Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mangojuice (talk | contribs) at 03:39, 20 August 2007 (→Requesting the text from a deleted page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mangojuice is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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)

First, WP:AGF. Second, don't insult me by acting like I don't know how things are done. Yes, people often make the horrible mistake of thinking that complete cruft like Beelzebub in popular culture should continue to exist, and pushing into a trash-heap article so they don't have to deal with it. See Misplaced Pages:"In popular culture" articles. It's a bad idea. That said, I care more for your opinion as an actual editor of one of the articles than for any of the "keep" opinions from editors who have never had any intention of cleaning up the crap. Here's the question: are you going to be watching the pop culture article and removing the crap? As long as crap gets removed, I don't care which article it's from. Third - why must Beelzebub (disambiguation) point to the pop culture article which isn't a disambig page, when Lord of the Flies (disambiguation) exists? Mangojuice 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You say not to talk down to you after your colossal mistake of forcing a redirect and deleting the article against consensus and insist that *I* clean up the "in popular culture" page if I want it there? No, sorry, doesn't work that way... But as the person who created Template:fictionlist and Template:fictioncruft I do go through and try to take care of lots of pages like that. Check my edit history, if nothing else. The creation of the "in popular culture" articles was a compromis move to keep nonsense off of the main article when so many people want to contribute but have nothing to contribute except crap. I agree that the crap should be cleared out if at posible, but we all know the great unwashed maases spend more time adding crap than good people have time to get rid of it. At least containing the pages saves the main articles from being destroyed. On a site where anyone and everyone can contribute without knowing anything about anything that may be the best we can hope for. DreamGuy 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in defense of that action, I did merge everything that was souced and worth merging (ie, nothing), and didn't delete anything. Creating "in popular culture" articles is not a compromise, it's giving up on patrolling, and that's not acceptable. It's really not the best we can hope for - we stick around, those editors don't: if we're vigilant about removing cruft, it will be removed. Over and over, but it will be removed. To my mind, that's the only way we can go if the goal is to make the encyclopedia better. Plus, the argument that a page should exist only because people don't want to deal with it has been rejected in deletion debates many times (although, in this case, the debate was shot down by overly idealistic editors who had, apparently, no intention of actually helping). Mangojuice 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dislodged, deletion war and Super Mario Bros 3...

I guess but do not know if you are an extensive user of wikipedia and thus know about that which I do not... I hope you do... Why? Well, having changed computers quite often lately and much more before that, long time ago, I had to take an account but that was short-lived, it took firefox to loose my session for I to neglect going back to my former account... After all most of my edits are small as I rarely stay in an article for too much... All I remember but which the computer seems to show as false is that my account was "Herle King", any variant could be but the "send password" has failed to let me try all the possible variants (Herle's King, HerleKing, HarleKing, Harle's King, Harle King)... Being a minor editor I wouldn't care much about this but... There's always such a butt... NTT goes all bully about deleting data from the Super Mario Bros 3 without even going to the talk page to speak about that... While he is the only one who both seems to care that the data he deletes is there, and he's the only one who wants it out (others even contribute to it, unlike him). I like the game and recognizee its importance in the videogame industry (wouldn't it be great working like Miyamoto?) but I really find this war futile...

After sending you this message I will go to revert his deletion on the foundation that he deletes data about the game that other videogames and similiar works of fiction include ("differentional categories" i.e. categories that do not overlap, not even by mistake, because their distinctive nature makes them what they are; like evil and good in dualism vision or the twelve animals of the chinese zodiac, the houses of the horoscope, the five chinese elements, the four classical elements, and such; in the game it is represented by the difference between the levels of the game, each one with a distinctive feel, boss and king transformation, thus each level being a category of this kind; just like the animals of Jackie Chang's animated adventures to name another fictional example or the races and even the heroes from AD&D and comics' groups respectively). Furthermore he deletes data that augments the reader knowledge on the matter by compairing subtle and less-than-subtle differences between the closest variants...

But you might ask yourself why I'm telling you all this... Well, he bullies around that "you are not a registered user, I wont respect what you have to say" while he is the one who is braking Misplaced Pages's policies... And wont even talk this, just make all that ado about nothing, reverting back and forth... Deleting, I rather say... That's why I had intended to go on from the username I had neglected after little effor to recover it but realizing I couldn't do so I just hopped over that step and hoped you could help... I'm off to revert right now so what he has deleted will come back... I would also apreciate help in the recovery of my former account, I bet there's some edit somewhere under the name I chose, I just can't remember where for I can't even remember when and how much it lasted... So, if you can help me, thanks in advance, otherwise... Well, thanks for reading, thanks for trying... Herle King 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:200.121.147.175. If that doesn't help, feel free to email me, with the "E-mail this user" link on the left. Mangojuice 11:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Liebman

User:Ron liebman is not the actor Ron Liebman. In fact, several of us are pretty sure he's not the researcher Ron Liebman, either, but an impersonator. He's got several sockpuppets and is being dealth with by an admin. Wahkeenah 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Committed identity

Hi Mango, just a quick note of thanks for this great idea. Nice and simple to implement for those of us who are a bit PGP-challenged or PGP-phobic :) Probably merits some sort of crypto-barnstar if such a beast exists. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to use something stronger than SHA-1, with reports now that it may be broken. -- Avi 18:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

==Rend al-Rahim Francke Image==

I wish to talk to you about the use of an image of a living person. One has to consider why it is that there is a difference between obtaining an image of a living person versus an image of a dead person. The reason given is that a dead person is dead, and thus one can no longer obtain a photograph of them. However, when we talk about the difficulty of obtaining a photograph, it is relative. It may be that there is somewhere a public domain of a dead person that we are not aware of, and that if we just tried, searching harder, we would find it. It may also be that an individual has some photograph of the dead person and that in the future they may decide to make the photograph public domain. However, we ignore these arguments because practically it's just too difficult.

For the similar reason, US educational institutions are allowed under federal law to make copies of both images and newspaper articles, and distribute them each semester. They may even distribute different articles each semester, providing each new set of students with more variety. Of course, they could pay the newspaper for the rights each time, but it would simply make education too expensive and be too difficult and, in the end, because of this hardship, the article would not be obtained. Similarly, it is possible for me to fly over to wherever Rend al-Rahim lives, and take a photograph of her myself, if she gives me permission. But it's such a hardship that it's asking too much, and practically I can't do it.

Thus, the distinction between dead and alive people is based on a reason of difficulty of obtaining an image. It is not written in stone. If the very reason for the distinction between dead and alive people does not apply here, because obtaining the image of the alive person is also extremely difficult, then it is appropriate to allow fair use. I have taken reasonable steps to try and find public domain photographs of her, by searching online in all the directories of public domain photographs, as well as going to the library and searching there. I do not have infinite resources. For the same reason as above, it should be quite appropriate to take a small image of her from a PBS program. This in no way competes with PBS and it does illustrate the article. I think it would be instructive if you search around for pictures of famous people online in Misplaced Pages; you will find that various famous people who are not in government have a non-public domain photograph displayed on the page. Bill O'Reilly is an example of a page with two copyright photos because a public domain photograph of him simply is too difficult to obtain. I should note that sometimes this problem is worse with someone who is semi-famous, like my subject. Some people, like a rock star are so famous, and have been to so many events, that it's actually not too difficult to obtain a photograph of them. But others, who are famous but not knownworldwide and constantly walking out of rock concerts, may have a public face but only on a TV show, for example, or at a press conference. I do not believe that this is purely by accident. Others also agree that fair use can be applied to a famous person if a free image is simply not available.

I think it's important to note that courts have always looked upon nonprofit scholarly work with a much more lenient eye. The purpose of this work is to provide a benefit for the whole world. There is no source of information on persons such as Rend al-Rahim out there, other than in Misplaced Pages. It provides a significant benefit to the community to understand who this public figure is, and where they are coming from, so as to understand their political statements in context. Indeed, this is necessary to the functioning of civil society, another major public good. By researching the subject, and by searching through the archives of newspapers and magazines, I have attempted to do this for them. This is an enormous service to the community and is not something that the courts ignore. They weigh this heavily into the balance.

Finally, I believe I have made a coherent argument. If you still disagree, and contend that I should spend money and significant resources obtaining a picture of Rend al-Rahim, please show me a binding decision from a US court that says so. Such a decision, to the best of my knowledge, does not exist. May I also humbly ask that you go back to original US case law and look very carefully at the fair use doctrine as defined by the courts, as opposed to just going through the words of the Misplaced Pages guidelines with a fine-toothed comb. The guidelines are based on US law and I believe it would be more appropriate to go to the primary source, in this case.

I will be more than happy to be enlightened on this subject, as reading case law on major subjects from primary documents is a hobby of mine. Thanks for reading.Custodiet ipsos custodes 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update on Image and Trying to et Permission

I wrote to United States Institute for Peace and asked them for permission to use the photo from their website. If they allow it, then all well and good. If that does not work I will try to contact Rand Francke myself. Either way I will be happy to document their reply if asked.

People often claim that a free image is available but are not willing to actually provide one. However if trying to obtain permisions fail then the onus will be on those who want to delete the image to prove that a free image is available. If you think that a free image is available and I can demonstrate that I have contacted organizations and gotten refusals for permission, the burden is on you to prove that a free image is available.

Why not compromise for now?

I have written to the USIP. If they allow us to use the image then I will take down the current image and replace it. It Rand Frank agrees to provide one, the same thing applies. If you can find a free alternative then you are welcome to switch out the current photo. But you cannot just presuppose that somewhere there is a free photo which is practically accessible without providing evidence.Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I got permission

I uploaded a new pic that we have permission for and took down the old one. So for this pic all is good.Custodiet ipsos custodes 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sequel trilogy (Star Wars) AFD

Hello! I'm writing to talk about your decision to close the AfD debate on the Star Wars sequel trilogy. Let me say a few things first:

1) I read your policy on deletion and I agree with it.

2) I really think you took a good and fair look at the discussion.

