User talk:Ilion2

Good work

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For your contribution here and many similar. Thank you. :) Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

Sorry about not deleting the redirect. I thought I had done that when I moved the page and apparently I missed your message. Sorry about that. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 20:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Ilion2 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All My Holy Mountain

The notability tag on the author page made it appear his books were non-notable. I see every page related to L. B. Graham has a notability tag - the author's notability ought to be established before his books are considered notable. For now, I can remove the redirect to give time to demonstrate notability.Greedyhalibut (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to demonstrate notability as this is possible no simple task in this case. I stumpled across this article during maintenance of several articles. And I do not see any sense in four standalone articles for the other books of this series and only this one should not deserve a standalone article. The notability tags are more than a year old. Either there are not many editors here which deny the notability or just tagging the articles did not work. I do not think there is a big problem with this articles when they are in this encyclopedia for more than a year now. --Ilion2 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as no one challenges notability, I suppose there's no reason not to have separate articles for each part of the series. Perhaps the notability tags should be removed, since they have been up so long?Greedyhalibut (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the five articles and the "main article" are to big to gather them in only one article, apart from the work this may require. And I can not recognize any big problem in different articles as long as they are detailed enough, which is mostly the case. --Ilion2 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amb (town)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Amb (town), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.artistopia.com/amb. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.artistopia.com/amb is just a copy of the disambiguation page AMB. The first sentence in the article is the same as in the disambiguation page. --Ilion2 (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Kitchens & Bathrooms

I have nominated Kitchens & Bathrooms, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitchens & Bathrooms. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Sisters

I noticed that you edited some of the Nine Sisters articles and added Category:Nine Sisters. That was a good idea. I noticed that you removed two other categories and that was probably no such a great idea. An article can belong several different categories. Because they are in San Luis Obispo County they belong in Category:San Luis Obispo County, California and because they are mountains in California they belong in Category:Mountains of California. They probably also belong in one of the volcano categories but I'm not part of that project so I'll let someone else worry about that. Thanks. --droll [chat] 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nine Sisters is a subcategory of Category:San Luis Obispo County, California and Category:Mountains of California so I removed these topcategories. --Ilion2 (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Beside of your now uselees double categorisation (maincategory and subcategory) please do not affirm wrong facts [1]. I did not removed any category in three [2] [3] [4] of the nine articles, they was completely uncategorized.[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you. I did not mean to misstate anything but it looks like I did. You are correct that Category:Nine Sisters is a subcategory of the others but notice that Mount Shasta is a member of Category:Fourteeners of California which is a subcategory of Category:Mountains of California and yet it is included in both categories. I admit this is seemingly illogical but currently its the way things are being done. If you would like to see this change perhaps you could start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains. --droll [chat] 15:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not want to start a discussion just because there are other articles with incorrect double categorization. This could happen when e.g. the subcategory was later added, but it is wrong because subcategorizations purpose is to clean up the parent category. Adding an article to both a subcategory and a parent category does not allow this and makes it difficult to clean up the parent category. Please check Wikipedia:Categorization#The category system, there you can read "normally a page ... would not be added explicitly to a category if it is contained in one of that category's subcategories.". There are exceptions, you can find them here Wikipedia:Categorization#Duplicate categorization rule. Do you think that this exception fits here? --Ilion2 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Sorry that I mixed the term for parent category with top category and main category, I used all these terms for the same thing. I checked the correct word for this in my last post here.[reply]

Talk page

I am sorry you are having diffculty acessing my thread, however I myself don't find it a particular problem. I will offer my empathy by spreading wikilove. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You did not find a particular problem when you wrote your answers collected on the top of your discussion page instead on every thread like User talk:Mcjakeqcool#Atari 2600 games? You are the only one who do this. Here User talk:Mcjakeqcool#April 2009 you managed to give the answer correct in the thread, and this is the best and only acceptable option. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Film templates

No problem - it's also protected to me too, only admins can update it. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. I could not imagine that only the us-template is fully protected. Is it usual in en.wikipedia.org to answer not where the thread was started? --Ilion2 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Town

On Rotten Tomatoes, check the cast and production credits. It's the same film. You found one of Rotten Tomatoes' typos. There was no film by that name in 1977. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, since other editors would look at the date and not look at cast and crew to realize the date as a typo, I have removed it as an external link. There is more than enough now to meet inclusion criteria, despite the few who will never agree. A closing Admin will note the before and after differences and take improvements into consideration. AfD is not a vote. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: American Dad! (season 1)

Hello Ilion2, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of American Dad! (season 1) - a page you tagged - because: not a valid criterion, use WP:RFD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. So Why 18:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a problem with this. I already asked on June 17 for speedy deletion [5] because of a copyright violation and just doubled content from main article. This was declined by User:Dank. He informed to use WP:PROD. So I used WP:PROD [6]. This was converted to a redirect by non admin User:Wolfer68 [7]. So I asked Wolfer68, but he did not answer in the last two weeks (User_talk:Wolfer68#American_Dad.21_.28season_N.29). So I asked again for speedy deletion which was declined by you. The articles and now the redirects are totally useless. And I am really tired to try to let them delete. No one can tell me why this should be kept, but trash like this with absolutely no use stayed here for several weeks now. --Ilion2 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this bothers you but speedy deletion is for good reasons to be used strictly and you need to use one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, "useless" redirect is not one of them. Noone is saying that those redirects should be kept, they just cannot be deleted using this process. Regards So Why 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I already wrote, I already asked for normal deletion via WP:PROD. When a non administrator decide to change this to a redirect but is not willing to discuss this, I did not see any reason to start again the next deletion discussion via WP:PROD? What did you suggest? Deletion request via WP:AFD? WP:AFD for redirects of no use resulting from articles created via a copyright violations and just redundant content? --Ilion2 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROD is not a normal deletion, it's for cases where no objection is deemed likely. Per WP:PROD, any user is allowed to contest this, which means it needs to go to a deletion discussion. Now they are redirects, the correct place is WP:RFD. Regards So Why 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, four instances to remove some copyright violation and redundant content. This bugs me now. I must check if I am longer willing to help to clean up the english wikipedia in the future. Will you please use WP:RFD to help here? I am pretty sure that a speedy deletion request for this (redundant articles and copyright violation, now redirects of no use) will work in the German Wikipedia, here I tried now three deletion requests with no success and trash like this stayed here for weeks now. --Ilion2 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No answer? Looks like it is a lot easier to create redundant articles and copyright violations than to remove them. Three deletion requests and this trash is still here, now as unnecessary redirects. Is this the support I can expect when I try to help here? Why is it so hard to remove trash like this here when it is a lot easier in German wikipedia? --Ilion2 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cypriot football players

Well, I think that we will most likely find the source in some official documents that can usually be found on official league or federation websites. So, here is the official website of Cypriot football federation. The league doesn't own a website so I think cfa.com.cy is the only place to find it. However, I don't understand Greek at all and I contribute to the Cypriot league only because I contribute to all European leagues. So, my suggestion to you is to find someone who speaks Greek because I can't help you in the research due to language difficulties. SonjiCeli (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Calligra Plan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Calligra Plan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Light2021 (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sixer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sixer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Just Chilling (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]