User talk:Wiki-nightmare/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

about spam

it looks to me that the claudia ciesla page goes against the spam/ self advertising policies and should be removed through speedy deletion, why is it still up? --Pearlmango (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm blessed if I know it. You can flag it for speedy deletion or for an 2. AFD. But before please check and read the 1. AFD Result, the deletion review of the subject and the Talk-Page Archive of the Subject. If you want to nominate the Article for 2. AFD you will need new arguments, why this Article should be deleted. You cannot nominate the article with the same arguments as the 1. Afd!! This is very important!! I mean the 1. AFD was manipulated by anonymous IPs that just created "1-comment-accounts" to votes for an keep - this could be an adequate base for an new AFD. But the english Admins they want (may) not recognize this major problem... and it might well be that you´ll become problems with the english "Admin" User:Garion96 because he have an "indirect self-interest" (see Conflict of Interest) on this Article 1 2 (he add some "References" that doesn´t exist - and maybe there aren´t notabel if you correct follow the reliable sources Guidline... ), and he add the pictures of the subject 3 4 and so on... Maybe the best way will be to forgotten this Article because there are thousands of other "unimportant" Articles on this wikipedia - ones more or ones less that is not really important... god bless Jimbo... Wiki-nightmare (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some points to your response there, still had your talk page on my watchlist.

  • No one better in the near future tag this article for speedy deletion.
  • Please read WP:COI more carefully before you accuse me of it. Or try to read this.
  • The pictures were not uploaded by me. I actually deleted them because of a possible copyright violation. I restored them and re added them to the article after a successful WP:OTRS request.
  • The references were newspaper clippings send to me by e-mail. After the OTRS permission I warned the photographer that the article might not pass WP:Notable and told him that references might help. These references do exist, whether they are notable is something else. I think they are. If you doubt they exist, try to find the nearest library with a newspaper archive.
  • I really don't care if Wikipedia has or doesn't have this article. I voted keep but only barely in the last AFD.

Garion96 (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Understand, I don't want to create or cause problems on this article. Still , I need to add that since I'm located in Germany I have never seen Claudia on such newspapers and I see Bild daily..how do you know those clippings are real? What if made on the computer, which is easy to do?.. --Pearlmango (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, feel free to go to the nearest library and check the archives there. You're located in Germany so that should be quite easy to do. Garion96 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done that already not to mention Bild is delivered to me at home --Pearlmango (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Same counts for you as user kadenpress. If you think there are sock puppets used, please file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I can't really understand why you so insist on deleting that article. You also said that you edit on the German Wikipedia. I checked your edits there and the only edits there are also about the deletion of the Claudia Ciesla article there. Let it go, afd was no consensus, that means a default keep. You can try it again later in six months, but the deletion review you started, the talk on the discussion page, asking another admin for deletion (while it just survided deletion) is utterly pointless and pointy. Garion96 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

same edits different adverse opinion. The user:kadenpress make only edits for his advertising produkt Claudia Ciesla but the user:wiki-nightmare doesn´t make this!! For an Example look at: my english contributions and my German Contributions now look at the user kadenpress: his german contributions and his english contributions he ONLY made edits for his advertising produkt Claudia Ciesla. he is an user since 23:42, 4 November 2006 and made ONLY edits for Claudia Ciesla. He is not really interested in working on an encyklopedia. I am an User since 21:21, 13 October 2007 and i made some edits on other topic´s. Wiki-nightmare 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said in the deletion review. Kadenpress has a conflict of interest but that I can at least understand. Your persistance in wanting to delete the article I can't. And looking at your edits, you made 119 edits to English Wikipedia, only 15 of those were not related to Claudia Ciesla. On the German one you made 16 edits, of which 7 were about her article. These numbers do tell something. Garion96 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But is there an Policy that said how many edits you should maximal make on an article you are interessted?? The Point is, that i made some other edits, too. The 7 German Edits about her article was an request to check her english article too. BUT i was non-involved in her german deletion-request. Wiki-nightmare 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well...you were involved in this request, over and over again. For now at least, give it up! Garion96 (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong! Of course i were only involved in her english deletion-request and her english deletion-review but at least since started this para Talk:Claudia_Ciesla#External_links i am not interessted in an 2. deletion too. I will not deal with an 2. nomination for deletion but when an other wikipedian starts an new deletion-request I'm in! Wiki-nightmare 23:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Because I am sick of new editors coming to that talk page, immediately knowing how to sign, knowing (well..not understanding but knowing of them anyway) the speedy deletion criteria and demanding the deletion of that article. All in their first edit. A case of WP:DUCK. The same counts btw for editors doing exactly the same for the opposite reason. Garion96 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your answer. I can follow your argument. In that spezial case I agree with you. But normally, which Policy is saying that new editors who make their first edit cannot sign her username or cannot know Wiki-Policys?? I mean when you starts for an new Editing than you can read Please Sign your username with four Tildes. If you read the Subject TalkPage than you can find informations about the Wikipedia-Policy´s for Spam, deletion and so on... It's a remote possibility that new Editors read this information first and know a little bit of Wikipedia Standards. But anyway you are right if you said that it is strange that new Users knows everything about speedy deletion criteria, Sock puppets and so on. That's really an odd thing. But my first Edit was an AFD too. It wasn´t in bad faith. I know of that from the German Wiki. Okay, the Point is: What shall we do? What's your opinion? I can't imagine to find a remedy to strike a balance. Not after posting this 1, 2 3 and especially after this 5. It's all fairy tales. Thank you for your Time. I apologize once more for my bad and broken English. Wiki-nightmare 21:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy stating that. Many new editors do, but in the case of this article it is really unlikely. Possibly "the other side" has the same issue. That however was almost a month ago, this was yesterday. And no, I don't think your first AFD was in bad faith. The deletion review, the talk on another admin's page asking to delete (after it survived AFD) is getting close though. My advice is the same. Leave this article alone, the same counts for Kadenpress. Garion96 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A Clever idea 1 I consider it as the best conflict resolution! Thank you Wiki-nightmare 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Hallo. Ich habe Ihre meldung von Kadenpress von WP:AIV abgelöst. Es scheint mir, es ist nicht wirklich vandalismus. Wenn aber Sie fühlen, daß Kadenpress Sie bedroht, können Sie ihn bei WP:ANI melden. Ich hoffe, das ist hilfreich. (P.S.: Verzeihen Sie meine Fehler mit der deutschen Sprache, sie ist nicht meine Muttersprache.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ich habe Ihre Frage auf meiner Diskussionseite beantwortet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Wiki-nightmare