Nonetheless, I kind of feel like this is exactly the sort of article that should be deleted per WP:NOT#CBALL. I feel like the article sticking around is affirmation that articles that violate WP:NOT can stay, as long as they're well-sourced. Here are my points:

Your analysis said that "this is not, (the Keep !votes) say, a topic about a hypothetical future event, but a topic about a movie project that has never gotten off the ground." My biggest disagreement with this statement is that the article isn't about a movie project, it's about an idea - one man's idea, to be specific. Bighole, myself, and even the Keep-supporting JulesH all agreed with that point in the AfD. The "sequel trilogy" isn't a project that never got off the ground - it never was a project to begin with.

The problem with an article about one man's idea, when the idea has never come to fruition, is the only reliable sources are A.) statements by that one man about the idea, B.) things he's written down about the idea, and C.) analysis about the idea from third-party sources.

Lucas, however, has been extremely tight-lipped about this idea. He hasn't really said much at all. Sources of type "A" above are the only ones we have - "B" and "C" don't exist.

There are many sources about this, yes. But there's nothing there other than acknowledgment of the existence of the idea, and acknowledgment of how the idea has changed over time. This means that, after the article is "cleaned up", the only things that can remain are simply a series of "he said she said" quotes (as Bighole pointed out) from Lucas about his different ideas for the length of the Star Wars saga at different times. There's nothing else out there besides Lucas quotes, and the occasional Mark Hamill quotes (which are really hearsay).

Simply put: I don't see how an article cataloging George Lucas changing his mind about the number of Star Wars movies to make is appropriate for Misplaced Pages. And anything else on this topic is speculation.

I hope you take another look at the discussion. I don't want to send this to DRV because I don't think you made a bad call - I just don't think you made the best possible call. Cheers, Chardish 07:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• True, but my issue wasn't really with the sources. The Lucas quotes are reliable sources, yeah - but those are the only reliable sources we have on this topic. The article isn't about a "sequel trilogy" because it doesn't exist - it's about "What Lucas Has Said In The Past About How Many Star Wars Movies There Will Be." And I'm not trying to be a juggler of semantics, but the quote from WP:NOT#CRYSTAL doesn't apply - that's talking about articles about anticipated events (like the 2008 Olympics, or an upcoming national election) - the "sequel trilogy" is not anticipated, it was once rumored; and it's not an event, it's currently an idea. I don't feel like it applies. Cheers! Chardish 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for voluntaring to help with the conversation. It was much appreciated. We were reaching a deadlock. --Abu badali 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

You commented on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES 00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

God's Graveyard

I just wanted to let you know that it is listed under user name policy. Offensive usernames Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.) Purgatory Fubar or Snafu 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganan (talk · contribs)

Need help rolling back this users contribs. User has been indef blocked. Purgatory Fubar or Snafu 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pwnz0r1377 (talk · contribs)

If you could have a look at this users use of the warning template (the words contained in it) here I would appreciate it. Im not going to bite the newbe about his name being in the format of leet speek. Purgatory Fubar or Snafu 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Found replacement image for the one you didnt like

I found a replacement photo from the Movement For Democratic Change with Attribution 2.5 permission. So you can go ahead and delete Image:Morgan_Tsvangirai.jpg The new pic is Image:MorganTsvangirai new.jpg. Whenever I can find a public domain pic or a pic with full permission I will use it.  :) Custodiet ipsos custodes 06:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The source, the whole source and nothing but the source

I know this debate has raged overnight, and I honestly didn't think it would get so heated, but I'd just like to say that sources have a major importance beyond copyright, so I don't agree with adding a qualifying statement to the policy in this way as it goes against the rest of WP:IUP which is pretty clear on the need for sources. By referencing the source of an image you are providing a citation, just as you would with a fact in an article. Without a source, in essence, the image could be anything as there is no way of checking it out. The uploader may say it is Baron von Munchausen or a Mayan vase but Misplaced Pages doesn't work on trust, it works on verification - (WP:V) this applies to images as much as to articles. Although in practice we may not want unsourced PD images deleted, we should still strive to have everything sourced! So a less threatening PD-source tag seems the way to go, not qualifying the policy. Madmedea 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

U2 FAC...

What sort of information should be removed from U2? A lot of extra info went into it following the previous failed FAC, which as you might recall, quite rightly pointed out that it was big on statistic, dates, awards, singles, etc but not much on context, colour or themes. Once again though, i find myself defending a 'drive-by' FAC nomination - the nominator has never touched the article, nor appeared at the FAC since he nominated it. I know it wasn't ready, but it is frustrating nonetheless. I've put a few suggestions. I'd appreciate it if you watched the FAC and the article. Is it likely pass with improvements this time? Or should we just pull it and spend time on it - i fear that rushing changes (like I just started) will be detrimental. Merbabu 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC) PS, the only reason I'm reluctant to remove the FAC and work on it in a less rushed manner, is that an FAC is the best way to get feedback. IN my experience, peer reviews are fairly useless. Merbabu 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

wow - thanks for the comprehensive reply. I go back and read it a few more times and see what can be done. And I'll probably end up posting it on Talk:U2 if you don't mind. Merbabu 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That "secret string" thing in the Misplaced Pages Signpost

Hi Mangojuice. You'll have to forgive me for asking what is probably a really dumb question, but I don't know much about computers and codes. The article says that anyone who uses this method to identify themselves "shouldn't lose the secret string". The string here is the plaintext, right, not the alphanumeric gibberish that the site throws up in response? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Committed Identity

MJ, Would you check my user page here and see if I have done the identity thing correctly? I use PGP and the SHA-2 hash. I have added the ID number which could be checked against a PGP keyserver for verification. I notice yours is much longer. JodyB _talk 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check, but I changed to a SHA-256 from one of the websites. My PGP fingerprint is also posted. JodyB _talk 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think deleting the history is needed. What I did was load my PGP generated ID into the template. It is short by design and not really for security purposes. I entered the hash incorrectly. What is there now is completely different and is the full SHA256 I generated from the website. I've had the PGP key for a while but mostly use it internally. Anyway, I think I can verify I yam who I yam now. I expect to seek an RfA in the future and now I can answer that last question strongly. Thanks again for looking. JodyB _talk 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Could use your help on Attachment Therapy

There is, again, a raging dispute on this page involving several editors...I filed a request for admin action ], but am not sure that is the right place or step. If you could look at this and make a suggestion or two, it would be really helpful.

Thanks. RalphLender 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, help!

The Duquesne Spy Ring article we have been discussing on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cryptography and on the Village Pump (policy) has been unfairly tagged for deletion --> Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Duquesne Spy Ring.

In advance, many thanks for your support! Ctatkinson 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of user:heatedissuepuppet

Thank you for your comment. I made a list of the actions of the user since the account was made here: . It started with the editor placing notability tags on pages that have already survived AFD, and continuing to do so even after being asked to discuss the issue on a talk page and repeatedly posting poorly-sourced libelous information about a company. The user made no constructive edits, only attacks. Please also note that the reason the user was originally blocked was for disruptive edits regarding the closing of a merge discussion (a merge which was bogus to begin with). When he repeatedly reverted a tag placed on a talk page saying "no merge" I called for assistance. My original request is here: . Go back through these diffs and you'll see it clearly .

I was very surprised that given this history that the user was allowed to be unblocked. Several other editors have voiced support of the block. Then the unblocking admin told us he did not even read the original block request. He simply accepted that the user had a "legitimate use of his sockpuppet". It has been pointed out that the policy aims only to protect editors from attacks on their real identity, not to allow editors to attack using a puppet, while keeping their main account clean. Note that the editors first action upon unblock was to attack me through a CoI. Not to try to improve sources on the article, not to constructively edit it, but to attack the editor. Sorry to go on, but I had thought that admins in general would be more sympathetic to this kind of disruption. Sparkzilla 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not be interested in this perfect example of "attack the user, not the article" Cheers! Sparkzilla 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I have updated the text on COI/N by adding rebutal of the removed sources. Basically, the user was adding defamatory sources that did not actually exist. If you would like more information, please let me know. Sparkzilla 18:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, outlining CoI issues. I think your comment is fair, and I am not going to debate the issue. Would you mind if I stayed in contact over the next few weeks to discuss edits that are made by other users as a result of the CoI? Some of these are not contentious, such as this, but I think this is more boderline (the user is changing a fact into a claim) . How should I approach these edits?

I will say all along that I have mainly been acting not to overtly promote Metropolis, but 1. to stop defamations about Metropolis and Crisscross appearing on WP and 2. to stop POV pushing by the Justice for Nick Baker group in the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article. The article until recently was bascially a promotional item for the group's aims. I think I have created more of a balance, but I am concerned now that Baker's supporters will now use the CoI to trump any notion of notability. I specifically created an RFC to deal with issues of notability and about sources in this article. Perhaps you could comment on the RFC, including the CoI issue. Best regards. Sparkzilla 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(I originally posted this on my talk page) Thank you for your assessment, Mangojuice. I agree with it by large, except for the reservations I have posted beneath your post on the noticeboard. I think you've made a fair and balanced description of the situation, but I do personally think you are too lenient on Sparkzilla. That said, I'm not asking for him to be blocked/banned, I just think he should make a promise not to touch any of the disputed articles and to not write about himself/his company/his products in any article. He should of course be perfectly free to post concerns/suggestions on talk pages if he thinks a link or mention to himself/Metropolis/etc should be added, or if he thinks a poorly sourced edit should be reverted, where editors free of CoI could decide whether or not to implement them in the article. Also, I wouldn't mind if somebody could warn him for his lack of civility, he has referred to me as a troll several times now, and frankly, I don't think I have done anything to merit it.Heatedissuepuppet 12:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're probably right on the civility thing, I'll drop it.Heatedissuepuppet 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR/ANI etc

Can you tell me please how you know if someones filed a 3RR or ANI against you or naming you? Fainites 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know it did that. It doesn't show you though that someones named you in an ANI etc that's ostensibly about someone else. Fainites 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sethdoe92

Hey, is there any chance you could re-evaluate your block of Sethoe92? I'm certainly not questioning it, I just feel the block is now punitive as he is willing to appologise to User:TTN and explained that it was in the heat of the moment. If he makes any threats again we can shoot him down like there's no tomorrow! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I've unblocked him with a firm warning that if this happens again it is likely to lead to an indef block. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mangojuice

You have been a voice of sanity throughout this whole affair. I hope you don't think any worse of me for my (very rapidly regretted) wheel warring/incivility. It angers me to see the communitie's will trodden on like that. Thanks for staying sane :) Viridae 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration comment

You refer to "some very unfortunate wheel warring at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3" which led to your protecting the page. I think you mean edit warring in this case. No use of administrator tools was involved in that particular squabble. --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You are number 666. Not weird at all.

