Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 7 May 2007

Administrators: if you want to overturn one of my administrative actions, and I don't appear to be active, go ahead, so long as the action wasn't an overturning of your action. Use common sense, naturally. Mangojuice 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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 9 Jun 2006 – 12 Jul 2006 12 Jul 2006 – 26 Aug 2006 26 Aug 2006 – 19 Oct 2006 19 Oct 2006 – 3 Dec 2006 3 Dec 2006 – 16 Mar 2007

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!

Vertigo UTS

Hey, I was just wondering why Vertigo (UTS) was deleted in its entirety, especially without any discussion or notice? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.3.73 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

It was under Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7, as a club with no claim of notability. Mangojuice 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How can a claim of notability be lodged or displayed? Vertigo is the student newspaper at my university and has a significant reputation amongst the student population there. I don't know the exact statistics, but its something like 30,000 students who are enrolled. There are also wikipedia articles covering other student newspapers across Australia, many of which don't have such a reputation in their area? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.35.148 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, a good start would be to find reliable, independent sources that discuss the student paper. If it's important enough to cover, then someone else would have written about the newspaper, and all information about the newspaper included in the article should come from independent sources like this. Mangojuice 12:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Cool.. We'll I did a quick google search for "uts vertigo" (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=uts+vertigo) and the first 8 Pages were all referring to the publication (although with the occasional reference to the sickness, as you'd expect). It has been referred too in some more significant places such as the major local paper, The Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/campuses-succumb-to-corporate-world/2007/01/23/1169518709563.html - I've noticed it published in there more often when regarding student issues, but can't find digitised copies), in Academic writings (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/Aug06/Griffen-Foley%20Media.htm), Assorted online journals (http://www.reportage.uts.edu.au/stories/2005/media/leader.htm), recommended by PR people for its Promotional Opportunities (http://www.indieinitiative.com/ifShowHeadline.asp?ID=5585), but the bulk of it is filled with references from within the university departments and faculties, as you can see if you flick through the results.

I was under the impression that the original page only covered the basics such as what it was, where it was published, who writes it (the current editors names can be found in the pdf copy of their latest edition on their website, http://sa.uts.edu.au/vertigo/ ). I don't think it was included in the original article, but in looking all this stuff up I also found their readership and circulation information in their media kit too which could be put there? I don't know if thats appropriate though as its straight from their mouths, but then again all readership and circulation information comes from the magazine which publishes it lol. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.236.239 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Nice research. If you want to recreate the article, go ahead, and try to use these sources as much as possible. Sadly, having perused a couple of them, they seem to say very little about the paper: basically, that they exist, and that they have reacted to the funding cut that many student organizations have recently faced. I don't know about using Vertigo's own media material to back up claims that the paper is notable, but you can try it, it's better than not having any source. But this certainly passes the A7 test if those sources are included.. but that doesn't mean it will pass all the general inclusion guidelines; see WP:N and WP:ORG for some guidelines that are the "real" test. Basically, speedy deletion is just a set of basic simplified things that shouldn't be that hard to pass. I'm going to undelete the article, in case you want to use it as the basis for a more thorough one. Mangojuice 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll see what I can do. Let me know if there's something to tighten up or whatever. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.44.187 (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I did some work on it the other day, what do you think about the article now?

motion capture

I have resisted re-listing our company information on the motion capture web pages. Could someone less biased than I am please police it. Several companies are now listing themselves including the one that first challenged me. I lose either way. I'm banned, and they aren't, and I look vindictive. Tmcsheery 06:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PrimeFan and CompositeFan

Am I the only one who thinks the names might be a little suspicious? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your historical image being deleted

Hi. I'm TechnoFaye and I'm writing this because you had a perfectly good image you uploaded marked for deletion by Abu Bidali. You should know that he does this because he thinks it's funny; he even says so on his user page. More then 20 other editors just like us are parties to several formal complaints to Misplaced Pages in an effort to have him banned permanently for doing just what he did to you. Others have described him on the record as a "hoodlum" and a "vandal". My testimony was that "Bidali would be just as happy breaking antennas off cars at night". After he is gone, we can repair the damage he has done to WP. If you haven't already, please consider adding your name to the lists at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Users_Who_Endorse_This_Summary http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Users_who_endorse_this_summary:_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Users_who_endorse_this_summary:_4 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Users_who_endorse_this_summary

More DFs

Here are 20 more articles, including one that was from DF, it was just merged from one of his articles to a stub. I am on the last section, but am pretty busy IRL. Almost done with this mess though. (Then I might have time to help out LordAmeth with contributions here) Thanks! --Kuuzo 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RFC

Any reason you haven't ever given a response in your RfC? It's at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abu badali. Mangojuice 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something specific you want me to reply? I don't see how I could be helpful there. There are some critics and a ton of personal attacks. The critics are welcome, but there's anything I'd like to add. And I won't take the time to reply the personal attacks, or baseless (diffless) accusations.

