Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:40, 11 July 2006

Archives
15,000,000,000 BC – 17 Feb 2006 17 Feb 2006 – 17 Apr 2006 17 Apr 2006 – 10 May 2006 10 May 2006 – 9 Jun 2006

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I feel like I need to defend myself from what you're saying, in which case I'll reply here. Thanks!

Hey MangoJuice!

I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages. Just got your message.

I'll understand if you feel the text on the "Harmonic Run" is necessary to delete.

However, I would be interested in what specific element of this rather short piece made it unsuitable for publishing on wikipedia?

That would give me an understanding, of what changes (if any) would make it more suitable?

Thankyou! Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream explora (talk • contribs)

Bouncing

I was wondering why there isn't a board here showing bad admins. Geo.plrd 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Need a level head...

I saw your comments over at Bonnie Bracey's deletion page, and it so happens that the entry on me is up for deletion as well. There's a history there. Please take a look here, and weigh in if you can. I personally don't care whether the page exists or not, but I personally believe that the deletionist involved has an axe to grind and is also, consistently, taking too much for granted in his notes for deletion.

The article Taran Rampersad has already passed a vote against Speedy Deletion. There's plenty of information on the Talk Page, and I'm certainly here to discuss things with should there be questions. I didn't make the page. But I am getting really tired of people arbitrarily going around and posting pages for deletion and removing content instead of adding value.

Thus, you may consider this a request for informal mediation (WP:Mediation) --TaranRampersad 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

Hi Mango, I'd like to thank you for noting that the AfD was not simply placed "arbitrarily" but was due to the article's lack of citation and encyclopedic nature. I would, however, like to point out that I directed the user to WP:NPA due to the fact that his AfD comments violated the spirit and word of that policy in that he was commenting on editors and not edits. I also never accused him of making that article and noticed from his talk page that he has had little to no involvement with the article. Thanks for looking into the matter. I've actually already asked another admin to relist the AfD so that it can be discussed further but I don't know if they'll see fit to do that. I actually don't think it should be discussed more and that it should be deleted due to obvious reasons, but I still want to be fair to this user since he has such complaints. --Strothra 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey.. thanks for the message regarding the prodguess i was unaware of the that. ;) will keep that in mind next time. And thanks for the friendly welcome, lol, that's rather unexpected and kinda thoughtful. I'll see what else i can contribute in the future! :p Nerdook 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why..

..do you assume that I would re-add a prod tag? youngamerican (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PS...there was supposed to be a smiley after that message that I accidently deleted when fixing a typo before hitting "save page." That would have changed the entire tone of my last message. Here is is now: :) Sorry 'bout that. youngamerican (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

An oft-vandalized article you might want to watch

The Robert Byrd article is a regular target of people that either think his politics are too leftist or too rightist that seek to vandalize. Since you are one of our best vandalwhackers, it might be worht putting on your watchlist. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of it is none-too subtle, trust me. youngamerican (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA

You up for a nom? I've been looking for someone to nominate for a while and I would like for you to be that person. I feel you have the perfect balance of civility and backbone for the job. So are you up for it? youngamerican (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just drop me a message when you get back and are ready. youngamerican (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I got dibs on co-nom. You're not a reflexive deletionist, which is a trait I really like. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike Norris

But who's the actor? Does he exist? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You there? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So I will make a radical change of course - instead of deleting something, I will actually CREATE A STUB FOR MIKE NORRIS. *Pats self on the back, cringes from arm pain.* - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List of inactive WikiProjects

Hey -- I deprodded this because WP:PROD is only supposed to be used for articles. If you actually want it deleted, you can list it at WP:MFD. I changed the article to a redirect to Misplaced Pages:List of WikiProjects which should accomplish what you were trying to do. Mangojuicetalk 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should trivia (by anyone's judgement) be deleted?

Hi... I posted the Sarah Rutledge Birnbaum article. I can see that you or others would view this as trivia, but I don't see it as trivia, and triviality does not seem to be one of the listed criteria for deletion, in any case: lack of verifiability, original research, lack of a neutral point of view, and copyright seem to be the criteria for deletion. The Birnbaum article does not violate any of those... one person's trivia is anothers golden nugget, so why delete it? User:Snugspout 22:55 14 June 2006 (UTC).