Not weird. You have recently proposed a method that editors can use to identify themselves in case their account is hijacked, but you are not banned by the arbcom! Unlike to what they did to poor User:Faethon. Juicemango 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Have followed guidelines, what now please?

Dear Mangojuice Thanks for guidelines and encouragement. I've completely revised article since I got back to England, giving independent sources etc. It now resides on the page you suggested <User:Bee Redding/Alan Davidson(author)> but I don't know how to submit it, can you do this for me? There are other aspects of British children's fiction I'd like to write about, where I see Wiki has gaps, but will see how this one goes as it's quite a lot of work. Thank you for being so welcoming. Bee Redding 09:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Solomon Joseph Solomon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected moves

Nope. Doesn't work. I tried :) - Cooties 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• It actually comes up with the move page again, with the word "Protected" in large font. I can get ya a screenshot if you need it - Cooties 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

John Luke

John Luke was a legit article which was being heavily vandalized. Why was it deleted? It should have just been reverted to the earlier correct version. --Evb-wiki 15:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Much appreciated --Samtheboy 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Truce

Well, I am glad you like the image. While it might be BJAODN worthy, it is a real flag you know :) Thanks again. User:Zscout370 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Magnum

Have we learned nothing from the last few weeks? After two days, and you're endorsing a redirect to boot? This is a horrible close, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is so horrible about the result of the articles being merged? No one, including you, gave any reason why it would be bad. You didn't like the way the original decision was made - and neither did a lot of others, and that was reflected in my close. Mangojuice 13:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a well reasoned close. Personally I originally had nothing agaisnt the article to start with, but several arguments got me to change my mind. However the way it was deleted was well out of policy so I think that was a good close. As someone has probobly pointed out, we dont really need a bio on her, her involvement in the rape case can be sufficiently covered as part of the main article, being that she is only notable as a result of that. Should she do something else spectacularly stupid again then perhaps she will warrant a bio, but for now I would like to show my support for a well reasoned close of a contentious debate. Viridae 13:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Because we weren't talking about a possible merge. That's done at the page of the article, or perhaps at the inevitable AfD. If this is indeed the case, you should unprotect the redirect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you can't dismiss the opinions of 2 dozen plus editors who were talking about the merge/redirect solution just because you weren't, or because you didn't want the debate to be about that. As for unprotection: no, there has been edit warring and there's a big dispute going on. Now is not a good time to unprotect. Mangojuice 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we're ignoring the two dozen plus editors who were not talking about the merge/redirect "solution." That's more the point that seems to be missed here, and since you closed the discussion three days early, it's not as if we can continue the discussion where everyone's looking anyway. So you've essentially closed a decision early with a result that only partially reflects consensus. There's major problems in that. Is there a timer on the protection? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I took into consideration everyone who was talking about the ultimate fate of the article, not just people who specifically addressed the redirect: that includes people who wanted a full undeletion. Go back and reread the "undelete" arguments, because a good number of them actually wanted the redirect. There was no argument at all against the redirect, although some expressed a preference against it. This is not to be totally discounted, but when there were more people who felt the opposite way, and when they have the weight of argument on their side, it's clear which side is winning the debate. The protection timer is currently indefinite, and I think that's okay: when the time is right it can be unprotected through WP:RFP. I have a hard time saying exactly when it will be okay to edit at this point. Mangojuice 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I strongly suggest reopening the discussion, which you closed very early, with a note that you're considering more than what the scope of DRV typically entails, thus ensuring we get a proper range of responses. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for that. The debate was open long enough to get two dozen pages of comments from several dozen users. It was mature and ready for closure. With due respect, you have a history of challenging the result of discussions when the result doesn't agree with what you argued, so I have to take your objection with a grain of salt. Mangojuice 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have the history of challenging the result of discussions that don't reflect consensus or policy. It really has nothing to do with my personal opinions. I also have a history of challenging abusive closures like the one you performed. If you're going to criticise my tactics, be honest. As you see, I'm not the only one crying foul, and the one person supporting you hasn't even read the policies he's tossed out there. And let's not even begin with your lack of weighing the argument that someone BLPs need to be challenged to ArbCom, which many of the endorsers presented. Many, many problems here, and I'm considering reversing your closure since you're not willing to do so yourself. --badlydrawnjefftalk 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do that you'll be blocked for it, that would be very disruptive. I'm not sure what you mean by the argument "that someone BLPs need to be challenged," please explain? I assure you I did not take claims that there was a BLP violation here at face value. Mangojuice 15:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why I'd be blocked - closing discussions isn't an administrative decision, and yours was clearly disruptive and out of process. If anything, a better argument could be blocking you for the disruptive closure. But regardless, you must have taken some BLP arguments at face value given the result, which does not reflect consensus, policy, or reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my last response to you today. I read every argument people made and did my best to understand them, to weigh how they bear on each other, and to what extent each was reflected among the community. People actually explained why there was a BLP issue in this case. This was countered but not very well: as Mackensen pointed out, an article consisting of mostly negative information isn't okay just because it presents that information neutrally and from sources. Some mentioned there was an old version that could be reverted to: that's a good argument why the original deletion was inappropriate, and it proposes a solution. But on balance people clearly preferred the solution of having a redirect instead. As for reversing my closure, just please don't, okay? You need to recognize that you aren't a neutral party, you're heavily involved in this conflict and you aren't judging the issues impartially. I stayed out of this one, which is why I made the close. Mangojuice 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Even you see a solution that doesn't involve screwing the consensus view, however. Why didn't you revert to the AfD version, protect, and allow us to hash it out at the talk page? I can't guaratnee I won't reverse the closure, but I'm also not "heavily involved" - I just don't appreciate being disenfranchised. But this is your "last response" anyway, so I guess that's that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, DRVs normally run 5 to 7 days, therefore this is an early close. It looks like all the main deletionists got in their arguments already. Also, this is supposed to be about process. The argument that this was not really a deletion, but an editorial decision, is wrong for two reasons: first, everyone involved initially treated this as a deletion, and second, editorial decisions are not enforced by indefinite full protection. Correct process would be to restore and go to AfD, and if this had been an AfD, it would have closed as no consensus, meaning keep. The way, the truth, and the light 15:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, process got kind of messed up in that the debate really took place on DRV, rather than in AfD where it maybe should have been, and that it was over a redirection rather than a deletion, et cetera. However, if IAR is ever applicable, this is a good time: here we had a large, mature debate with lots of good argument, and an impartial and fair reading of that debate. I suppose the best place for this whole thing to take place would have been RFC, but hey - we have had the debate now. As for the protection: I regard it as against edit warring, which I think would quite clearly result if the protection was removed right now. At some point it will be reasonable to lift it: I'm choosing not to set a date because I'm not sure when that would be. Mangojuice 15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The history has just been deleted again. With that it's definitely not just an editorial decision. The way, the truth, and the light 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked Moreschi to reverse that. That is not what "Overturn" meant at all. Mangojuice 15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record (and in case there's any doubt) I fully endorse this close. You'll notice that it simply confirms my edit to create a redirect in the first place. </smug preening> --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway shows once again how obnoxious he is. The way, the truth, and the light 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, please do not gloat on my talk page. In fact, please do not gloat at all. Your extensive comments in the debate were not helpful, in fact, they were borderline trolling. Everyone knows that you feel a certain way about BLP but you choose to restate your opinion over and over in ways that I can only figure are designed to provoke a response. Your opinion as an editor is always welcome. Your goading of everyone who disagrees with you is absolutely not. Mangojuice 15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not gloating. Just happy to have my decisions confirmed, as usual, by the community. I'm not goading and if anyone feels goaded I apologise, It is of course quite incorrect to state that my accurate renditions of Misplaced Pages policy on the debate constituted trolling. Although I admit I could have been more forthcoming in my elaboration, the relentlessly toxic atmosphere was not conducive to this so I didn't make the extra effort. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be happy that it took a disruptive act to have your "decisions confirmed." And no, you have yet to produce an accurate rendition of the policy, so you seem to misunderstand what happened here completely. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to infer from my accurate prediction of outcomes in Biography of living persons cases that I have a good grasp of the policy both in principle and in practice. (I'm as familiar with Jimmy Wales' reasoning on the subject as any Wikipedian, and I hang out on the admin channel and we discuss cases like this frequently. Admins run the deletion process and implement the BLP. I can't tell an admin what to do, but I can give advice. --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree. Again, the fact that youneed disruptive activity to get your ideas implemented speaks volumes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As the initiator of this DRV, I find the outcome to be acceptable, if perhaps not quite optimal. My primary objection was to the existence of an ugly red link at a likely search term; my secondary objection was to the out-of-process manner in which the original deletion decision was made. A protected redirect provides readers with all the relevant information they will need. My personal preference would have been to delete history, stub, protect, and discuss, but this is an acceptable choice (as noted in the nomination). Of course, I cannot speak for other users. I do find the "slippery slope" of BLP to be quite problematic, and have posted to that effect on WP:VP/P. *** Crotalus *** 18:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:David Lyons COI

Thank you for your comments regarding the COI above. I would like to ask your opinion on opening a COI on User:David Lyons regarding the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article. It is clear from his long history of edits on the article (which have mainly been involved in removing negative information about Baker, and pushing the POV that Baker is innocent, and that his cause is well-supported) that David Lyons is a member of the Justice for Nick Baker support group. Note that any other articles David Lyons has edited (National Union of Workers) were only edited to attack Metropolis magazine. Frankly, no-one else in the world could be bothered supporting Baker to that extent.

As an example, please note that the recently edited section "Before arrest" makes it appear as though Baker's actions before his arrest are facts, when in fact they are Baker's version of events. I have pointed out these here: .