The whole rfd is strange from the beginning. What's exactly being disputed there? Read the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abu badali#Statement of the dispute and try to discover, because I couldn't. Read Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abu badali#Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute and help me to find the "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute".

At some point, it turned into a place for editors dump their rant about me. And as I work mainly with image cleaning, there are a lot willing editors. --Abu badali 16:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mangojuice/Trivia

I apologise for the delay in responding: I inadvertently skipped over your comment and did not actually see it until today, while archiving my talk page.

I think your change has made the essay more descriptive and significantly more informative. It defines the issue and its various manifestations, and identifies the problems it poses. It provides recommendations for addressing trivia sections and articles, but also specifies the limitations of each approach. The addition of the section regarding the danger of wading into original research while trying to transform a series of trivial facts into a general conclusion was, in my opinion, particularly prudent.

I am not sure whether I agree about your argument that plain lists are preferable to annotated ones (largely because I read the revised version just 15-20 minutes ago), but you make a good argument and it's certainly something to think about. My hesitance, so far, is this: if an item that is noteworthy enough to be listed lacks any annotation, how will a reader know what the connection is without reading the linked article?

Are you considering moving this into the Misplaced Pages namespace as an essay? It would be a valuable addition and a useful aid when dealing with trivial information. I think I might even supporting turning it into a guideline (as an extension of WP:TRIV, perhaps). Cheers, and kudos for your great work, Black Falcon 08:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

In my opinion we should have one page on the subject rather than two (in part of the general plan to reduce the overall byzantine confusingness of Wikispace). Thus my suggestion would be to find the consensually-accepted parts of the essay and add those to the guideline, and replace the essay with a redirect. Then again that's my opinion and there are probably some different opinions out there. >Radiant< 08:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

SCI

Hi there! I would really appreciate it if you amended your comment on the village pump, because it is misleading. Polls are not, and have never been, the means of creating guidelines. What's going on is a discussion, and the people in opposition need actual arguments rather than an opinion of dislike. >Radiant< 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanx...

...for Lentulo spiral. DRosenbach 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: WP:ACID

Sorry, I fixed it and made it a nomination for Liquid ffm ✎talk 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough

• I am griping that the WP:SCI guidelines and implication are flawed, giving a relevant AfD article as an example. This seems fare, though unpopular. --Iantresman 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Correct, scientific notability is not the only notability criteria (it's not about liking it). And I see that the introduction now reflects this. --Iantresman 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for unblocking me. I see no reason for blocking other users on wikipedia. Even if it is the same IP address. ♥Chocolate♥ Munch- Crunch 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list

I have flagged this at WP:DRV, primarily since a number of participants recommended "keep" on the basis that the article was well-referenced, and those references demonstrated notability. The references have since failed to stand up to scrutiny, and at least one of them was completely false, thus I feel the participants in the debate may have been unintentionally misled. Chris cheese whine 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bikini Carwash Company

• There is a vote for deletion under way. I think you might be interested. Hektor 14:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I understand from Yamla that you may be able to give me some info. I am an admin on Wikibooks and we have just acquired a user called Darin Fidika - anything you'd care to share (here or offline)? Realising that there were issues with Nihonjoe (according to Darin) I felt it worth approaching someone else involved, hope you don't mind - cheers --Herby 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, a couple of us are watching things (& I'm CU on books so that is covered too). Regards --Herby 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Response

Oh, ok thanks for letting me know. --Yummie 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Denajua2hotmail.com (talk · contribs)

I'll take it to WP:RFCN, but I'm curious on how this is not a obvious violation of WP:U in regards to web domain names in usernames? Cheers - RJASE1 01:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Domenico Selvo