Pardon me for dropping in uninvited, but I was just reviewing the article in question. I think that there is a very real question of notability here. The claim that SRB is the only person to have jumped twice seems to be unsubstantiated, and that claim is the only thing that would make her notable in terms of a WP article. Many people have jumped from the GGB and many people have committed suicide after a previous attempt failed. Still, having said that, I think that the info in the article is worth keeping if it could be condensed and merged, as was suggested in the Talkpage. I will probably vote to Merge, but I want to follow the chatter on this one for a bit first. Happy Editing! Doc Tropics 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking around, I don't really support the concept of notability... more likely that possible policy will lead to suppression of information useful to someone... I'm in the camp of Misplaced Pages is not paper. The claim of the second jump is not airtight, but there is very good evidence in its favor: a witness saw a young women of similar physical characteristics jump at the right time, her car was found in the nearby GGB parking lot, and as far as I can tell by searching the newspapers, she never resurfaced alive or dead. The second news article (the feature one in the Examiner) is 10 days after the apparent jump, and would not have been written if there was an obvious problem. It is common for GGB jumper's bodies not to be recovered. Snugspout 23:07 June 15, 2006 UTC

{{db-corp}}

I am flabbergasted: somebody used one of these babies on a substub (Tehnoton), which I was reviewing off of C:CSD. WTF?? Since when are corps within the meaning of CSD A7? Every now and again someone will try to stretch this {{db-group}} argument, but it's invariably rejected. Where did you get consensus to create this? - because this is not policy! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just agree, and I will zap it, G7. You don't want that thing around - trust me. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops - just went red. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO

Thanks for your comment... WP:BIO isn't something that I agree with. After perusing the arguments, I think the fact that Misplaced Pages is not paper should result in a very low threshold for inclusion. There will always be argument about exactly where the threshold should be, and my opinion will be for a near infinitesimal threshold, as long the point of view is neutral, the information is verifiable, and no copyright is broken. Snugspout 22:50 June 15 2006 (UTC)

Alofoque

Hello Mangojuice. I undeleted this article which I speedy deleted yesterday as Badlydrawnjeff told me that there was an assertion that I missed. Feel free to redebate it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm tryin to make it a point to protest out of process deletions such as Alofoque. I'm pretty sure they meet WP:MUSIC, but I won't protest this one much further if the full-term AfD shows that no one cares, as it is admittedly borderline. But as it wasn't a speedy, people weren't able to debate it properly, thus my protest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Shock Sites

Excuse me, Im really intent on knowing this. Why do you keep on removing the shock site porkhole.net? It's not spam, it has one small advertisment on the bottom for tshirthell. And one passion add on the links page. I am against spam. Plus, meatspin.com has more advertisment taking up the home page then the shock video. Porkhole on here is a referrence for people to stay off this site, or choose to go to it at there own will. Why do you take it off?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.244.93 (talk • contribs)

Ain't My Bitch

Yep, it was added after the prod notice. Thanks! NawlinWiki 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Donegal People

Strictly speaking, I reverted a speedy to a version of the article that had contents after the page was seemingly blanked...

Seems I forgot to remvoe the prod tag.

BTW I happen to think that page should stay!

ShakespeareFan00 15:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are You Lonesome Tonight? (album)

You were right to note that Are You Lonesome Tonight? (album) is a real album, but it isn't an Elvis album. Two reasons the article was proposed for deletion were

• it wasn't on the Elvis Presley discography and
• it was using an image from a single release as an album cover.

Your de-prodding and de-hoaxing left the article in its original but still misleading state. Although I have little interest in the topic, I went ahead and turned it into something that is as least more accurate than it was before. Check it out and do what you will to verify and improve it and the related articles I just finished editing. Thanks. 66.167.252.241 (talk · contribs) 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Monovox

Thanks for informing me. I guess I should have simply been bold and make the individual articles into redirects. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mangojuice,

Thank you for your work on the Schaeffer/Heenan/Monovox articles. I was stunned when I saw they were marked for deletion just a day after I added them and then further stunned when I saw the work you did including the citations. Your article was considerably better and more useful than my original and at the same time you saved it from deletion.

When I got the original notice that I was marked for deletion, I found a sick sort of humor in it. I thought to myself that after 10 years of playing and recording as a musician, I wasn't even worthy of a Misplaced Pages entry, despite the record deal and all that. Thanks to you at least some of the story is now preserved and can be shared.

So, thank you for taking charge of this. I am amazed that with all the articles that must be submitted daily, that you not only saved mine from deletion but took what obviously must have been a significant amount of your personal time to improve and cite the article.

Clearly it is people like you that continue to make Misplaced Pages such an incredible resource of information.

