User talk:Tutelary

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Hey. Welcome to my talk page. It's a place where you can leave me messages and templates, though I prefer that you tell me what I did in your own words, it's not required. (Especially since templates can be so specific.) Anywho, don't hesitate to give me some critiques, invoke some discussion, or anything like it! Thanks.

Hello, What can I do for my article, please tell me, you added a speedy deletion tag on my article, but it is a notable personality please see the talk page of Emperor Blackhat for more information

Thanks for creating Hashtag activism, Tutelary!

Wikipedia editor Dudel250 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Im Watching You 8P

To reply, leave a comment on Dudel250's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

This page should not be speedily deleted because... the artist has developed his career since the last deletion. he has two successful singles on the music market, he attained popularity in social media, he has over 100.000 facebook fans, and almost 1 million views on Youtube. his entire album is coming soon. isn't it enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalia90 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Natalia90:, could you link to the 'two successful singles' part? That may be an outstanding factor even in the afd, so that it would not qualify. Tutelary (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: Do you mean this ironic now? What is afd?

@Natalia90:, the link to his singles getting attention. If present in a reliable source, may establish new notability other than what was argued in the afd. Afd stands for articles for deletion, which is the formal process by which articles are assessed to be deleted. Tutelary (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved this from the article's talk page since this was already here. Basically, I can't see where the two singles gained any sort of coverage in the slightest. Fan followings on social media sites such as facebook and YT views don't really count towards anything on Wikipedia because popularity doesn't always translate into actual notability and coverage. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Part of the reason is because in the past we've had people claim notability because the individual in question has a large following on say, Twitter, only to discover that they purchased the "fans" via various different companies that specialize in this. I know that some of the criteria says "large following" but the unsaid thing about this criteria is that it is fully expected that the following would have received coverage in reliable sources. (EX, Bronies) In other words the unsaid thing is that if something or someone has a fan following that substantial and noticeable in the media, they'd have received coverage themselves. In any case, I can't see where any of the concerns from the previous AfD have been met. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For preventing me from getting more mainspace edits fighting vandalism ;) Lixxx235 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you haven't watchlisted my talk, nothing important or urgent Lixxx235 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting my side of MONGO's tale, asking me about what Mongo is referring to rather than just taking his biased/POV word for it would have been a civil, AGF thing to do. He has an ax to grind, you gave an unbiased and accurate assessment of my editing from a neutral point of view. But, it doesn't matter now, I guess as you have stricken and withdrawn your endorsement. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi:, I'm just not sure. I'll take a look at your edit history with a fine tooth comb and decide then. But I just did a brief overview and didn't look into any topic specific controversy.

I have found that you consider paywall materials and newspapers to be unreliable given that you must have a subscription to access them. Please see WP:PAYWALL and WP:SOURCES for details on why this is not so. I should have looked into this and not endorsed without doing so. I cannot in good conscious restore my endorsement per this. See [1] for what sections I looked at. (That and the rfc and everything below it) Tutelary (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary:That was only until it was explained to me why they are considered reliable (you can see my response to the editor who explained it here: [2]). As far as the latest RfC at the Simon Collins talk page, it was opened in error. My response to the RfC outlines why it never should have been opened as the concern Fugh had was resolved hours before he opened the RfC addressing that concern. He hasn't been back on Wikipedia since the RfC was opened to comment and/or close it.

Just yesterday, you were considered to be edit warring. Based on the warning you received, if I were to just do a quick glance at your talk page, should I judge you as an editor based on the presence of that warning? Is doing so what being collegial editors working together to build an encyclopedia on good faith in each other is about? Throwing out the baby with the bathwater based on the ax-grinding comments of one problematic editor (who had his administrator privileges revoked years ago and his subsequent request to have the privileges restored overwhelmingly denied) doesn't seem wise to me. (if you're interested, look at the number of times MONGO has been blocked for civility violations and edit warring violations here [3]). I wouldn't and shouldn't judge you based on that edit warring warning. No one should. At this point, it really doesn't matter to me anymore that you go back and reinstate your support/endorsement. It does matter to me that you give a second thought to basing judgements of other editors on one guy with a very loud voice who has a very questionable civility and behavior history in Wikipedia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't think it would be a controversial endorsement, and I'll look into a few more of the happenings before judging again. Tutelary (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" is certainly overstated. Now, the editing history of someone as controversial as MONGO, that is worthy of the aforementioned adjective. :-) -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thanks for your support of my requesting STiki permissions! I got rollback rights though, so it doesn't matter anymore, but thanks! You're the reason I was confident enough to request rollback and reviewer. --Lixxx235 (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lixxx235:, Honestly I don't think you'll get reviewer, but congrats on the rollback. Tutelary (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources PCI configuration space Beast (Trojan horse) P.A.O.K. 2012–13 Egyptian Premier League Mt. Gox Roman Reigns Cleanup Economy of Belarus Dave Zirin Urosaurus Expand Economics Money supply Economy of Armenia Unencyclopaedic Endogenous money Fulton Road Bridge Deflation