A few months ago, you helped me out in getting this article started. Now I think it is close to ready for FA nomination. If you could help me out in this peer review before I go to FAC, I would be eternally grateful. Thank you very much, JHMM13 09:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your suggestions in this peer review. I'd like to thank you very much and I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. As the Italians would say, sei un drago! Thanks a lot, and I eagerly anticipate your response. JHMM13 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded again. I've tried to move things around with the images and the quote box, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what looks good. I think the quote box is good where it is now, but that creates issues with the last image which I think is pretty important to illustrate the mosaics. The Lido painting is now on the left, but I'm unsure about how it looks considering it's right under the header. Hope you can help, JHMM13 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded and changed around the article a bunch. :-) JHMM13 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You have been a huge help :-D JHMM13 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Domenico Selvo. I hope you have a chance to check it out and I will continue carefully addressing any concern you might have. Thanks again, JHMM13 23:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

vigilantes

Ah, okay. I was already wondering why the images were "removed" in the first place. Thought the wikipedia image tags had been modified or something. Thanks for the info. ;) --WhiteShark 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anthony Minnuto

An article that you have been involved in editing, Anthony Minnuto, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anthony Minnuto. Thank you. --A. B. 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PS Your here are your edits for reference:

User:Wikitful and User:Wikifect

I had nothing to do with either of those being blocked, I merely denied unblocking. Wikitiful tried to undelete the article that Worthadonkey and his various other socks continually recreated. Wikifect I denied unblocking on the basis that he was warned even though he claimed that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. I have no idea why he was labeled a sock other than the similarity in names. IrishGuy 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of my motives for WP:ER

Mangojuice I honestly and without hostile intent of any kind must ask you if my request for a WP:ER really came off as a WP:RFC how am I supposed to get feedback about my behavior as an editor? I can't take Justanother's word for it since I believe much of what he has done for the past few weeks is out of line with what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be. I also can't rely on the views of editors I'm friendly with because they will most likely not want to hurt my feelings. Finally I would like to hear from more than one uninvolved party to ensure fairness and perhaps alternate views.

I am going to be requesting another WP:RFC on Justanother's behavior with Smee and a few others. We have been gathering examples of how Justanother's behavior is disruptive and deceptive, User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3.

He asked that the first WP:RFC be deleted and when no admins would, a friend of his and the same admin that advised Smee her efforts weren't sufficient to warrant the RfC deleted it. The whole point of the RfC was to get the communities opinion about whether or not Justanother's very positive view of his religion is disrupting editing on articles related to said religion.

I apologize if this sounds like the writings of someone who is in an edit war or personality conflict, I can explain why they are actually not that. Since I have been unable to pursue any aspect of Dispute Resolution with Justanother I'm left to wonder if the system is broken or if I am wrong. Usually when people say that, they are saying the system is broken. I am not that arrogant, which is why I wanted the editor review on MY behavior. Anynobody 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN

I edit conflicted with your close of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names/John A. Robinson . Feel free to revert me, but as we're making the same point it might be better if my comment stays. As you like... WjBscribe 01:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I kind of see your point about WP:DENY. Still, Misza doesn't go in for "ooh this might be too similar to a living person" kind of blocks. He blocks the obviously offensive and clear sockpuppets/vandal names. Everyone in that discussions let themselves be lead on wild goose chase because they tried to mind read the blocking admin. The RFC was started at 21:11 and Misza is first contacted at 21:18- that's ridiculous... WjBscribe 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I apolagize if the unblock stepped on your toes. In the future, please use more appropriate block descriptions. The ONLY reason I unblocked the user (and I checked first) was the block description was usernameblock. In the context of usernameblock alone, it did not appear to be a valid block. If the description has stated vandal username, or something of the sort, I would have asked first. I apolagize if the unblock was innapropriate.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad! I did not realize you were not the blocking admin. Thanks for the advice, I will ask in the future before unblocking. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names/John A. Robinson

I noticed you closed it with disallow, but the consensus was clearly allow. And I stated that John Robinson is a common name, but you misteriously say it's impersonation of a vandal's name. I thought "Johnny the Vandal"'s name is very different from John Robinson. Can you explain a little bit? Thank you! Wooyi 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Robinson case

I agree with you that sometimes "consensus" cannot decide blocking. However, I have personally checked the category along with the vandal's checkuser, but I still cannot be convinced. The reason is follows:

1. If Johnny the Vandal only uses Robinson as the last name, it might be him, but if you look more deeply into Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Johnny the Vandal, he uses more than one common last names, like "Mayer", "Parry", "Agnew" (impersonating a former vice president?), etc. The John A. Robinson may well be a new person with the real name John A. Robinson, for example, John Alan Robinson, a mathematician.
2. The contribution history of User:John A. Robinson has nothing, not even vandalism, clearly not a vandal.
3. When an admin block someone, he might even be unaware of the block, the reason is that many admins today use automation bots or scripts with admin tools, a policy gray area that now results in an ArbCom case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Typically an admin isn't supposed to use his admin account as bots, but according to the ArbCom case they certainly do it.

If you have evidence or argument that can prove he is the vandal, please state them and I might be convinced. Thank you!

-Wooyi 02:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think myself shouldn't get involved in this. But I was worrying about if John Alan Robinson really comes to Misplaced Pages and get blocked right away it would be too bad, as he is a mathematician and myself is a student highly interested in math. Happy editing! Wooyi 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it's the lack of communication combined with the lack of shared common knowledge - it is not necessarily a lack of common sense. If the block had mentioned "known sockpuppet pattern" or anything besides merely 'UsernameBlock', then people would not have been so confused. Explanation as you provided cleared up a lot for me. I could have suspected something along those lines even with just a hint 'sockpuppet' in the block note. Maybe the same importance given to edit summaries would apply? Shenme 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said I was only worried that if it was indeed J. Alan Robinson the mathematician we would have lost a potential expert editor. As a student interested in math I feel in heart that we need more mathematicians on Misplaced Pages. Wooyi 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, WJB explained it to me. Happy editing! Wooyi 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Which box template?

Hello Mangojuice. In this edit in WT:SCI you boxed up part of a discussion, and I'm wondering if you used a template, and which one it was. I've been using {{hat}} and {{hab}} but they don't give much room for a descriptive comment. EdJohnston 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:U

Good edit at WP:U, that was a badly needed clarification. RJASE1 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mangojuice 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark anthony royle

Thanks for your action on that. Right in the middle of the RFCN process I was thinking I should take it to AIV. --EarthPerson 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement

Would you be willing to look in again at Traditional marriage movement? Your contributions there in the past were greatly appreciated! Sdsds 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional self-harmers

The AfD you linked to in the deletion log shows a "no consensus" result. Why did you delete the article? Is there a newer AfD with a "delete" result archived somewhere? If so, where? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 14:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Scotts33

Hi Mangojuice. I was just responding to your dealing with the situation at Scotts33. I think retrospectively I probably jumped the gun on reporting the user. What would your advice be regarding users blanking warning templates? I'm keen to stamp out vandalism and to ensure that fellow patrollers are aware if a user has caused trouble in the past but at the same time not wanting to go OTT. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

MJ, please reconsider your block of User:Ronbo76. He was reverting the removal of vandalism warnings, which is at least arguably vandalism itself. 3RR does not normally apply to reversion of vandalism. He may have been injudicious, but I don't think a block is needed. DES 05:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I replied more fully below, this user went way over the line, even if the exception applied in an unambiguous way. Mangojuice 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response Mangojuice. That and what you have written here clears things up more than the policy pages do. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A small bit of advocacy

I noticed you blocked User:Ronbo76 for repeatedly restoring warnings to a user talk page. You are correct, of course. However, I have also noticed that there is fairly widespread misunderstanding on this issue and many editors think that removing legitimate warnings is vandalism and thus exempt from 3RR. We probably need to do more to clarify this issue. I point this out only because I think Ronbo76 was acting in good faith, though without understanding the consensus on this issue.--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is related to my question above, being that it deals with the same talkpage. Agreed that User:Ronbo76 was acting in good faith. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for being resonable

Everyone learns that removing warnings isn't clear vandalism at some point. Perhaps Ronbo76 was learning the hard way, but JEEZ - I count over 10 reverts within a few hours, by that point common sense should really have kicked in. Although reverting vandalism (if it is truly blatant and obvious) is an "exception" to the 3RR, WP:3RR makes very clear that reverts of vandalism alone are not the best solution. In any case, it massively escalated a situation that really wasn't that big a deal in the first place. It struck me also that Ronbo and the others were putting the "rule" against removing warnings over common sense. The reason for that rule (which isn't even fully accepted anyway) is to prevent problem accounts from hiding previous warnings about their behavior. But when I looked at this situation I could tell right away that Scotts33 wan't removng the warnings for that purpose but was embarassed about the warning and wanted to be left alone, which in the end, is a reasonable request. Mangojuice 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis. Thank you for taking another look at it.--Kubigula (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How to do it?