With kind regards, Matthew Schaeffer

P.S. Any reason why the picture was removed? Might I try to post it again or would it be preferable to post a picture of the entire band? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxy (talk • contribs)

Shock sites, what do you think?

Hey, it's me again! ;-) I was wondering, do you think I should list the shock sites article on AfD? The article is basically unverifiable, a common target for vandalism/spammers and it can't really be expanded. They've only become verifiable due to trolls using them in specific forums, but does that really make it notable? How can you measure notability with shock sites? It also encourages the usage of them. I guess you could say I'm asking you for your advice, and yes I'm aware that it has been to AfD several times already so I'll need a good argument. Thanks.--Andeh 17:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you ready?

Are you back and ready for an RfA? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA nomination

• You checked your email, right?? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• You have to add your RfA to the main page at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. Its pretty clear on there that I cannot add it myself. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Porkhole.net

Well, we recieved one review. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Shock_site The site has been up for 2-3 months. So gradually gaining popularity, but I would classify this as prominent. So could we add it to the "other shock sites" list at the least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.244.93 (talk • contribs)

(Porkhole.net) Ehh....Reliable source? I can name a couple of sites that link to me, as well as I have been linked to brad.com lemonparty.org and meatspin.com before. And on a rare occasion am listed on brad or lemonparty. But I am on here http://www.grossweblinks.com/ and here http://www.keara.org/ and entensity http://www.entensity.net/?content=406page1 And several miscellaneous forums, and people put my site on myspace.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.244.93 (talk • contribs)

Why brad and moid?

What's the reason for them to be removed from the Shock Site page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.50.231 (talk • contribs)

==crypto =/= munition?, and kudos ==

MJ,

Great work on getting crypto through the featured process. I think I was the last person to try it, and even Matt opposed then. I think we'll make it this time.

On another topic, you seem to have heard something i've not about US policy re crypto. After the exchange on this, I thought I had clarified my qualms about the plain statement that it is no longer classed as munition. Can you point me someplace on this point? As it were...

Thanks, and congrats again. ww 04:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Contract bridge

Hi. You might be interested in participating in new Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Contract bridge. Regards, Duja 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for kind welcome and info about Torres article

Thanks for noting surprise no one's welcomed me before now. It's been a real education these last months. I entered wikipedia initially to develop and protect and improve one article (on the U Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike), but in the process, I've found that I'm very interested in general AfD discussions. In short, I think I'm in this for the rest of my life. Am very excited about working on a collaborative project like this. But will now get back to work so as not to lose my job. Best, Universitytruth 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pimp Image

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the comment. --cholmes75 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Prods on redirects

Thanks for your note Re:Prod tags left on redirects. I didn't know redirects couldn't be prodded, and that seems to actually conflict with the information on Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. I guess if there must be a lengthy process to remove unlikely redirects, I'll go thru it. :( I'll check out the Prod talk page, and try to formulate some sort of coherent statement. Thanks. --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the pointers.--Firsfron of Ronchester 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion process

Thanks for pointing out the intro page. I must have missed that one. A little heads up: based on some recent comments at AFD, User:Ste4k may be a bit confused on CSD's. And congrats on the adminship (I'd add my support but that would be piling on). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on featuring Cryptography

Hi Mangojuice, congratulations on getting the article Cryptography featured. This is a topic I am glad to see featured, and you did an excellent job taking into account all the comments (and I hope mine helped improve the article). Cheers, Schutz 17:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right, regarding the fact that most nominators do not intend to actually work on the proposed featured articles they nominate. I also think that most of them do not even read the requirements — just look at the number of nominations that get rejected because of lack of any reference. And I am also a big fan of the process, by the way... Cheers, Schutz 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Cryptography FA

M, Good job on getting Cryptography past the FA dragons. I've tried several times and failed in each instance, including this very article. Thanks for the effort. Will you go to the Project page and update the featured/proposed section? Or, if you wish, I will, just drop me a note.

On another topic, I may be the last to add my support (head down blinders keep me out of the breaking news loop), and given the lack of opposition, it's obviously only dilly-dallying amongst the powers-that-be which prevent you from joining the ranks. Welcome to the (is it one?) club. ww 18:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

blinders

M, Well, the blinders are apparently appearing in inability to remember anything, and to miss things later on anyway.

