Tikiwont is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia next year.

Welcome to my talk page. Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives
Q4 2006 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009

Contents 1 Article traffic statistics? 2 Tag on Talk:Lord Byron 3 Fads And Their Effects 4 I was sended a Message for acts of Vandalism on Article Vedwani which doesn't exist

[edit] Article traffic statistics?

May I ask whether the "article traffic statistics" table, added just over one hour before WP:RFD#Lord Byron was closed, was influential? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the RFD, then closed another one on the same page and mulled Lord Byron over. When I came back to close there was also the table with its edit summary, but I saw it more as an illustration of the general primary topic point already made by many than as hard evidence. You made valid arguments as well, but they are of the systematic type and thus independent of actual page hits. Let me also add that I appreciate that you spent a lot of effort in improving this area and that I have myself quite some sympathy for getting things systematically right in the first place, but the more widespread feeling was that it can still be updated if the situation changes and indeed a flood of queries for another Lord Byron arrives. Best,--Tikiwont (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad it wasn't considered "hard evidence", but I regret that many reading the archived discussion may think it was. The "Hits in June 2009" column shows convincingly hard numbers for traffic to articles on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Barons Byron, with up to only 112 hits (on the 11th Baron), yeah... But the 11th Baron's article wasn't created until August; the others (and the 8th Baron's) were created November 26. Those convincingly hard numbers for June 2009 are completely spurious. I've queried the table's poster on the matter. Unfortunately I couldn't remark in the original context before it got locked, due to the timing. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I looked at it mostly from the angle whether the table and any rebuttal would cuase a substantial change of minds and I did not see that coming. FWIW, the stats is simply that: data of June which can easily be revisited next June for comparison. For those articles that didn't exist people can still click on a redlink and it gets counted. With respect to the 11th, you seem to be mistaken: it has been created in August 2007. The November data would certainly be misleading because of the RFD itself and your own activities during the creation. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tag on Talk:Lord Byron

... says: "This redirect was nominated for deletion...." Erm, no, it was nominated for retargetting. This was already misrepresented during the RfD discussion itself, and I'd not like to see that misrepresentation enshrined. Please correct. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that was not a choice of mine but a general template {{Oldrfd}} suggested by the deletion process, so not intended as a misrepresentation of this particular nomination. The objective of the nomination was clear enough. Nevertheless that is a good point so i updated the template accordingly.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fads And Their Effects

just exchanging notes. we had an edit conflict--i was about to replace the speedy with a prod tag, &, so I added it. I don't automatically do this with every declined speedy, but when an article is as bad as this but there is no speedy criterion, I'll prod or AfD, to make sure it does not get overlooked entirely. Often the person who placed the speedy will prod or AfD, but that cannot be counted on. I know there are some people who do it always when they remove a speedy, but I do not--why should I if I think it can be improved enough to be kept? What's your view of it? DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by! Mostly I do this in two steps: I review the speedy tags and consider other CSD especially the General ones, in which case I either remove the tag or delete. I may then take a second look and edit, tag or propose deletion or merge, but as a general rule I don't follow-up automatically or even often with another deletion request. As for this one here, I went to the creator's talk page, saw another G12 tag and then wanted to look for copyvios, but saw your prod tag which was fine as well. Nevertheless, I may rely in general too much on the 'system' taking care of harmless ons or myself coming back later to them but I simply don't want to take over responsibility by default. Jewish clock was one that just got deleted after I prodded it, though, and I'll take the opportunity to look after a few more declined ones that I've logged, before I head off for a wikibreak.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I was sended a Message for acts of Vandalism on Article Vedwani which doesn't exist

... as the title says, I didn't made a article Vedwani or anything nor ever visited it.. still I got a message informing me to refrain from vandalism.. it was as below..

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Vedwani worked, so it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Versus22 talk 11:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Vedwani. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Versus22 talk 11:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

now its like dec 09 and i've got message of march 18.. hmm.. i don't know what to make of it.. plz help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.8.181 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. Warnings were for previous user under same IP. Happy editing. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Many Thanks for the Reply :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.8.181 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to say.. it was fast reply.. I saw you were on Wikibreak and it says you'd be off till next year.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.8.181 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You caught me packing and respect for (I assume) finding the deletion log and so someone to contact ;)--Tikiwont (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ha ha.. ahh well sometimes I'm lucky. Anyway.. Happy Vacations !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.8.181 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)