Wikify The Expansion of England Swati Bajpai Yoga for children Orphan Ajay Maroo Heleen Mees Optical solar reflector Merge Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott Makhai Dance India Dance Li'l Masters (season 2) Stub Ashish Kapoor Oompas Administrative divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Shushi Province Hadrut Province (NKR) Linear park

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was point to the facts in the deletion log which document straight out a feminist led brigade from reddit trying to delete the article

That's NOT a bias against feminism. That's a bias against hidden biases.

Tell ya what, keep to your corner of the wiki and I will keep to mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.215.31 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC introduction is thoughtful, well written, and entirely neutral. I am genuinely impressed. Thank you. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May i know, how you reverted Shaktimaan's page. Its a notable superhero. If it is non notable i myself would added to speedy deletion. I made a page nor violated terms! Character pages are of many characters like Tony Stark, Jack Sparrow, Bruce Wayne, Volverine. So do not target my works by any, Any Unfair Means PrateekTamilian (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PrateekTamilian:, I redirected it because there was an already an article about that character. You are free to add to that article, but two versions of the same article can be confusing to users. The speedy deletion criteria I'm talking about is WP:A10. Tutelary (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: God its a page and (character) is specified in end very respectively. Check character pages of Peter Parker he is too notable. Do not revert any work of mine. PrateekTamilian (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PrateekTamilian:, please do note that it is a duplicate article of an article already established. This is a speedy deletion criteria. I have chosen not to tag it, but any other editor can. I redirected it, preserving the page history so you can take the text from it and add to the article already established. Tutelary (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: Tell me one thing why editors do this to new Wiki users? By the way, India is backward in all fields. Showing a notable character is considered a vandalistic work (specially if i do). Characters from American cinema are so notable that they are mentioned here. Really if contribution is a wrong deed then its fair. I have made the page for proving a strong notability of character, but here editors find my works' painful. Even Iron Man has a character page with Green Padlock Protection. My God its really amusing that its just a small attempt to protect just a character page. And for Shaktimaan a redirect. Think to leave this site as my works give pain to other users. PrateekTamilian (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the WP:ANI discussion? "This user User:Tutelary is idiotically showing up her nature. She's deleting a page showing fake sites". Thanks for the copyvio-fighting; PrateekTamilian's been indeffed as a block-evading sock. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did very much look at the ANI, but I decided not to respond, as I'd googled various versions of the text and found them all over the place. So I figured I was right. Plus, WP:DENY comes into play. It seems to have been handled, so even if I were to respond, I don't think it would add very much at this point. (Plus I was on mobile and what not so it would've been difficult to do.) I'm on my computer now, so if it requires a response, I will. Thank you for the kind words, such a better contrast to the sock's insults.Tutelary (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think its really a shame to represent an Indian character. And the site where you provided has content from wikipedia to Mtv. Really its making me really irritating PrateekTamilian (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one thing if it is blatant infringement put Shaktimaan too in speedy deletion. And you idiotically added as infringement [4] read and decide. I will put up you to Admin noticeboard.

PrateekTamilian (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your vandalistic work. Stop at once!