If the person is a internet troll, how i am to describe them?

ScienceApologist (aka. Joshuaschroeder) has intentionally posted derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about me (and, inaddition, other things and people) in an established online community (aka., Misplaced Pages) to bait me (and others) into edit wars, etc ... not to mention, there has been computer attacks and other negative things originating from his computer system J. D. Redding 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Any comment? J. D. Redding 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just passing by to leave another message, but does he use his full name on WP? DGG 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GF Effort

What do you mean by no good faith effort was made. I responded that I have already been queried and pointed to the response. If you would like further discussion please advise. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

Just wanted to say a big thankyou for your help on RFCN and the reform, it's certainly important that we get a neutral view, your proposals and active closure of discussions will certainly help steer RFCN in the right direction Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Domenico Selvo

-D. Two and a half months is all it took! Thanks for the congrats...I'm very happy! JHMM13 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Darin Fidika is back

See Tathagata Buddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just thought you might be interested to know. ···日本穣 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think a block is a good idea on this one? Since Darin Fidika is blocked indefinitely and has obviously come back under another account? As far as I can tell, the new account hasn't caused problems, but... ···日本穣 23:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD vote

Hi. You previously voted in an AfD for Tim Bowles. Would you please pop over to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination) and give us your input again? Thanks. --Justanother 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

PROF

Replaced it with underdiscussion, for now. Still seems in dispute to me (that I've seen, the sub-guidelines have all fallen under a pretty good amount of dispute recently), but maybe that'll attract a few more people to the discussion. Seraphimblade 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a good time to have a respite from N discussions (smile)DGG 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Had no idea. (Ibaranoff24 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

Adventure Log

I'm one of the administrators of the FFXIclopedia website. It was you who ultimately deleted our Misplaced Pages entry here on this site. I only mention that as an intro because that is why I'm posting here (this has nothing to do with that old debate).

I still patrol the Final Fantasy XI article, and I came across a new edit that I think needs to be reviewed: Adventure Log. I read the rules for Articles for Deletion, and I'm still confused about all that I need to do to nominate an article. However, I am certain that that Adventure Log fails both WP:NOT and WP:WEB. Adventure Log is a webcomic that has one, (yes, just one) comic published so far. Although it is commissioned by Square Enix, the developers of Final Fantasy XI, that does not make the webcomic notable. I checked the web and I've seen only one other announcement about the webcomic that is not a forum.

I was wondering if, after having reviewed it yourself, whether you'd would agree with my assessment and nominate it for me. Any help you may offer is appreciated. --Rolks 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Dates

If every AfD close was that detailed and clear, things would be a lot better off around here. Good job. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In such a heavily contested debate, I feel it's important to come to a conclusion ...

Oh, please give me hope, that you are a manager in some company/organization, and some small portion of humanity is blessed with conclusions, rather than the drawn-out disasters usually seen. (Thank you) Shenme 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I really should be. But I'm not. Ah well, if this academia thing doesn't work out, perhaps. Mangojuice 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

question

hi - thanks for blocking 209.200.250.80 - the account made many more vandalizing edits than are showing on contributions - any idea how? the ones I'm aware of thanks - seems weird Tvoz |talk 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello Mangojuice, can you tell me why you think the result of this discussion was to merge? By my count, it was a three-way tie (no consensus). Appleseed (Talk) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD etc.

Mango, we lost momentum on our last thread at the TfD. Do we share any concerns about at unchecked growth of guideline pages? Is continuity important to you in perhaps a lesser degree in your hierarchy of concerns?

I'm not absolutely wedded to the template nor am I an absolute advocate for abolition of all sub-guidelines in the notability infrastructure. I just seek reasonable simplicity.

Your choice of forums was excellent! The XfD format keeps the pontification to a minimum, so the discussion remains more on target. I invited a wide range of participants to the TfD discussion, many of whom are my seemingly constant opponents, and I am really impressed with the discussion relative to what usually happens. This evening I’ve asked a few of the marginal contributors to reconsider their positions. I want my recruiting and lobbying to very above-board and transparent to you.