I think it is only fair that if I am not allowed to post on that article due to COI that David Lyons is not allowed to either. I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 13:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added this issue with more depth at COI/I: . I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that I have declared my interest and expanded my bio on my user page. I would appreciate your comment to my follow-up on the David Lyons COI. Best regards. Sparkzilla 08:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like your comments on aggressive removal of items from Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) by User:heatedissuepuppet. See history. The user is going against this RFC that confirms my claims are acceptable (I have since edited the section to reduce concerns of undue weight.) Sparkzilla 10:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell User:David Lyons that accusing me of having a COI is not a trump card that he can use to insert POV edits on Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan). Thank you. Sparkzilla 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum

I notice you closed this as restore history and redirect. David Gerard seems to have re-deleted the history. Can you do something about this? -N 00:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that before I did so, the article was being recreated as it was - David Gerard 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, it should be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the article to be re-created. I'm asking for the history to be restored under the redirect, per the closure. -N 00:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've strongly advised Gerard to reconsider. However, I've already restored the deleted history once. I just closed the debate, I don't own the issue, so I'm not going to get into a wheel war over this, despite that Gerard seems to have no problem doing so. Take it to ANI, I guess, I can't solve this dispute alone anymore. Mangojuice 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP != wheel war. RFAr is --> that way - David Gerard 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So, technically, you already wheel warred, right? Should former arbitrators wheel war? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'll bring this up at ANI as requested. I do support you on the BLP issue but people see your name and run for the hills. Could you try to remain civil on this? -N 01:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly civil. Fed up, but civil. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Essjay48

I did not know that Essjay not being here any more was a reason why the that wouldn't matter, or that it was not that similar. I thought it was a possible impersonator of him.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice. Note the message from Essjay at User talk:Essjay-R. Anyway, the account Essjay48 was created in August 2006 and has never edited, so it isn't worth worrying about... WjBscribe 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to you both, (especially to Essjay) for this report, and I will certainly not let it happen again.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 18:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I just happened to have heard of the Essjay-R precedent (thanks, WJBscribe, for digging that up). Mangojuice 02:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You never got back to me...

Yeah, eh I asked you about vandalism of a page one time and I personally didn't find anything wrong with what I wrote. Could you check the Shock Site page again and seriously look at that picture??? It's hurrendous (I'm being for true on this one)

hello sorry i didn't know we could take it out. But this article i think is good and i trully think it should stay really how do i have it stay and be accepted

well just so you know this person is my father and i am presently in his office where severzal hundreds of people want the article this way to show up so i dont know why there is fooling around I would like it so would my father it to show up

so waht should i do i mean how does it get off the list and accepted just like the pages of Robert Rosner's partners which were excepted. take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Daniel_S._O%27Connell

but what happens the protection enables people to change it? that is perfect that is what i want i don't want people to change it and i dont want people to take it off i read all the info and my father has the right to have his own page with his company too

Black Falcon RFA

Thanks for the heads up. I left my comment, so you may take the next step. I'm really happy to see that he's finally ready for the mop, and I expect it to be a nearly unanimous landslide. YechielMan 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg was deleted

However a Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 29 was initiated should you be interested. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"merge & delete" is not an option because of the GFDL ?

In a recent AfD, some people voted "merge & delete". Presumably these people meant merge the existing content into another similar article before deleting it. You say this is not an option because of the GFDL licensing requirements. Could you clarify please? Thanks. Martintg 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. No one knows what the GFDL means. The way, the truth, and the light 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what The way, the truth, and the light meant to say (I'm sure) is that it's not an option because GFDL requires us to credit to those who create the content. If we merge it, then delete where the merged content comes from, we've lost that credit. Metros 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant what I said - although sarcastically (though I didn't mean to defend 'merge and delete'). By the way, it's often said that cut-and-past moves violate the GFDL, which can't be true - they're exactly the same as a merge (and redirect) as far as what happens to the history. The way, the truth, and the light 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know you meant it sarcastically, I was just trying to lighten the bite a bit since I know the GFDL isn't a fun subject to be discussing with the BJAODN deletion going on.

And true, C&P moves don't break GFDL if performed properly (which doesn't happen frequently since most C&P moves are performed by inexperienced users who aren't quite sure of appropriate moving techniques), but full page moves make things a lot more neat and tidy. Metros 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, GFDL requires credit to those who create the content, and it also requires that a revision history be maintained. So, merging and deleting causes a problem. But anyway, most of the time when people vote "merge & delete" they would be just fine with merge & redirect, they aren't thinking about these issues. Every once in a while, though, it's clear someone really does want the history gone... and in most of those cases they don't seem to really want merging, but may want both topics to be covered in the target article (ie, redirection). Very rarely does someone say "merge & delete" and really actually mean it. Mangojuice 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I recreated Robert Rosner, but this time focusing on the astrophysicist at Argonne. Just to inform you and sandstein. --Whsitchy 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Smee/Smeelgova

There were five other blocks, four of them here. The last block under the current handle, not two weeks ago, had escalated to 48hrs. I moved to 72. As explained at length on his talk, his contributions are replete with reversions. This is no isolated case. Marskell 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no real contrition on the page. In fact, I see more of the conspiratorial attitude that has led to multiple revert wars with a variety of editors night-after-night on LGAT related articles. His/her notes to self: "Do not get discouraged and try your best not to get personally hurt by the foul language and personal attacks from others of differing points of view, or insults and attacks at personal behaviour and my contributions to the project, from others with potential biases from membership in various groups."

If Smee would like to offer an apology, s/he might start with User:Jossi for comments here, specifically: "...accepted a position in a related organization - and this may mean some sort of ambiguous financial relationship or other related conflict of interest..." with zero evidence to that affect. A classic smear of the "he may beat his wife, but I'm not sure" sort. What prompted it? A revert war, of course.

I'm not taken in by this editor in the slightest and do not intend to reduce the block. I should add that I have absolutely no opinion on LGAT—I didn't know it existed until yesterday. Marskell 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Crystal Gail Mangum

Today I saw you remove the history of this deleted article (now at a different location) again, in response to another admin who mentioned BLP concerns. I thought you were on the side that believed there were no such concerns, and David Gerard even seemed to agree with you yesterday.

I mentioned this in my evidence for the arbcom case, so I need an explanation to put in. The way, the truth, and the light 19:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 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 has been an automated notice by BrownBot 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image talk deletion

I noticed you deleted at least a couple of images without deleting their talk pages. I've tagged the ones I saw with {{db-talk}}, but wanted to let you know for next time and in case there are others. Ingrid 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Deleting a pile of images is a chore I'm glad I'm not responsible for. Thank you for dealing with it. I just wanted to make sure you were aware. Ingrid 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan Davidson (Author)

Thanks for explaining how to transfer my article, this time redrafted and giving numerous independent sources. I'm hoping to work up a new piece about the late Margery Fisher, doyen of the UK children's books world, but in the meantime see that Cquan has removed all my carefully researched sources from the above article bar two fairly marginal ones, describing them as 'accolades' and therefore 'advertising'. You may remember he previously criticised my contribution for its lack of independent sources!

Now, for example, a reference to a recent novel is marked 'Citation needed' because the citation (from a book published by the School Library Association in 2006) is one of all those removed by Cquan.

Incidentally, I tried to wikify the article as you advised before transferring it but as a beginner am still having problems getting to grips with all the technical stuff. Even so, as no-one else seemed to be having any problems with my citations, I'm disturbed at the way Cquan has doctored them all out. If, when you have time obviously, you can find what I wrote before the so-called 'accolades' were removed and advise me, I'd be more than grateful. (I've just created my own User Page for any messages, as I don't seem to have had one). Thanks again. Bee Redding 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update

I got your message about the username so have gone back and tried again. Second time lucky? Shall see. Thanks again for the heads-up. JeffStryker 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wondering why you changed your mind

I was wondering why in the original discussion about File:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg you voted to keep the image here - Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 29. Indeed the consensus was to keep it. However here Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 29 you voted to not overturn the deletion. If as you have said the same arguments where raised why have you changed your mind. No free equivalent photo is available. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Could you speedy delete my user page and my talk page so I can finish the transition of my userspace from User:Nardman1? I would appreciate it. -N 14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. BTW, your signature should really link to your user page or your user talk page, not to N. Mangojuice 14:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Thank you :). BTW do you think it would be appropriate for me to go through the project with something like AWB and update links to my older user and talk pages? WP:CHU says: "this change will not effect signatures you have already left on talk pages, or other places where you signed your username with ~~~~. Those pages will continue to display your signature (including the link to your old username) unless edited manually." -N 14:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would advise against it. Just leave a redirect in place. I remember a case recently where someone did this and clogged up recent changes and people complained, it doesn't seem worth it. Mangojuice 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach

I understand what you've tried to do here, given the toxic nature of recent DRV threads. But I really don't think that blind AFDs are a good idea at all, it's forcing yet another level between the general editors and the administrators if it goes in that general direction.

So far though, it's basically a DRV discussion with editors expressing similar thoughts to my own (that it can be restored and moved to an event summary style) but closed off to the DRV audience. Stifling an AFD with zero content is not likely to draw a positive reaction from the AFD audience, drawing a "if its already been removed from Misplaced Pages, what's the point in keeping it style argument". I actually think that the debate would conclude with the most enlightened result at DRV. - hahnchen 17:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem though is that the BLP claim is very tenuous, given the very public nature of the reporting. We shouldn't be censoring these articles to be discussed behind closed doors. It should be a process thing, which is why I suggest DRV, after that, it should move onto AFD or onto the talk pages for move proposals etc. That some editors feel that deleting an article prematurely somehow makes Misplaced Pages a safeguard to online persistence is incredibly self-important. - hahnchen 17:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but instead of cutting through that process by just sticking it as a usual AFD, it has been deleted. You want a discussion to the fate of the article? AFD is absolutely fine for that. The fact that we're having a blindsided AFD is what I don't want, at least DRV would have given a chance to have a proper deletion discussion, where all editors can be involved with. Creating yet another "new" process, is process for process sake, this experiment is yet more process. - hahnchen 18:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

how can there be an afd debate about an article that we can't read? if there are serious blp issues why can't it be restored & protected on an edited version?  ⇒ bsnowball  09:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan Davidson (Author)

That was very prompt, thank you. You've persuaded me that the brief 'book jacket style' quotes are not appropriate, for the reasons stated, but in general I foresee a problem writing articles about my field, British children's literature, for Misplaced Pages as many of the sources I have access to pre-date the internet and are not just a click away. If the latter sources are the only ones considered valid this imposes limitations on Misplaced Pages content, maybe skews it even, although I do appreciate there are problems of verification. Even so, I'd have thought that some of W.'s appeal ought to lie in its wealth of interesting and sometimes offbeat content not easy to obtain anywhere else.