PrateekTamilian (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tutelary, I saw this on change patrol, and one thing strikes me as odd: the page is said to be a copy of an mtv.com page, but that page seems to be the page for a musical artist of the same name, with no infringing content that I can see. It IS, however, largely copied from http://www.relianceanimation.com/shaktimaan/shaktimaan-aniamted-characters.html, so is still a copyright violation. I only bring this up to point out that the Duplicate Detector seems to be catching violations, but is not associating them properly. Electric Wombat (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted now, so irrelevant. I'll check with the tool's creator. Sorry to have bothered you. Electric Wombat (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Electric Wombat: this Tutelary user is behaving smart as if Wikipedia is her property. Patent Nonsense user

PrateekTamilian (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tutelary, PrateekTamilian is a sockpuppet of TekkenJinKazama and now blocked so feel free to disregard these messages. -- Atama頭 20:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Atama. Will do. Tutelary (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Tutelary. I just saw a deletion notice on Planet Miracles page and I have revised it now. Could you check the article and see if it meet he non-advertising requirement now? I also wrote a contest on my talk page. Kiminamo (talk)

@Kiminamo:, No. As it is still unambiguously promotional. You would have to fundamentally rewrite the page in a NPOV in order for the tag to not be valid anymore. Tutelary (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: Thank you Tutelary. How about now? I have revised the article based on your instruction. Kiminamo

@Kiminamo:, I've removed all non-NPOV language and content on the page. You need to add reliable sources that establish notability, else somebody may nominate it deletion. You also need a claim of significance, which is why this group is notable and what they're notable for. An admin has already tagged it for deletion due to no claim of significance. Go establish one nowTutelary (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiminamo:, all it needs is a claim of significance, and it could be kept. But since you blanked it, it counts under a different speedy deletion criteria. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: Thanks. It seems a little complicated so I just deleted the whole article. I will figure a good one before posting a new version. Thanks again.

For Jabari Parker the citation is from draftexpress.com where it states on jabari's page his height and weight based off of NBA Draft Combine measurements, that is what he will be listed as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarts343 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The vandalize where directed award
	For vandalizing where directed, and for a good sense of humor. Cheers! Lixxx235 (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, do you regularly check my user page? I mean, how else would you find that? I'm flattered that you spend that time to do that for a user whom you met less than four days ago. Cheers! Thanks, Lixxx235 (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just decided to check it out just once and saw that vandal page and got curious. I'm also wondering if anybody ever had a 'vandal' page where a vandal actually took the advice and vandalized there. Oh, and no problem. You're as much of an editor as I am. Tutelary (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tutelary reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: ). Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I nominated an article for deletion, and noticed that there was an older afd which came to the same premise and topic as the one I nominated. Would I be within the rules to use this exact wording (and template) on everyone who participated on the old afd? Exact text which would be on the user's talk page:

==Notification==

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy (2nd nomination). You are receiving this message due to your involvement in some fashion at the 1st nomination. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be anything wrong with it. I think it's a good idea, but some of them may be inactive. Go ahead I say. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 09:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Srsly bruh like im just tryina help wikerpedia man man129.12.103.201 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Google Now" to "Anal Sex" and "Mortola" To "Sex" is not appreciated.

Yes, it is. So why undo it?

I mean to say not appreciated. Tutelary (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism. They're just updating stats from the official website for it. Tutelary (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You reverted some vandalism here, but User:Salcruz91 seems to be changing other pages as well without leaving reasons in the Edit summary box. Here is a list of his changes. I have warned him on his Talk page. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to discuss this on the IRC help channel before reverting it. Tutelary (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw your name in AfD pages. I understand you are quite knowledgeable in deletion discussions. Could you have a look at Humber the Hun article? I think it should be proposed for speedy deletion or AfD but as I lack experience did not want to do it myself. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to be WP:BOLD and nominate it for deletion. Nothing will happen to you IRL. No one is gonna call you up and be like, "Why did you nominate this article for deletion? I'm going to kill your entire family!" No one is going to ban you for some ludicrous reason like, "bad faith afd" and no one should criticize you personally for it. Even so, "What kind of idiot would nominate this article for deletion?" would be rebutted with a link to no personal attacks and a reminder to comment on the content, not the contributor. Tutelary (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to your sarcastic edit comment when reverting my reversion of an edit made to a sentence discussing the cause of death of Amanda Todd. The cause of death has not been officially released, source cited in the Investigation section. our own use of Undue and lack of civility is both uncalled for and ridiculous. The article now lacks balance, an impartial tone, and good research... all cornerstones of a worthwhile WP article. If you're trying to prove a point, I don't think it was the one you intended to prove. You don't own the article, so it'd be great if you could back up your POV-pushing with a substantive argument. OttawaAC (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]