the disambiguation page if they were looking for the primary topic. If you think the MoS guidelines should be changed, you may wish to bring it up for discussion at WT:MOSDAB. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)04:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Primary "topic" only means something as a definition. Diambig for "school" goes to a page on the generic word school. Why? Because it isn't a proper noun. U2, which is the non diambiguated page for U2, is not at the top. Why? Because it isn't the definition of U2. This is the same as for the "Garden of Earthly Delights", which is another word for Eden, or a version of Eden. This was used before the painter in various languages. The MoS guidelines are clear on this. You are just mistaking with how they apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying, and it is a reasonable position to take. But the guidelines don't actually say what you are saying... It does not say that "primary topic" means "original meaning". Unless it's noted somewhere other than at MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic...? Do you mind if we copy our discussion to the dab page's talk page and try to get others to weigh in on this? I think we may be at an impasse. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)04:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
here is one use of the RFC which clarified the MoS position (the one at the topic that says "revert Gabi S.'s edits, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries)") Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither of them invoking the rule placed the non-disambiguated FA page at the very top, but in its own section at the top. That was the point - the top line is intended for a common definition. U2 a rock band does not actually define the word "U2". None of them actually do. So there is no link at the very top. However, the example of "school", since it is a common noun, can be defined. I think the key would be to place such links at the very top only on pages with a Wiktionary link. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(←) They were not invoking the section of the guidelines that is relevant to our discussion, which is MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic. There's no evidence that those editors were aware of that section. The main purpose of dab pages is not to provide information such as definitions; it's to provide ease of navigation to the article the reader is looking for. If a reader arrives at U2 (disambiguation) then they have already visited U2, so to make things easier, "U2 is an Irish rock band" should be separated out from the other links (on its own line at the very top). It does not imply that this is the definition of U2 or that this is the original meaning. It's only for more efficient navigation. Anyway, that's always been my understanding of MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic. You say there's an RfC somewhere that says differently? Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
But thats the thing. You think that this is a primary usage. I say it is the most common usage, which falls under the later work. As I said above, "primary" can only be for definitional pages. Such a thing would have to link to the Garden of Eden if anythinh. It doesn't matter - its just a diambiguation page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
And there was either an RFC or an AN notice over the revert war happening over the moving of the U2 page and the diambig page. Thats when it was settled into that format. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Before you make claims like the above, please realize that the current U2 page is from 2003, which proves that it existed before "U2" became "U2 (diambiguation)", and thus, your "logs" are very incomplete. this is just part of the above. I doubt you will apologize, just as I doubt you actually care. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I can understand how my comment about the page logs appeared to be an accusation that you were making up evidence to support your position. I should not make such claims, even indirectly. I'm very sorry. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)12:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. You started up the fighting on the U2 page (indirectly though), and it probably wont be pretty. The original decision was to compromise since U2 doesn't have an original meaning, so all of the terms that were important in their own group (boat, plane, band) were given undisambiguated pages so there wouldn't be fighting back and forth and there wouldn't be favoritism to a certain point of view. I have better things to do than have to be drawn into fighting over U2, so I'm leaving before the fighting begins. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
qualifications
Ben has no broadcast journalism experience or qualifications. His father has been overly instrumental in his educational and career achievements. The public should be aware of this. By muffling these facts it creates the illusion that he has worked his way from the production floor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.218.190 (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't necessarily mean to dispute what you are saying about Ben Mulroney, but the material you are adding to the article is negative and contentious, and therefore would need to have appropriate citations; otherwise, it is in violation of Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and WP:BLP. Do you have any references for your statements? Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Paul
Probably the best way to get the article restored is to go to WP:Deletion Review - that way, if any of those who voted for deletion (or anyone else for that matter) object to the restoration, it can be discussed there. Hope that helps, Waggers (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on Beaker Street after it was restored from the first deletion. Your work to improve the page inspired other efforts toward improving the page. Hopefully the end result will be the retention of this page on Wikipedia.RI-Bill (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Even without inline citations it looked to me like a clearly notable topic. I'm glad to help out. Thanks for taking the time to comment here! Cheers. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)17:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletion sorting
Both AfD's had already been archived by the bot, just not removed from the main page. I'd seen them knocking about for a few days, so gave the bot a helping hand. PC78 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Paul. Yes, there were two versions of the article. When the article was first created in March 2007, it fell under the blanket of blatant advertising, but then the text was replaced. In June 2007 you moved the article and flagged it as a possible copyright violation, probably the reason it was on your watchlist, but there's not an earlier version to revert to unfortunately. All the best, PeterSymonds(talk)10:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Icewedge would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Icewedge to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paul Erik. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I have seen you around quite a bit lately and you always seem to be acting intelligently. I even thought you were already an administrator at first. Unless there are any skeletons in the closet or you botch the RFA questions I have no doubt that you would succeed. - Icewedge (talk)17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Paul,
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply - don't login often. No, I'm not affiliated to any site, just like 100besteverything and find it useful.