As for digital signature, I agree that it could be a featured candidate. I would point out though, that there is a lot of very unsophisticated perspective on the topic, and the attempt to understand the cryptographic contingencies and all will be difficult. I'll help as needed, if you'd like. ww 01:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

PROD "Be proud of New Jersey"

Make sure that you watch the page; the person who writes the article likes to remove tags that are placed in it. I looked in the history, and they have done that before. i am not against this article, but it looks very suspicious, and I think it needs to be taken care of. --No1lakersfan 16:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

P. K. van der Byl

Just a note to thank you for sorting out the references on this article. It must have been a lot of work and it's certainly improved the article. To recognise it I'm awarding you the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services. David | Talk 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

You deserve it! - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pile on congrats! Yanksox 20:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and LOL! I didn't recall taking part in that FAC... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!Abcdefghijklm 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from kungfu!!!--Kungfu Adam 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was only happy to vote neutral because I didn't see any chance of your RfA failing, just a matter of principle. :-) --Andeh 21:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian {T C @} 22:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Now you have this to look forward to. Iolakana| 22:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

• Administrators' reading list
• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrator's Noticeboard

• Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrator's Noticeboard for Three-revert-rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations...

Hey, congratulations on your successful RFA... Between the FAC and this, I see that you can't stop putting thank you messages on my talk page ;-) All the best, Schutz 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been doing it to mine as well. Noticed that mine are sort of mango colored? Coincidence? I think not... And from me also, congratulations. ww 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on your new position, though I did not fully support, I now believe you are ready for the job because of all the other voters. Hope to see a positive impact from you. Congratulations again. --WillMak050389 22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! Syrthiss 12:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck and congratulations with your new tools. Here are a couple of suggestions:

• Archive your talk pages, it's very very long.
• When you feel tempted to block always remember WP:FAITH and give the benefit of the doubt.

Block of 202.72.148.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Blocking of this ip can cause collateral damage as I am aware from past experience. We have a very persistant vandal making use of this ip address. I will unblock for now, but I suspect our vandal will shortly return. He's made threats of doing so as recent as this morning. I'll keep an eye on things from here, but from past experiences 15 minute blocks do little to solve the problem. Thanks for the reminder. -- Longhair 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

• We are all very proud. *sheds a little tear* youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Congratulations. I wish you all the best in your new role. --Bhadani 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

cryptography edits on the 4th

M, I've tried to review the changes you made in my wake on this date, but find some WP behavior has mostly defeated me. Do you also find that some presentations of 'compare versions' produce very long lines such that the previous version takes up the entire browser window, crowding the later version off to the right? Unworkable, I find.

Anyway, as nearly as I can somewhat dinly make out, I agree with some, disagree with others, of your changes. On the disagreements, it is almsst always with a change you have made when I was attempting to sneak an informational context into the reader's mind. For instance, I mentioned DES' more secure variant in the discussion about standards, and I did so for an explicit and carefully considered reason. I was attempting to slide in the idea that variants of algorithms can have quite differetn properties. Via the readers peripheral perception, as it were. Without a direct assult with a verbal 2 x 4. A useful point to be made in attempting to get the Average Reader up to some sort of speed re modern crypto practice. There were some others of this type if my (limited as you will recall from my RfA vote(s)) memory worked well enough to understand what I was seeing.

In other cases, you've gotten the idea I was after better than I had. Let me see if I can find a way past this infuriating contrast behavior and manage a more substantial reaction. ww 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

cryptography edits and nr of the beast

M, I understand the oddities of reading the compare versions screens, I just haven't figured out when and why (and what to do about) the far too wide display. If you did remove the observation about block mode, and it's what I think I remember, I was trying to sneak something in there as well. Algorithms, even good ones, can be worthless if not properly used. There is no goodhousekeeping seal of crypto approval -- a significant reality which is fairly (if not brutally) includable inan intro article.

And yes, I expect that our divergences are related to exactly what you suggest -- my attempts to build more into the Average Reader's mind, in preparation for more info about crypto, or just genral context than you attempt to do. If I recall correclty the long series of edits I did added no more than a dozen or two words, so I thought them not unacceptable on those grounds.

As for 666, by using gematria (?, I think I have the term right) a common phrase for Nero adds up to the 666. But, there is an early anuscript in which the nr is 616, which is the addition for another common phrase for Nero. And no, though I have actually seen a referencable paper on this, I can't supply a pointer. I'll flog my brain and try to remember. Kahn might have something, but my copy is packed up. ww 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

reverted edit in Aristasia discussion (readded Chameleon's comment)

My apologizes. I have added the comment back in and put a little comment next to it. Is that ok?