Three or four of my longer quotes, all sourced and dated and not taken from book jackets {'The Guardian', 'Times Educational Supplement', 'The Times', 'Center for Children's Literature'} were specifically selected to verify statements made in the article {e.g. comparison with the great English humourist Richmal Crompton) and would seem valid footnotes to me, particularly as the article is currently described as uncategorised, unsourced etc. I will do these, if you agree, having discovered how to in the course of re-citing a source re the author's novel 'Light' (this in response to an editor's citation request}.Please advise. Bee Redding 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mangojuice. Will do that shortly. I see we now have a category. Bee Redding 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've listed sources only - and only those that verify the text - and removed all the quotes except for one brief one in the footnotes and two, even briefer, in the text. Without these we don't really get the flavour of the author's work. I've also found what must be the first news article about the copyright dispute, so have added that in. Hope all is okay now. I'm starting to collect together source material for my next proposed article, on the late Margery {Turner] Fisher. Thanks Bee Redding 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC) P.S Should there be a link to the Alan Davidson page? If so, does an editor do that?

Bindows - request to keep

I thought wikipedia was about information.

I am stumped - who decides if an article has value? Who decides if the links are persuasive? 2-3 editors/admins with no technical background on the subject (Ajax frameworks)?

Our Bindows technology is used by more than 90 of the Fortune-100 companies and you stop it from being listed in wikipedia, while competing companies (most of them not even in our league) are listed.

I provided you with trade magazine reviews, other web sites that discuss Bindows and review it, and we have tons of blogs mentions and 450,000 entries in Google - and you deem it not persuasive enough?

What can we do to keep Bindows posted?

Ran Meriaz (678) 267-3940 ran@bindows.net

Your edit to Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD

I'm not pleased with you reverting that change without discussing it on the talk page. We reached some sort of consensus there that an auto-generated reminder was a good idea. If people have been complaining in other forums, perhaps it would be better to centralize discussion or make the warning less obtrusive, not eliminate it completely. Before the warning, Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted) was usually at least 20 debates, but since the addition it usually hovers around 1-5. —dgies_c 05:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit crotchety. What I meant to say is: Please revert your change and if you feel it is worth making this change, open a thread on Template talk:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD or WT:AFD to gain consensus. —dgies_c 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Those objections were made a month ago in a thread that at the time was already a bit "stale" and at minimum, Gracenotes, Cbrown1023 and myself seem to be on the other side of the issue. The problem is if we have such a thing as AfD debate categories then there will be such a thing as Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted) and it will show up as yet another backlogged category. If you want to make the case that AfD categorization is not worthwhile, that is fine, but it's bad to kneecap the mechanism that actually makes categorization work right. Please restore some sort of message and we can talk about opening a CfD on the debate subcategorization. —dgies_c 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Honestly, I think that was a brilliant move: . You saw a pattern others hadn't seen, but which is very obvious once pointed out. --Coppertwig 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you did so well with that one, I wonder whether you could help work out a compromise for the second sentence of WP:ATT. I think if we can find something that does all of the following then it will satisfy everyone involved:

• emphasize that things that are true, but not attributable, do not belong
• not seem (to some people) to be saying that it's OK to include material we know is false, or that it doesn't matter whether the material is false; it should just not say anything about this.
• however, also not seem (to some people) to be saying that Wikipedians are required to certify that the material is true or make sure it's true before including it. Again, it should just not say anything about this.

There are a number of alternative wordings on the Role of truth page that nobody has expressed objection to. Maybe one of them would do. It would be nice to get some new, creative input. Maybe something like "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source; being true doesn't cut it."

Anyway, if you would help develop a sentence that everyone can live with, I would appreciate it. --Coppertwig 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

can you talk to me privately please? i would really like some assistance in dealing with a matter, if you are busy, never mind :).Aarandir 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...

Hi. My RfA was closed as "successful" about 2 hours ago and I have been sysopped. I want to again express my thanks for your generous nomination and for getting me to stop postponing a run until all the stars were in alignment ... :) I'd be happy to hear from you anytime. Best, Black Falcon 05:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Suggestion

Thanks for the tip on how to fix my signed name. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 11:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Tagging

It's good to see an experienced person agreeing with my view of cleanup tagging. I think there is a certain amount of not seeing the wood for the trees going on. Improving the general quality of articles is a good aim, but we've got to keep what is currently around user-friendly while waiting for the improvement to happen. The satirist in me wants to create a "This article has too many tags" tag and set a robot going to tag every article with more than three tags. --Peter cohen 22:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Margery Fisher (children's literature expert) b.1913 - 1992

I've completed the above on my user page for submission as a new article but how exactly do I submit it, please? Also although the footnote numbers have come out, the actual citations have not. I must be doing something wrong! Thanks for your help (again).Bee Redding 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Sections in Articles

I agree that there shold be trivia sections in articles. Some footnotes help tell the story, while others are fun to know. Besides, if they delete them, where else are they gonna put the facts? Also, have u checked out the essay on "in popular culture" sections. That is interesting too. Plz write back.

           Sincerely,

Trivia Sections in Articles

My computer wouldn't sign my name, sorry.

alien joe

Gorgon and Perseus

Hi Mangojuice. In the above two articles I would like to ask for your help in assisting in any way you can think of in a dispute about the image of the Gorgon, because user DreamGuy thinks it is such a bad picture it does not deserve to be in the Perseus and Gorgon articles. He is currently edit warring with me and despite another user (Wetman) supporting the picture and the picture being used in three other Wikipedias (France, Italy, Israel) he keeps deleting it from the two articles because he doesn't like it. I tried to explain it to him but to no avail. The image is : Image:The_Gorgon_at_Corfu_Museum.jpg. Please refer to Talk:Gorgon#Gorgon.27s_picture and Talk:Perseus#Gorgon.27s_picture for background info. I also informed users Iamunknown and Yannismarou. This has been frustrating for me because this person is very intrasigent and revert-happy and I would appreciate your help in any capacity. Thanks. Dr.K. 16:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Take care. Dr.K. 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott

Kudos to you for wading through this. I'd been about to ask what everyone was actually arguing about, since both those saying "keep" and those saying "delete" seemed to be making arguments for merging... Keep up the good work! -- Jonel | Speak 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. People have a tendency to get theoretical. Yes, theoretically, if there was no place to merge the information, this article might have been appropriate for deletion. Or it might not. That's what the argument was about. But in the end, that's theory, and has little to do with the actual product. Mangojuice 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal question

What field is your PhD in and where did you get it? Also, is there a link to your doctoral dissertation?--Fahrenheit451 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I choose not to reveal my identity by providing that information, especially seeing how you have already assumed bad faith of me in the debate I started. I assure you, my PhD is real, but I never fall back on it as a credential: when I have expertise, I let my expertise speak for itself by writing well and accessing good sources. Mangojuice 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Then there is no evidence that you are a PhD and you should remove the relevant userbox from your user page. By the way, Mangojuice, the field of your PhD would not reveal your identity. Nor would revealing where you received that degree, it would only provide inconclusive information. I challenge your statements about your educational level. After reviewing your edits, I see no indication you have any area of expertise.--Fahrenheit451 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you of WP:NPA. None of this is germane to anything, and I will not remove the PhD userbox from my page, because I have a PhD, and I have no need to prove it to you. Any further comments from you here on this topic will be ignored. Mangojuice 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you of WP:CIVIL. Our discussion is very germane to your conduct as an editor and administrator on Misplaced Pages. Your nomination for AfD of Eugene Martin Ingram sure looked disruptive. I suggest you shape up pronto.--Fahrenheit451 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, on review, your last sentence "After reviewing your edits, I see no indication you have any area of expertise," may not be a personal attack exactly, but I don't care that you question my nomination of Eugene Martin Ingram, or my academic credentials, which are not the basis of my action. I was actually being quite deferential to the community in not simply deleting it out of hand. The article exists to present as much negative material as possible about a person of at best borderline notability. The sourcing is questionable: the sources are reliable but tangential to the subject, and no sources cited are biographical at all, which definitely runs afoul of WP:BLP, and I do certainly have a problem with an article like that appearing linked from the main page. And in any case, you can disagree with me without accusing me of bad faith. Your continued line of questioning into my degree is certainly commenting on the contributor rather than the contribution. Mangojuice 02:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I was with you up until I was actually being quite deferential to the community in not simply deleting it out of hand. We're supposed to be grateful you actually followed Wiki procedure? Ford MF 05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Climb down off your sarcastic horse. With all that sarcasm, I find it hard to believe you were with him beyond the first word you read. Deleting the article out of hand would also have been following wiki procedure. The article, like most of the articles edited by a certain group here, exists (as MJ said) solely for the purpose of providing as much negative information as possible. In the case of a BLP, it can put wikipedia at risk legally. In the case of other anti-cult articles, also full of negative pov ajenda-pushing information, it puts wikipedia at risk for credibility and reliability. I read the article, after it came up on the AN/I, and I found it to be one of the worst in the series of anti-cult articles.

Personally, I don't understand the hullabaloo and why it's so important, to some editors, that they find only the negative cult-linking, criminal implying, 'extremely reliable, trusted, highly reputable, multiple citation' information. Roughly 90% of their material is found on Rick Ross.com, who earns a living by applying 'cult' to companies and people (thats COI, or at least POV biased, right?). (And even when they are forced to use the actual source, they found it first on RR.com).