Can we close ranks to achieve the superior outcome for the benefit of WP? My count has your nomination receiving numerical support, though the arguments range from opposition to the template, to opposition to the message (in both directions), to opposition to my aggressive tactics; perhaps an unholy alliance as are so many coalitions. Let's not seek a pyrrhic victory for either "side," while we have such a diverse group poised to do a perhaps higher good for WP. Is there a common ground upon which we might agree? --Kevin Murray 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I took some time to read your user page and especially User:Mangojuice/delete. We are merely taking different routes toward the same goal. Why am I on the wrong side here? --Kevin Murray 05:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses

1. No, I'm not particularly concerned with the "unchecked growth of guideline pages," now that you mention it. From the point of view of what effect it would have on the encyclopedia, I just can't see it as anything remotely approaching a big deal. This is the appropriate perspective to have here: see WP:PPP for further explanation. I'm much more concerned that the guideline pages we do have are right: that they draw lines at reasonable places and are supported by community consensus. And it seems to me that you haven't been concerned with this, which really bothers me, because that does have an actual effect on the encyclopedia. I suppose that reducing instruction creep does fit into my priorities somewhere, but I have come to accept that (1) Misplaced Pages has a learning curve and always will, (2) the actual practices cannot be summed up succinctly, and (3) in the end, people in the debates use common sense and won't be distracted by minor details (if they are even aware of them). That said, there is no reason not to try to make the guidelines clearly explained and avoid them contradicting one another, and make it easy for users to navigate them.

2. Reasonable simplicity is not the actual practice in deletion debates. You need to get involved in them more, and then you'll see this.

I try to stay involved in XfD as I have time, but have been distracted lately. I try to limit my participation to one broad field which is biographic material, and limit my participation in AfD's where the outcome to delete is obvious (avoiding pile-on). I try to make my participation in-depth rather than drive-by and dedicate some time to most marginal articles trying to improve them and/or do more research. Since I do not take my participation lightly, my efforts at AfD while less numerous are quite time consuming.

Another favorite of mine is working in the clean-up pile, trying to turnaround problem articles. --Kevin Murray 16:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

3. The XfD process is a good process, yes. However, as I was worried would happen, the debate didn't stay focussed on the issue of the template, so I think it will be difficult for an outcome to be determined, which is too bad. As to your "recruiting and lobbying", it is borderline inappropriate per WP:CANVAS. I'm glad you've come clean to me, but you should come clean where it really matters: in the debate itself, and while you're at it you should mention that you advertised the debate widely in the first place, and explain your reasons for it. That will achieve real transparency.

• I'm happy to do as you say. But I disagree that an unbiased and systematic broadcast of the XfD notice is canvassing in violation of the spirit of the rules, but I will look at them more closely. My method was to include everyone who has been involved in the discussion at WP:N back through March, and at the other pages where the template was inserted. --Kevin Murray 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that was okay: I'm less convinced it's okay to solicit people to change their votes. But at least you're doing it in good faith, and in the open. Mangojuice 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

4. If you can agree that the goal is not to change the guidelines but to merely change their presentation, then I can agree, but that really doesn't seem to be your goal...but broad teamwork is not really required for that. I am not opposed to changing the guidelines when they're wrong but I am dead-set against changing them just because they are complicated. I can agree that in some cases, consolidation may be possible. I can also agree that we could do more to make the overall state of notability guidelines easier to access. Part of the problem you've been facing is building consensus for change to official guidelines. That's VERY hard to get, and for good reason: the guidelines are meant to reflect actual practice, so a strong consensus is needed to try to change practice by changing a guideline (see WP:PG). I'm not willing to do that unless there's a convincing case that the guidelines need changing - and for me, you'll have to do better than that they might confuse new users to convince me that change is necessary.

5. If you read my delete page, but think it has anything to do with simplifying guidelines, you need to read it again: the point there is to not forget that (1) deletion doesn't actually build anything, and (2) we should remember that deleting someone's work can cause hurt feelings, so people should be polite and sensitive in the process. Mangojuice 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• My point about your delete page is that it refects my broader philosophy. While we clearly disagree on tactics and the structure of the rules etc. I think that I agrre with your overall vision of where the project should go. --Kevin Murray 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Answers to deletion of Court Fields Gamers Club page?