It's up to you, but I personally think Aristasia should be removed from AfD, because it has notablilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerhun00 (talk • contribs)

Everything Linux

Thanks for the undeletion. I'm actually an admin myself, so I could have done it, but didn't want to step on any toes! -- Chuq 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position

I consider it patent nonsense. No meaningful content in the context of the article name. Because of its subjective nature it doesn't really serve the purpose it intends. whatever that may be. --Crossmr 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

hello?

I am new to this. are you there?

Edit warring again. Please help.

Hi! Thank you for your message and for the warning to User:Kuban kazak. Unfortunatelly, Kuban kazak was not the only one who provoked the edit war. Two more users Irpen and Grafikm_fr provoked the edit war by removing the dispute tags ,, .

Irpen started it again today on another article (in fact, the tag has been explained ). I will not restore the tag, otherwise I will be again accused for "revert warring". Still, delition of properly inserted dispute tags is against the policy. The community has to do something to stop it. Please help me to solve this problem.--AndriyK 18:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to ask uninvolved users. By all means! I would also appreciate more opinions on that. --Irpen 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

assuming "proper choice and implementation" edit

M, Still struggling with odd browser presentation of compare function. The asuuming line was intentional for the following reaosn. It is insufficient, for the Average Reader, to leave it at rarely the cause. In fact, screwing either pooch, even with the same primitive will vitiate the claim. Should be qualified, for the Average Reader, since they will not in general realize that this is underlying assumption. painful experience speaketh here. More later. ww 23:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my esperience has been quite different. I find that folks (the non crypto sort) are remarkably capable of missing obvious points and aren't put out at all by making the boundaries of this twisty stuff apparent. Lots forget anyway, but they seem glad of the distinction at the time. Looks like our experience is different. i gather from the odd comment that yours might be in academia. Mine's largely industrial, and so with less committed folks. I suspect rather close to our Average Reader. Anyway, I'm still wrestling with comntrast presentations in my browser. I wonder if it's just Firefox. I'll fire up IE and see if its any better. ww 04:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Caron

Survey etiquette

If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias.

Good: "Hey, Bob, could you tell me what you think about this discussion? I think your input could help"

I am using the exact copy from the survey guideline in order not to get accused/blocked for recruiting. Could you please check the discussion there, Bob?

85.70.5.66 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please help

You message helped to stop tag-removal edit war at Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko). Could you please help at Ukrainization as well? Here the incident was repoted .

Thanks.--Mbuk 22:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Hey, great work with closing AfDs. Just to let you know, if you relist an AfD (such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Blink Intrusion Prevention System), you should also comment out the AfD (such as here) from the old daily log page to help the Mathbot correctly process AfD statistics. Thanks! --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing other users comments

Removing other users comments

You wrote: Hey -- removing other users' comments is a form of vandalism. You did so here. Also, referring to edits that are clearly made in good faith as vandalism is very uncivil. Is there an explanation for this? I know MaitresseMarlene was making a first edit to Misplaced Pages in an AfD debate that had attracted a lot of edits from anons, but in such a circumstance, you should simply add a note to the AfD remarking that the previous commenter was a new account; don't remove their comments. Mangojuice 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, very good point. I was trying to remove the link to the porn she was trying to peddle in the AfD and made a mess of it. I wasn't sure adding an external link to porn was part of the AfD process for a London DJ. Thanks for bringing my erroneous edit to my attention, rest assured vandalism was the last thing on my mind. Apologies. Budgiekiller 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

curious

Just a note of curiosity. Why are you leaving this talk page? And also, why does it say that the result of the discussion was "keep"? The first nomination was withdrawn and the second nomination you handled yourself, "delete" ?? Please see the diff Ste4k 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the tag, my bad. Anyway, the reason I'm leaving the talk page is that it contains discussion relevant to the topic. The community didn't reject inclusion of the topic in the AfD, so it's of some value. Mangojuice 18:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The topic was actually a different topic than the other article, i.e. what they referred to as a POV fork. That had me convinced to simply concede the matter and work on the other article instead. I checked the "What links here" box, and there doesn't appear to be anything mentioned on the Talk page that is referenced anywhere else. If you believe that it should be kept, then perhaps you should merge it with the other article. That would seem (to me) a bit odd though, since the sources about court cases and so forth haven't any mention in the other article at all. By the way, I have this discussion on my watch list, and would appreciate if you find this page easier to read that we carry on this discussion here. Thanks. Ste4k 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, whatever, I'll just do a cut and paste. But your talk page is something that needs to be fixed. You have it set up with an unreadably small font size, with light purple text on a dark purple background. To a degree, you can do what you want with your user and user:talk page, but this is just ridiculous. Your user talk page is used to communicate with you, and if people can't read it, it's a real problem. Have you considered setting your browser's default font size to something smaller? After looking through your talk page, I find that I'm the fourth person to complain about the format, so it's not just me. Mangojuice 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind; instead, I made a redirect from A Course in Miracles (book) to A Course in Miracles, and left the talk page alone. It's good for it to be there, so anyone wanting to recreate the article will realize one already exists, and that this one was deleted, et cetera. Mangojuice 19:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for a second opinion about this. As it is, it is only a reminder of a misunderstanding between two users that has since been cleared up amicably. I would prefer to let bygones be bygones. There isn't anything useful on this page that isn't more fully developed in the AfD discussion itself. If you would like to check with the other user, please feel free to contact them. Ste4k 19:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My talk page.