For crying out loud, even in his 'attempt' to find positive information, Smee included a quote from some unqualified individual who said this guy was one of the finest investigators around. What the hell is that? Why is this guy qualified as a reliable source to declare a person to be 'one of the finest investigators around'? Just because it is in print, somewhere, does not make it reliable or significant. Lsi john 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I would suggest you work on the article to make it more compliant with WP:BLP. I am commenting on your lack of contribution in That respect.--Fahrenheit451 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. AfD makes it more compliant with WP:BLP and with WP:N. If we are supposed to take this as a serious WP:BLP, where is the information about his family? How many cases did he work as a cop? What was his arrest record? His conviction record? How many cases did he testify in? What did he do in school? What were his grades? What was his favorite meal? What about his favorite color? What model car does he prefer? How many times did he work outside the country? This article is simply NOT notable. Lsi john 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, it is the person who must be notable, not the article. You may wish to review the policy.--Fahrenheit451 02:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ingram AfD

I'm a little miffed that AfD ended so abruptly. I was writing a comment when it closed. I have some trouble with the idea of articles about what appear to be private people who have only been accused of crimes, and never convicted. Some of the details here are even about things of which he seems to have been acquittted. This article in two places asserts criminal activity of the subject without so much as an "alleged" - that should be a BLP problem. The sources are basically local, or with the NYT one, incidental, and the very incidental coverage of the subject in the one court document seems to be a bit misrepresented in the article, in my reading. (And that's going by the wikisource text uploaded by the author of the article...) Gimmetrow 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in this article, if you were unaware of it. It does help to explain some things. Lsi john 13:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

MrsMacMan

It looks like MrsMacMan has withdrawn her desire to change her name . What should be done next? 68.161.94.49 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion, nothing. They're clearly different names. They have distinguishable signatures. She's not impersonating anyone. If it's a Jessica Liao sockpuppet, that's a different story: if that's the case blocking may be necessary. Maybe talk to someone more familiar with the Jessica Liao case? Mangojuice 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing my block. I believe there is a serious problem with the several users who have ganged up on me. Most importantly, the person who blocked me is an admin and has violated a number of wiki policies due to a WP:COI. I think this needs to be explored and dealt with. What is the best way to have an admins behavior reviewed? I am watching this page and would like to keep this discussion here (if that's okay with you). The editors I am having a problem with are likely to jump in and spam the conversation, I just want to stay focused on the topic. Thanks much. //Tecmobowl 20:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I know you didn't actually remove the block, just the request. I have absolutely nothing to do with the User:El redactor. User:Irishguy has totally abused his rights as an admin, he ignored due process, and many other wiki concepts. Regardless, I'll review other sources and see what happens. Be Well.//Tecmobowl 20:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image_talk:Sartzetakhs2.jpg

Hi again. I apogize for the additional trouble but I would like to ask you if you could delete the page: Image_talk:Sartzetakhs2.jpg. It serves no purpose anymore and the information included there is no longer needed. I could tag it if that would help, but I am not sure about the proper tag. Please let me know. Thanks. Dr.K. 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. The tag you could have used would be {{db-talk}} or {{db-g8}}. Check out WP:CSD for a bunch of uncontroversial types of deletion. Mangojuice 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Saying thanks again for the fast response and your advice would be an understatement. Bye for now. Dr.K. 22:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Friend of Mankind

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article The Friend of Mankind, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Steve Dufour 13:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you telling me? All I ever did was reroute a link to avoid a redirect. Mangojuice 13:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Worse Than Failure

You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Worse Than Failure and claimed that the result was "Keep" -- how on earth do you propose that as the end result when the votes for keeping and deleting were exactly the same? You should change that to "No consensus to delete" so as to not bias any future votes to delete. DreamGuy 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are online and making edits. I hope you get around to fixing your mistake here sometime. Just so I wouldn't forget it while waiting for you to respond, I left notices on the pages involved pointing out your error. If you fix your mistake you can remove those. I'd like to think this was just a good faith error on your part, so I trust you will fix it, but if not your false claim of a keep vote won't interfere with future votes because the fact that it wasn't a keep vote has been added. DreamGuy 00:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

DKP

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DKP. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tarinth 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hiccup

You recently deleted Talk:Hiccup with a summary of G8, but Hiccup is still going strong. Here's the log . Did you choose the wrong deletion summary, delete the wrong page, something else? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on your edits to the main article, I assume it's a G10 nouveau, and by luck I already know about that situation. I assume the point of the deletion was to clean some stuff out of the talk page. I'm going to undelete some same revisions by hand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK Next update

Thanks for helping with the DYK Next update. In the future, please don't forget to add the article credit so that we know who to notify. Example:

• Salinosporamide A - June 15, article by Nubinski (talk · contribs); nom Carabinieri (talk · contribs)

Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla repeated WP:COI violations

Hello, I've noticed you've warned for WP:COI violations before, and he recently replaced the Bape article to include his magazines article. He took out a lot of useful information and replaced it so he could use his magazines article as a source.. Please take action!

I have an interest in the topic, not a conflict of interest. I started editing the page because the article had no external credible sources. I knew I had a relevant source from my own magazine, which is allowed under COI policy as it is a reliable source. I then added five other sources, and substantially cleaned up the article. The only link this user has added is spam. A simple look at the recent history will confirm the quality of my edits. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You gotta see this. William has done it again.

Go to my page and read what William M. Connolley said to me after he deleted MY Poll on the Scientists... talk page. : User_talk:Britcom#Trolling --Britcom 11:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture articles

I'm contacting you in regard to your April comment on Talk:Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Lately, there has been a few popular culture articles that have been up for deletion, with what appears to be consensus to delete them as disguised lists of trivia. I was wondering about what had been considered the ideal article of an entity's presence in popular culture, and I came across the FA-class Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. While I am fine with the content of the first half of the article, since many listed items have a direct relevance to Joan of Arc. However, at "Joan Arc in popular culture", many items seem trivial. There are a few exceptions, such as Jeanne d'Arc (video game) and Joan of Arc (1999 film), that would warrant mentions, but items like her name appearing in a song or as a character in a broader medium, seem to stray from the actual prominence of the figure and into indiscriminate territory. I'm not sure how to best address this issue. If you are interested, you can review my contributions (filter to solely Misplaced Pages namespaces), and you can see various AfDs for popular culture articles to see what kind of opinions have been shared. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I am not proposing the AfD for this article. I am in agreement with the listing of directly influenced works (cited, of course) in this article -- it's just the less-centered items (in popular culture) that seem to be too unencyclopedic for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Do you believe that my removals so far are warranted? My criteria was similar to yours, I believe, though I was lenient in my process. There are some items that may still need to be addressed, such as Joan of Arc being a major figure in a strategy or fighting game, as well as individual songs about her. (I removed songs that mentioned her in passing, but left the ones that were based on her, assuming good faith about the entries.) There's been a massive clean-up of popular culture articles because they're a list of, like you've said, things loosely connected. It seems that if there are popular cultures on items that still possess some sort of copyright (2001: A Space Odyssey, for example), then it's highly likely that any depictions of the said item would be trivial as not to infringe on the copyright. Items that precede copyrights have a stronger likelihood of more detailed cultural depictions, as opposed to a passing joke used in a film. I think that the first half of the Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc article is absolutely appropriate. I aimed to remove indiscriminate items from this Featured List because the consensus seems to be that these items are generally not appropriate. Obviously, attribution should be provided for the more questionable pop culture entries, if not all of them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I wanted to move Eyelash Curlers & Butcher Knives (What's the difference?) to Eyelash Curlers & Butcher Knives (What's The Difference?) (which is protected) since the letter casing is incorrect on the current article.--milk the cows (Talk) 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

TPIR pricing games

Greetings. First, well done on a difficult close. I wonder though in reviewing the AFD if consensus hasn't emerged on merging the retired games into single article. There is clearly no consensus to delete and no consensus to merge everything but many of those who opposed an overall merge did not object to the notion of the retired merger. The big objection to any merger was that people might edit stuff out, which isn't really a good reason since stuff can be edited out now. Otto4711 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think the retired vs active thing arose because the retired articles are going to all have stuff like the reason the games were retired and the like. I put together a merged list which I talked about in the AFD so I think I'm gonna go ahead and move that into article space to keep the conversation going. Otto4711 19:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote on pedophile activism

There is currently a vote on the issue of whether the anti- and pro- pedophile activism articles should be merged into a single "culture war" article. Having noted your participation in previous discussions on this matter, I thought that I'd invite you to vote. 86.131.41.244 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Bus stop

Hi--I'm just wondering if the indefinite block of Bus stop is a bit excessive. Although I'm sympathetic to his situation (and in a large part in agreement with his central concern), I'm not a supporter of his actions. Having said that, he's been an excellent editor in other articles, in particular visual art. Is it possible to block him for a longer "cooling-off" period that would expire, such as a month? If he were to continue to be disruptive after that, than, yes, an indefinite block may be necessary. I guess I'm just concerned that there appeared to be an active campaign to egg him on, and although he was his own worst enemy at times, there seemed to be others involved that were not merely victims. Thanks for listening. Freshacconci 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As an editor who has seen the controversy from a distance, and having some interaction with Bus stop, in which he was both interesting and capable as an editor to work with, I'd like to see him be reinstated per some of the suggestions that have been offered. I am in agreement with Freshacconci. He was outnumbered, taunted and tried to stand his ground, to and beyond the breaking point. I think he is and can be a valuable member of this project. Thank you Modernist 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on Durova's recent inconsistent actions at WP:CSN, where she entirely deleted a similar (subsequent) thread, the block on Bus stop may not have been appropriate at all. It seems that Durova may not sure what the purpose of WP:CSN is. In one case she recommends a ban + mentoring COFS. In the next case she indef blocks Bus stop and then offers reduced block + mentoring. And in the third, similar report, she deletes the entire thread, citing: "inappropriate" for the noticeboard and recommends a user RFC. It appears that she enjoys tracking down and banning users, since on her talk page, she declares wiki-sleuthing to be a fascinating hobby here.