Many apologies,
Andy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolhiptrendy (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Congratulations on your RfA passing! Here are some useful links for you:
Congratulations! And thank you for your note at my talk page. I've responded there. :) I'll reiterate here that I hope you'll let me know if there's anything I can do to help. I may be an admin, but I'm always looking for people to give advice and opinions on matters where I need assistance. (*cough*images*cough) As EVula suggests, there's a whole community of helpful people around here. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Well done, most importantly: don't let the tools take away from your work on articles nobody cares about! I have no doubt you'll make a great Admin. - Toon0521:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, and but of course. I love seeing people save articles by adding sources and material. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, don't worry about it, I believe you're a fine editor. You fully deserve the admin tools. :) Very best wishes, Lradrama12:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Lradrama has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You're very welcome for my support in your RfA. I should note that three people double-voted to support you: impressive! :) Best wishes. Acalamari16:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Congratulations! :) I'm really happy for you. Didn't remember about the welcome until you reminded me. :D You seem to have been an experienced user at that time already, but I guess having a box on talk page would still be fun. Hope adminship life is starting well. All the best, --PeaceNT (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And I'll try to remember to use U1 instead of G2 from now on - wasn't quite a test, definitely was my user request. Thanks again for the speedy-speedy delete. :) LaughingVulcan23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. At the time I tagged it for SD, it didn't have any sources and was only one sentence. Ctjf83Talk23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can understand that it appeared to be a speedy candidate when you came to it. It did to me, as well! But I did a quick check on Google News, saw that there were some sources, and added them to the article. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! You made a comment in the AfD discussion for Whiskers (band) about "searching for sources" before putting up an article for deletion consideration. Please be aware that I always search for sources before submitting an article for AfD consideration. In fact, I specifically cited WP:RS as a reason for the proposed deletion. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on joining the cabal! Your answers were very good, but I never got around to comment on it. I rarely participate in RFAs, and when I do, I usually ask questions based on real situations that I have faced. This allows me to understand a candidate's suitability in handling peculiar situations. Enjoy your shiny new buttons. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»=17:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Um I just had a message on my computer screen, that Wabash Avenue in Baltimore was deleted, and I don't know why, it is a main street in Northwest Baltimore. Is there something wrong with it, because I can always change it, if you want me to. Or have more information about it? I really don't think it was copyrighted. I'm just making sure, so I won't do nothing wrong, thanks bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acurablake3 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Acurablake3 and welcome. It's good to see you beginning to contribute, and I did not mean any offense in deleting your work. I deleted your first attempt at an article about Wabash Avenue after another editor had tagged it as not supplying enough context (it did not mention that it was a street in Baltimore). I see that you have tried again at Wabash Avenue (Baltimore) but that it was proposed for deletion. Might I ask you to look over Wikipedia:Your first article. One thing to keep in mind is that an article usually has to include multiple references to reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, Wabash Avenue is a film that was nominated for an Oscar for Best Song at the 23rd Academy Awards in 1950, so perhaps that's a more notable topic for an article. :) Feel free to ask questions; you may get faster responses at Wikipedia:Help desk. I'll also add a "welcome to Wikipedia" template on your talk page. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If you took the picture yourself, it just needs to be a free license (meaning that you release all rights for it to be freely distributed). You can take your pick; see the list at Wikipedia:ICTIC. Use the "upload file" link in the toolbox section on the left side of the page. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)05:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You've deleted a whole bunch of albums by Verónica Castro as G7. I spent a bit of time yesterday removing no context speedy tags from these yesterday as context was there, although given rather badly. I commented on the context in the edit log and added appropiate tags. Consquently I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit more about why you deleted them then what was in the deletion log as I had a semi-interest in these articles. I.e. did the creator really blank every page or did they ask for en-masse removal somewhere. Dpmuk (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, User:OriginalCyn3000 did blank them all (and did not say why in the edit summaries), and he/she was the only one who had provided any substantial content to the articles. Do you want to work on some of them? If so, I'd be glad to undelete one or more of them for you. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)13:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't really know enough about the subject myself but from what was provided on the singer's page it seems that many of the albulms may have been notable enough for their own entry. It's a shame as I thought with a bit of tidying they could have made valid stubs at the very least. Could you tell me who created them and I'll post on their talk page as I'd be willing to help them through the process of getting the articles upto standard although as I say I don't know enough about the subject to do it myself. If they just got scared off by the speedy tags and me tagging them hopefully they may still be willing to contribute. Dpmuk (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Chrylis. You're off to a good start, but you've only very recently begun editing regularly. Edits like this one concern me—removing a "prod" is not vandalism. I'm not comfortable with granting you rollback just yet, but I will leave your request in place on the request-for-permissions page and another admin can take a look as well. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I know removing the proposal isn't itself grounds for a block, but the article had been deleted and recreated with similar (but not identical) content, and the user had received a level-3 vandalism warning for another resurrected article earlier today. chrylis (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I do see where you're coming from. Still, having never granted rollback rights, I'd prefer to wait for a more experienced admin to decide about that. Best, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I'm still getting used to Twinkle, and I'm finding that the CSD summaries it lists don't always quite match up with the tags it places. chrylis (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Bogdan Raczynski
I did a quick skim of the older versions myself and wasn't quite convinced--but I'm also not adamant about the article being gone, so if you saw something, I will cheerfully restore it. Good luck! --Masamage♫04:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Nicholas Chistiakov
It went through a Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Chistiakov and the result of the debate was a speedy delete. Are you saying that if you create the same article with the same content enough number of times, you will, in time, find a sympathetic admin who will let it be? Anyway, it's really not worth my time to pursue this. So I'm going to leave it to you. Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Goodness, no, I'm not saying that at all. What I would say, though, is that you are mistaken when you say "result of the debate was a speedy delete". The speedy deletion happened quite separate from the AfD. The debate was interrupted. CSD G4 applies only to articles that have been decided by our equivalent of a community consensus, which is a full discussion at AfD—either a five-day discussion resulting in a "delete", or a WP:SNOW closure. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Erik i saw that circle-e.com got deleted and i can see that spamming would be a problem on wiki. how can i establish my business that has been incorporated in the state of texas since 1995 as a historical entity? I see Coca Cola is company and indexed in wiki? thanks for your time and direction.
Paul, just a complement and a thanks for your work on Julius Pitzman. It's a fine feeling to rescue one of these old accomplished gentlemen from the jaws of the deletion queue, and I think we've done it. Best to you -- --Lockley (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ohbijou is turning into an unreferenced POV mess which makes assertions about the need to rethink the fundamental boundaries of indie pop as a genre, among other problems. Could I enlist a bit of help from you getting it back up to scratch? Thanks... Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paul Erik. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