I was wondering how come both my Court Fields Gamers Club pages have been deleted? You are down for the deletion of the page @ 20:52, on 20 April 2007.
Ben-Parslow

Could you help me write this article?

Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Hey - thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page earlier. Much appreciated. Will (aka Wimt) 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox church

You removed the copyvio tags on several pages copied from Orthodoxwiki, probably using their "Most OrthodoxWiki content may, unless otherwise noted, be freely used under the GFDL." I agree that is the apparently correct interpretation of it--Was this what you had in mind? Some of the pages seem to need renaming: List of American monasteries List of American saints List of American writers I left a note on the relevant talk pages. Is this the right way to do it? If not, please correct. Thanks, DGG 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Wiki

Thanks for directing me to the conversation at the WikiProject. Sorry I wasn't around early to help revert my tagging. I apologize if I was hasty, but I was acting on the best information I had at the time, a copyright page on OrthodoxWiki that specifically said copying to Misplaced Pages was a violation. I posted a little bit of a rant over at the WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy talk page that you may or may not want to read. I was also wondering if you could comment on LoveMonkey's possibly uncivil comments to me on my talk page. For background you may want to read User talk:LoveMonkey#Personal issues with me, but if you are busy or don't want to get involved, I understand. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Thanks Mangojuice will do. LoveMonkey 02:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
HEY you've got a DR in philosophy. Man help me with the demiurge page. PLEASE. Also I have been trying to brush up on the neoplatonism page and also create a page for Kenneth Guthrie and how about a page for Richard Wallid. I would love to do more for Proclus and also like to post from the Life of Plotinus about his exchanges with Origen. LoveMonkey 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To the first point ah man! To the second not a problem will do. LoveMonkey 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Mango, many thanks for stepping in and clearing things up in the copyright discussion about the material from the orthodox wiki. I apologize for muddying the waters - I was trying to keep us copyright compliant, based on what was on the orthodox wiki copyright page at the time. AGain, I thank you for all of your hard work to clean up my mess. -- Pastordavid 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist yet again

• User:ScienceApologist has added a "pseudophysics" category tag to the article on Non-standard cosmology with the bold claim that "parts of Arp and Alfven are considered pseudophysics.". *This is news to me, so I removed it, and noted that this is "unsubstantiated, unverifiable, uncited".
• An editor of User:ScienceApologist's experience knows that WP:V is FUNDAMENTAL to Misplaced Pages. But I now find that not only has User:ScienceApologist reverted the tag,, he's accused me of "POV pushing".
• This is getting on my bloody tits. (a) Including unverified tags (b) Reverting edits (c) Accusation of POV pushing.
• This does not make for a good editing environment, where editors assert their edits without justification, and make accusatory remarks instead of discussion. --Iantresman 08:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Organised persecution of ethnic Poles

I see that the result was

• Delete 4
• Merge 4
• Keep 5

How do you know the result was Merge?Xx236 11:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, I may misunderstands something. I understand the result of the disussion as Keep, numbers are numbers. I don't know the procedure, maybe you are right, but I the moment it seems strange to me. Xx236 11:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

hey

whats up? havent seen you in a while

Music

It seems that music has fallen back to an edit war. I put together Misplaced Pages:Notability (music)/rewriteas an example of a what I would like to see, and hope to get some feedback from all sides. I've included a general criterion which is a hybrid of a proposal at WP:N yesterday and a highly modified version of the exapmle at BIO. I respect your opinion; can I get some feedback? --Kevin Murray 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mango, thanks. You are right that it didn't change all that much except for subtle formatting changes, and creating a common area to avoid redundant listings between the types of musicians: performers, composers and others. It seemed like oncew this was done the "others" category could be eliminated. I tried not to eliminate any criteria line-items in this first attempt, but I think that there are many which are overly specific and thus semi-redundant. --Kevin Murray 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Username reports

I didn't know to report random letters to AIV, I will in the future. And the bot one, I didn't know it was a real last name. I didn't think it was a bot, but the username policy says having "bot" in the username is bad. I'm new to that area of Misplaced Pages so I was trying it out and made some learning errors. Thanks for the feedback. MECU≈talk 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Username Change