After doing some review and investigation, her last action, of declaring the thread to be inappropriate, does seem to be the most consistent with the CSN's purported purpose, and it seems that a user RfC should have been opened against Bus stop instead of the block. Blocks or bans issuing from WP:CSN discussions would appear to be inappropriate and circumvent an editor's wiki-due-process. Lsi john 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I denied the unblock because Bus Stop's reason for unblocking was completely avoiding the issue. I don't think I could have done any differently in the circumstancs. Mangojuice 11:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not defending him. I've seen him come up on both sides of 3RR before. There is definatly an issue in that group that needs resolution. My concern is the usage of WP:CSN to accomplish it. Sanctions are the 'last resort' after all other attempts at dispute resolution are exhausted. There seems to be a tag-team using that notice board for personal enjoyment and no matter how 'guilty' someone may be, they have a right to expect us to follow the rules. If Bus stop is to be indef blocked for misconduct, then he should be indef blocked... but only after people have exhausted the proper course of dispute resolution and then only if he continues to demonstrate improper behavior. Has an RfC been opened on him? Has he been taking to any mediation or arbitration? indef blocks & bans, are supposed to be a last resort. Lsi john 12:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You have some mistaken ideas about "wiki due process". Bans can be imposed for several reasons, one of which is "exhausing the community's patience." When that is the reason, a public discussion is merited, so that the community's level of frustration with the person can be explored. WP:CSN was created for these discussions: they had been happening on WP:ANI or WP:AN, but they're not meant to be discussions only among admins. Indefinite blocks, however, are not the same as bans and don't require the same kind of community support. I have blocked users indefinitely many times without trying dispute resolution: usually these users did nothing but vandalize, or repeatedly infringed on copyrights, so allowing them to edit while the problem is dealt with is not acceptable. That is the same thing with this indefinite block: Bus stop is not banned; the decision has not been made whether the block will eventually be lifted or not. Rather, the block represents a judgement that the issue must be resolved to significant satisfaction before Bus stop can be allowed to edit again. (And Durova should know the purpose of CSN better than anyone, since she (I think) created it.) Mangojuice 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of DKP_(Point_System)

I was revisiting an old friend today, namely http://en.wikipedia.org/DKP_(Point_System) and found it deleted. I have tried to follow the guidelines and as far as I can understand it was a speedy deletion R1 ("Redirects to deleted pages and to nonexistent pages"). I have tried to find my way around the wiki to get to the original page somehow, through page histories or otherwise and I cannot find it.

Do I understand it correctly that the page I am referring to was deleted because it itself was referring to a page which has also been deleted?

Either way, I miss the information on that page as it was a reference for me to point people to when explaining about this type of system (DKP systems) and the reason for having the one we use. Is there some way for me to retrieve this lost information? I will happily store it elsewhere if it is not wikipedia material but for now I just lost a resource and hope you can help.

Thanks very much for your time. --Relikvie 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too. mentioned it in the community portal and was sent here. The page had alot of good information, is it possible it was deleted unintentionally?

--Phfor 15:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it was the result of an AfD debate, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DKP (3rd nomination). Mangojuice 01:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway the content of this article can be restored, so it's contents can be inserted to a more specific Wiki site? (Wowwiki for example) If you can, Airphforce@gmail.com --Phfor 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll email you the latest version and the text of the revision history (so you can be GFDL-compliant). Mangojuice 12:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hirschfeld Eddy Foundation

I tried to fill out the sources. This lead to disappereance of parts of the text, so I recalled the references. Can you help. Thanx--Loveisahumanright 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== RE: Who Killed Tom King? ==

I was hoping you could take a look at the above article. Since you said on the WikiProject page you are interested in bringing articles to encyclopedic standard, this one is one with a problem. The above article had 40K+ of plot summary that I cut out, but probably it could use a little more than is there now. Any chance you could give it some attention? Thanks. Mangojuice 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This topic/article is quite controversial on Misplaced Pages. My rewrites have mainly been focused upon specific character articles (often when people just add, add and add and it gets quite untidy). I feel with the article in question, to simply remove content en-masse (regardless of reasons), probably wont progress the situation desirably when there are numerous editors who not only spent time on it, but believe the content should remain.

My personal views on the matter remain unbiased, and I think rather than me go in and attempt a tidy up, a decision may need to be first made as to what content can afford to be lost. The difference between the state of this article and those I tidy up is that this article doesn't need spelling/grammar/punctuation fixes, rather cut down of information.

Maybe starting a small discussion about its state on the talk page could be a start.. Bungle44 14:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

After seeing your controversial approach to the situation, albeit unsucessfully, I have taken the liberty of trying to establish discussion on the article's talk page. I do agree with your view, maybe not as strongly as to cut out 9/10s of the information, but certainly cut it down from it's current extensive state. Bungle44 08:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Prod2

I've never seen prod2 before. I like it.

Thanks for the clarification on the WP:PROF talk page, I've moved the comments over to my talk page since I basically got the response I wanted and didn't see a reason to clutter things up there. WLU 14:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The June 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. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 08:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

American films

Please please!!! help fill in List of American films. Even if it is just a few details it all helps -any contribution you can make will be more than appreciated!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: WP:OWN

RE: WP:OWN

I see, with some dismay, that you continue to exert ownership issues over Who Killed Tom King?. The images The JPS removed are not fine. Actually, not one of the images in the article are used justifiably within the policy, since they only contain boilerplate text in their Fair Use justifications, and no actual explanation specific to the individual images. Providing that is an absolute requirement. However, the fair use rationale must also be a good one, and you are going to have a very hard time justifying why we need to have so many copyrighted images on the page, considering the tiny amount of value each one adds. Most articles even on TV shows contain at most a couple of images. What you have been trying to do is to "storyboard" the plot summary, which is not an acceptable use of images at all. Mangojuice 11:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not showing ownership over Who Killed Tom King?, it's my main article of interest but I know I don't own it. I have already told JPS that I apoligise as my re-editing as it wasn't right but I stand strong on my objection to minimise the article. I said in the article discussion that I agreed that The Investigation section should be trimmed down, without weakening the storyline. James 22:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of user:VFHwebdev

Mangojuice, thanks, I actually understand that reasoning. I hadn't seen the Conflict of Interest policy and I'm happy to abide by it. From reviewing the spam link policy and external link policy I didn't think I was doing anything against the community rules. Thank you for taking the time to explain this.

User:ZordZapper

Mano, I am offline until tomorrow morning (US Central Time Zone). Any chance you could watch this and see if there is any reason to lift the indef-block? If a trusted editor would adopt, I could see lifting the indef-block and just keeping a close eye on it; but am up for whatever seems best. Thanks. Pastordavid 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no hurry with the indef-block. I think that if someone is willing to adopt, I'd be okay unblocking too. But if I were an adopter I probably wouldn't want to in this case. I'll check back on it later. Mangojuice 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Deano91

Thanks for notifying me, and I fully endorse your unblock decline — not only are many of his test edits completely unsourced (as you said), but they introduce inaccurate information or information cited to unreliable sources such as fansites. He's been asked and warned again and again not to do these things (which have been explained to him almost every time), and his unblock messages indicate that he still isn't aware of why his behaviour is problematic. He's also not commented on (much less taken back or apologised for) the off-wiki personal attacks he directed towards the community. Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 13:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth Peer Review

I noticed that you sent Battlefield Earth (film) for peer review on the main peer review page. I'm just going to move it to the Wikiproject Films Peer Review, where it should hopefully get some better advice. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My "behavior"

Excuse me? You dont "condone" my behavior? What exactly don't you "condone"? Perspicacite 02:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not once did he post on the talkpage, he referred to my reversions as vandalism, and he then added uncited content to the article. Every other editor who has interacted with him thus far have found his edits to be counter-productive. You claim I drove him to commit a 3RR violation but theres one problem with that statement. He was warned in advance. He made the decision to violate the policy knowing full he would be blocked. Your statement that his comments "bordered" on personal attacks is outrageous. We're done here. Perspicacite 02:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Relevance

I notice you haven't commented on the Misplaced Pages:Relevance proposal yet. May I ask for your thoughts on it? It touches upon several subjects which appear of interest to you.

User:WikiLen put forward a competing proposal, and in the interest of avoiding an edit war, neither proposal is currently hosted at Misplaced Pages:Relevance. This week I completed a third major revision of my proposal: User:Father Goose/Relevance, and WikiLen's latest draft can be found at User:WikiLen/Relevance. Your input would be most appreciated, on the talk page of either proposal, or, to keep discussion centralized, at Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance. Thanks.--Father Goose 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

At the present time, my version of the proposal has been restored to Misplaced Pages:Relevance, with other editors adding to it.--Father Goose 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians with committed identities

This category is up for deletion, but it appears that you were not notified. The discussion is located here. Can you please make a comment there? If no case for keeping it can be made, I will likely close it as "delete". --After Midnight 19:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, It was deleted pretty soon after I left you the message. We can still see who has the template transcluded pretty easily, especially if you use AWB. If you ever need help with that, let me know. Plus, if we ever do actually feel a need for the category to exist, we can probably get it recreated. --After Midnight 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

help needed Edit war

Please can you help edit war. Please can you apply the same rigour you have applied to articles on wikipedia to the article on the Porus article there is user (User:Intothefire) saying King Porus was from the Kukhran according to Oral history. I mean come on this outrageous to even post something like this on Misplaced Pages without any references or verifiable references but say ORAL HISTORY says he was from the Kukhran is appalling. I am Indian and there is NO scholar or University academic who says he was from the some fringe group called the Kukhran. Most Indian academics would be appalled by this falsehood and unsubstantiated claim. Please take this up immediately and apply your regular rigour to this article - absolutely appalling abuse of Misplaced Pages.--Sikh historian 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim Osman

Hi, I saw a rude, belligerent user, blindly reverting, with a prior block for edit warring. I did leave a warning with NYScholar last night (Australian) but after looking this morning to get a link to post here, I cannot see it ... so either I missed an edit conflict or the database hiccuped. Given that the second user was not warned in the same way, as he should have been, I'll support your unblock of Tim, or a reduction, as you see fit. I'll watch the article to see how things go from here. --Steve _(Stephen) 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Villa-Park

Thanks for the consideration. For a number of reasons it is clear that this account is a sock of user:Ericsaindon2. There are several other users who know him who can confirm it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The account sets off my alarm bells. Just about every sock I've looked at sounds just like that, after being blocked, and while they say Eric was blocked "a year ago," if you check page histories, they've been hitting the same articles as recently as... well, as recently as today, in this case. I've reviewed the unblock request, at least for now. Open to discussion, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "How to choose guide" in Digital signatures

My aim in this guide was to provide a usefull and important tool that will help "reveal" what sometimes goes ignored by people who choose such a system only later to discover they were not aware of those issues. I removed any commercial language from it and any reference to a specific product, so please point to me how I can further imporve it so doens't sound like a sales pitch.