Seeing that this is a completely different topic, it would be best to discuss it as such. According to the documentation on Talk Pages, under Etiquette: "Feel free to decorate your personal pages as you see fit, but keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose." I believe that you have demonstrated that you can easily contact me by using that page and therefore can communicate with me. The readibilty of other peoples' comments on that page does not fit any criteria and the page is intended for communcation with me, not for your own personal curiosity about other articles or comments made from other users about the size of text which fits normally on my screen. If you believe that these complaints are worthy of a policy discussion, please let me know. Thanks. Ste4k 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to raise a huge stink about it, no, but communication is not just a one-way thing, and it's important and useful to be able to look at the other comments people have left. For instance, if I hadn't, I wouldn't have known that others had complained about the readability. What I'm going to do is raise the issue on WP:AN and see what people say. Mangojuice 20:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement, in my opinion, contradicts itself. Had other users felt that the matter was worth escalation, they would have brought the matter to your or the attention of other adminstrators. Please be advised that your own edit that defeated the ease of use in communicating with me, was in my opnion a demonstration rather than any attempt to discuss the matter. It is clear that you already had knowledge of how to make your own entry on the page readable for yourself. In the case of warning messages, such as 3RR, there is a policy, however, there are no warning messages on my Talk page. By escalating this matter, please be advised, that I consider your actions disruptive to my normal course of affairs in editing articles rather than helpful in any way. Ste4k 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for acting before discussion, that was ill-advised here. I was actively assuming good faith when I did that: that is, assuming that you didn't realize how completely unreadable your talk page was. I won't interfere directly again, but I wanted to "escalate" this b/c I am geniunely interested in what the community thinks. Mangojuice 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted, and please feel free to discuss the matter with the community as long as you don't make the matter personal with me. I have a hard enough time fitting in here, quite possibly due to age difference, culture difference, education/experience difference, etc. I haven't any reason to believe that you are acting in other than good faith. I appreciate your comments, but for your own benefit, please keep in mind that diversity among editors is what creates a well rounded Misplaced Pages experience. Thanks. Ste4k 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't understand me the first time and decided to make me a personal issue. I will not forget this and I am so upset that I will probably no longer participate on this encyclopedia. Good day. Ste4k 01:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, whether the info in this article is really verifiable.

Th article Pakistani Jews seems to be speculative in nature, as it's based on a dubious newspaper article also written by the author of the article. Is it not unusual that the article begin with the name of the author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiazTehka (talk • contribs)

PWI 500

Just a note to let you know that I created a cheap redirect at PWI 500 to catch Googlers and discourage recreation. Just letting you know so if you saw a blue link there that no monkey business had gone on. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PS-Hows adminship treating you?

fixing my monitor

I have been a professional Systems Programmer and Systems Administrator for the better part of my life. I have over thirty years of experience in the field as well as have several times fought off cases of tendonitis in my wrists. I am old, cranky, and wear glasses as thick as coke bottles. Do NOT presume to be an expert in the medical field and tell me how to preserve what little eyesight I have remaining. I started working on main frames before the back space key was invented. NO LIE. We had IBM cards back in those days and if you screwed up a line, you tossed it on the floor and started all over again. I do NOT need help with my screen settings, and it is difficult to work on Misplaced Pages enough as it is. I explained this to you before. Now people are disrupting my normal activities just exactly as I afore mentioned. Why??? Did you NEED to point out my Talk Page instead of relying on a verbal description? Please, as an administrator, address the disruptive behavior of the user Mboverload who has taken it upon himself to change my comments and further make it difficult to read my messages. Thank you. Ste4k 02:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)