Hello my venerable wikipedian, Mangojuice. I have chosen to reattain the username "Darin Fidika" instead of "Tathagata Buddha". The account that I am currently using at this moment had been created solely to tell you this (since Tathagata Buddha had been blocked as well). None the less, I truly appreciate your descision on this matter; for I only wish to contribute the greatest of articles towards Misplaced Pages's cause. User:Darin Fidika (temp), April 27th (EST)

User talk:204.39.78.33

Just wondering why you blocked this user, if he hadn't vandalized after the last warning. I'm a new admin, so I'm a bit confused... · AndonicO 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for explaining. · AndonicO 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Mangojuice, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideas (retailer)

Your speedy deletion of Ideas (retailer) was uncalled for and I do plan on recreating the article. There should have at the very least been a change to proposed deletion with a chance for discussion. Very poor judgement.

Thank you

Thank you for your welcome message. That’s really nice of you. Elimerl 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Handling trivia

Is not part of the MOS. You may be thinking of Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections in articles. >Radiant< 12:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• The page is instructive (it tells people how to do things, i.e. a "help" page) as opposed to e.g. the manual of style, which is descriptive (it tells people what the standards are). I disagree that the help namespace is mainly limited to technical topics; judging by Allpages it contains any number of how-tos. To my knowledge that is the intent of that namespace. >Radiant< 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reverted by your request. I fail to see what the "essay" tag has to do with anything; the only real purpose of that tag is to indicate that certain pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace aren't guidelines or policy. It does not follow that anything without a tag is automatically "uncontroversial guidance" or anything. >Radiant< 13:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • beat me to it :) >Radiant< 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ilovemenwithhairybacks

Can you explain to me how this is an attack username, or in which way it violates the username policy? I don't see it. _InBC 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And why was his user page deleted? _InBC 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And why did you block account creation for a username block? _InBC 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I see it, good call, thanks for explaining. _InBC 17:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD guidelines?

I saw a RfA where you wrote "Suppose you looking around for XfD debates to close and you come across one that has, say 6 favoring deletion and 2 favoring keeping, and you think the article is rescuable from the unsourced/nn/possibly promotional state it is currently in. Under what circumstances would you not close the debate as a delete?"

I have seen 2 articles with a lot of potential on AfD but were very poorly written stubs. I then went on a furious effort to rewrite it immediately so that subsequent voters could see that the article was clearly suitable for retention (and others saw it and then voted to keep). Other times, I'm too busy to write a good article with references on the spur of the moment (as the AfD clock ticks). From your standpoint, under what circumstances would you not close the debate as a delete? Thanks in advance for your comments.VK35 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I do not believe that I was vandalising any page at all, becuase I considered that image quite distasteful. The only problem with it was it did not have a domain of it's own

Thank you (and a request)

Thanks for taking care of User:Michael_Layton. Can you remove his comments on my talk page? (blocked here at school for "banned word") Thanks! --Pupster21 Talk To Me 14:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!

Great work! Keep it up. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Our "friend" is back

Hi, you recently banned a sockpuppet of User:Englot (Refna). I'm afraid he is now back again under the user name of "Mekang", editing the same sorts of articles (e.g. Wild Swans). Can you please ban as sockpuppet again, but is there anything you can do like ban his IP or (I guess he's on a floating one) ban a wider-range of IP numbers based on what he's using? John Smith's 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if there is no way to block a range of IP addresses, could you extend Englot's block to indefinite unless he requests it be unblocked? John Smith's 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mango. I just don't have the time and experience to file reports like that. From what I see this guy isn't stopping - if you could file a report I would appreciate it. John Smith's 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

8 years...

I left a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Expired_long-term_block. I've no issue with your issued block, but I didn't see anything in the block log to indicate that you had actually done so. Did I miss something? — Scientizzle 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebub in popular culture

You completely erased the content of Beelzebub in popular culture and claimed that you were "merging" with Beelzebub and then redirected, yet no merge ever took place. That was highly deceptive, and also not a good plan as the vote to delete failed.

Furthermore, if you've looked around Misplaced Pages at all you would see that it is an extremely common practice to have "in popular culture" or "in fiction" articles spring off of a great number of articles to prevent the main articles from being filled with fictional references that are not overall notable to the main topic but which many people hav an interest in. Redirecting the in popular culture page to the main article completely flies in the face of longstanding practice here, and was a clear example of cowboy editing, as it also ignored the results of a vote on the topic. Please try to work within the standard practices of this project. DreamGuy 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)