- Ramel

expurgated

Hi Mangojuice. Sorry, a little complaint - it will take just a moment. As someone who spent a bit of time undertaking, however punk, what is item 4 in your plaintive essay, I thought it was a bit off to link it in the closing statement at the Radio Monash discussion. It seemed a harmless stub when I was through. Please pardon my opinion, just another disgruntled and undone editor who has had his whinge now. I will get on with my self inflicted slavery and find something more notable to give me attention to. Regards, Fred ☻ 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the essay probably was appropriate reading for them. Thanks for describing my effort as hard work, a bit of an exaggeration. I didn't think the voting was productive, I saw no harm in the article and knew it would not go into the article on the enormous university. Cheers, Fred ☻

New cryptography article search

Hi Mangojuice. I left a message for you at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cryptography#New cryptography article search. --David Göthberg 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Backlognav

Hello Mangojuice, do you know why Template:Backlognav is not catching the entire Category:Disputed non-free images backlog? The entire June backlog is missing. See the discussion on the CSD talk page. It looks like your code maxes out at a 17-day backlog (which is plenty enough). Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources for encryption algorithm on Ed Trice page

Hello,

Just so you know, I disclosed the invention of the IOTPCP to Dan Golub, a partner of the Law Firm of Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius. Present at the meeting was Bryan Peckjian, a patent agent.

http://www.morganlewis.com/index.cfm/personID/b7f7ec42-dfc0-44f5-8a23-d9fd3ad087e0/fromSearch/1/fuseaction/people.viewBio

I am not sure how to cite Dan as a reference.

After meeting with government officials in Washington, D.C., after the 9/11 attacks, I gave them this encryption algorithm for free. The NSA independently verified that the cipher could not be broken.

FYI.

GothicChessInventor 13:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, it's unpublished. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. Mangojuice 14:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice:

This is Tim Osman 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Tim OsmanTim Osman, and I apologize for the number of comments I made. I have calmed myself down, and will no longer get into shouting matches with people who vandalize. Can I ask you if I may contact you here if such a thing happens again, rather than getting into a shouting match which does my heart no good?

I have documented the edits I have made on my Usertalk:Tim Osman page, so please refer to them there if you have any comments for me or on the edits, or wish to add to the edits or make recommendations.

I thank you for your time.

Tim Osman 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Tim OsmanTim Osman 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have posted necessary explanations for the lack of footnotes (too many, not enough time to make sure they are properly linked, etc.) at this time - I do hope to keep you and others informed about these footnotes that I do intend to add, both to make sure that the article is not too leaning any which way politically, or that some of the links are bad and outdated.

I thank you for your time.

Tim Osman

Assistance requested

Please see WP:BLP/N for the notice that I have posted re: Joseph C. Wilson; for background pleasea also consult Talk:Joseph C. Wilson as well as the note that someone left yesterday on my current talk page User talk:NYScholar.

If the above user wants to experiment with draft versions of an article, he should not be doing that in article space; he should be learning how to contribute to Misplaced Pages using "sandbox" or his own word-processing space offline.

He has completely destroyed the neutrality and the citations formatting of the article on Wilson and completely shown disrespect and utter disregard for properly-documented reliable and verifiable sources provided by earlier editors as well as their editorial interpolations by deleting them wholesale without prior discussion the talk page. His changes to the article damage the article, its credibility, and the credibility and reputation of Misplaced Pages.

Despite your prior warnings, he has no apparent familiarity or respect for Misplaced Pages's editing policies and guidelines pertaining to WP:BLP or with its core policy Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. His changes to the article do not demonstrate that he has consulted them and therefore, I believe, that they are not good faith edits; I do not mean to violate WP:AGF in stating this, but I am concerned that the user is more concerned with presenting his own biased view of the subject than with maintaining quality standards in Misplaced Pages. (He still does not consult talk page guidelines and sign his comments with four tildes, despite the tagged notice on the talk page. My preference is not to use a live link in my signature: you can find me at User:NYScholar as listed in the editing history/contributions to any article; please see User talk:NYScholar for current and archived user talk pages. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have since posted a report of the user's violations of WP:3RR in its report page; he is continually vandalizing my own talk page: see the editing history of User talk:NYScholar. Thank you. Despite his claims to be constructively editing Joseph C. Wilson and your reply there (which is not accurate, given what he has done to the article, despite his claims), he is not editing it in a "constructive" manner. His deletions have completely ruined the citations formatting throughout the article and they have also resulted in violating Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. I do not think that he has followed your warning to familiarize himself with WP:BLP or Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view or with other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. An administrator needs to return the article to its former state prior to his damaging changes to it. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another administrator did revert his changes subsequently. Since that administrator's action, I've been trying to resume the editing of one particular section (as per my talk page comments) that I had begun before he made changes to the article on July 30. It still needs shortening, but, after many more hours of work, I have provided the accurate information from the sources so that other editors can work with it in building a neutral BLP. Please see Talk:Joseph C. Wilson if needed and the editing history of the article. Thanks. --NYScholar 08:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask for a Block of User:NYScholar

Mangojuice, I am asking you to block user: NYScholar. He is posting personal attacks on me on this page, on his own page, and on the discussion page of the entry Joseph C. Wilson. Despite being warned by me to criticize content, and not engage in personal attacks, he/she has continued to do so. Can you block this person? I just got out of the hospital in May with chest pains, and I do not need this grief from this person anymore. I am just trying to add to the Misplaced Pages dictionary, and NYScholar tracks down each edit I make - even on William B. Bankhead, and makes snide comments about the content and removes the content I put in.

If you want this kind of person on your site, then let me know and I will just quit. Enough is enough. I am sorry to hand this to you, but you asked me to consult you and I did. Here I thought that personal attacks were against policy on this site. Well, if they are, look right above this notice and tell me that everything being said is not a personal attack.

I am going to go to sleep now. I don't feel good about this any more.

3RR violation noticeboard

Re: User:Tim Osman; User talk:Tim Osman#48 hour block; User talk:Tim Osman#Blocked: Please see 3RR Noticeboard: User Tim Osman reported by user NYScholar after his multiple violations (again) of WP:3RR, as well as Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, and WP:BLP. He still has not apparently read these policies. The comment about "tracking" him "down" is unwarranted. His edits are in "contributions" and, given the problems that he has been creating and encountering through his unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages policies, he would perhaps be better off not contributing further to Misplaced Pages until and unless he reads the policies and guidelines and agrees to abide by them. So far I haven't seen evidence of that. I am sorry that he doesn't feel well, and I have no wish to contribute to his ill health. That said, his health problems are lamentable but no rationale for what he has been doing to Misplaced Pages articles. Perhaps he should take a break and just read up on the policies and guidelines and do some "sandbox" editing prior to trying to change articles that many of us have worked very hard to document and to make conform to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and other aspects of WP:BLP. --NYScholar 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Copyright permission

Template:Copyright permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Have YOU seen Goatse?!

I can only assume myself that you have seen the Goatse image, otherwise you would not see the humour in the domain name that I chose to entitle that particular shocking photo with which I provided a link to for the benevolance of the public.

Thank you

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The July 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 delivery by BrownBot 19:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block of NYScholar

Hi. I'm somewhat troubled by your block of User:NYScholar based upon his removal of comments from his own talkpage. While this is hardly exemplary collaborative behavior, I am not convinced that in and of itself this is a blockable offense. However, I know that this user has other rough edges and may have engaged in other misbehavior, so I wonder if there is any further input or clarification you might care to offer that the reviewing admin can consider. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to leave for vacation so this is probably my last message for a while. Basically, there is nothing I am privy to that isn't in the logs, so anyone reviewing the situation should feel free to make up their own mind. But please view the situation holistically: the issue is not only removing a comment from one's user talk page, but rather a lot of deliberate provocation and nastiness directed at a user they are in conflict with, which they had previously been warned about. The way those two are going, editing Joseph C. Wilson is effectively impossible, as is reading the talk page, so there is definitely disruption, and I cannot lay the blame on only one of the users. Mangojuice 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Porus

Please see the discussion page of Sikh historian where you have posted . Cheers Intothefire 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia 2

After seeing your essay Misplaced Pages:"In popular culture" articles, I thought you might be interested to know that I have created the template {{Trivia2}} for just these types of sections, and would greatly appreciate it if you would take a look and comment on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cryptography article disambig naming, examples/voting

We are currently discussing cryptography disambig naming at the talk page of WikiProject Cryptography. Naming like Tiger (hash). I would value your comments/input on the matter. --David Göthberg 05:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Since JzG has not responded, please reconsider my unblock request. I've made a lot of good contributions to Misplaced Pages, and would like to continue, particularly in the areas of encryption, computers and networking, GPS, WAAS, GPS-related articles, general science, and aviation. I'm in my mid-40's, divorced, am very well read, and have a significant amount of education, experience, and training. I'd like to share that with others, and Misplaced Pages is an excellent forum in which to do so. If unblocked, I promise to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies regarding the content of articles, namely, not putting forth personal points of view and ensuring the content is verifiable. Please reconsider my request. - Mugaliens, August 19, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.86.49.152 (talk) 09:22:21, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I consulted with JzG and denied the unblock request a while back. Please read User:Mangojuice/A letter to sockpuppets, which will explain the difficulty with this situation. Mangojuice 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting the text from a deleted page

I'm requesting the text from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Kids_Next_Door_Two-by-Four_Technology if possible, not to re-create the page but for the information it contained. I am attempting to create a video game mod based around Kids Next Door, and in the past I found this page extremely useful. If I could get a copy, I would dearly appreciate it. My e-mail is Ingulit@gmail.com. Ingulit | Talk 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to. Surely there is a fan site out there with similar information. I'm worried that if I do this, I will start getting flooded with requests for the contents of old deleted pages. Only admins are supposed to be able to access deleted content... and also, Misplaced Pages is not a webhost - if you find information useful, you should store it yourself because it is sometimes deleted. Mangojuice 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)