User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Relisting afd's

Hello, please comment-out the entry on the original day's log when you relist an afd. This removes it from WP:AFDO, and prevents another admin from closing it on accident. Every AFD should only ever exist on a single logpage. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Evidently, I missed that one. Turn about.:D (I was pretty sure we'd talked before!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OH hahahaha... I forgot about that. I knew your name was familiar, but I thought it was just from seeing you close things, or such.  :) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's good that there are folks around to mop up after us sometimes. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Don't mention it. Can you chime in on the discussion here? Need some assistance. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased albums

I've been considering starting a WikiProject to clean up the Unreleased album category (I'm finding it's definitely going to take a group effort). If you might be interested, I've started trying to write it up here. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll pitch in some on the effort, though I'm not sure how much time. I seem to be on a one-woman album rating crusade (I say one-woman because as near as I can tell nobody else is really doing that) and deletions eat a lot of Wikipedia hours (CSD or AfD). But it's a good cause. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. I'm not looking for blood oaths or fealty ; ) —like Mom says: many hands make light work. I know I would rather spend a little time on culling articles and more time on other stuff. If you're interested, watch this page to keep up with what's going on and you can participate as much or as little as you like. Thanks—Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I will indeed watch it. :D And I'll take a shot at the category some time today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Zedla RfA

Sorry for the delay but just want to drop a quick note saying thank you for participating in my RfA which closed and passed earlier this week. I'm definetely keeping everyones points in mind about project space participation -- it's something I realize I will have to work on to round out my wiki experience. Like all my other reports I'm hoping to get better with the speedy critieria. If you have any comments I'm always open to the counsel of others. Sincerely – Zedla (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on passing. :) If you run into a situation you're not familiar with, I'd suggest asking an admin you know. I've gotten better results that way than going to ANI. (I've even gotten good results asking admins I don't know. For instance, I needed help with a sockpuppet and looked at the history of the suspected sockpuppet page to find out who to go to.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

History Merge

I can't believe I'm in an argument about this. Non-notable article - deleted. End of story. Black Kite 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry - that was rather intemperate of me, and somewhat caused by IRL events. Though honestly, I don't see the necessity for GFDL compliance here - you basically have a NN artcle which is included (via a simple sentence) in another article - what is the necessity for GFDL? Frankly, I prefer to delete such articles, as such redlinks lying about are a magnet for recreation. LGRCitroilles would no doubt argue with me, but hey. Black Kite 01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And now I've just seen your reply to me. Tell you what; I'll recreate the article as a redirect, and look it over tomorrow. Fair?? Black Kite 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No, you're right, I'm rubbish at history merges :) I think I got one right once, but it was a lot time ago... Black Kite 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Honorverse

Hi Thanks again for your comments. I'm a bit confused now as to what to do. I've had this put on my talk page:

Grayson Space Navy

During the AfD of High Admiral (Honorverse), you offered (twice) to undo your merge of the material to Grayson Space Navy if the result of the AfD was delete — it was; please consider using this link to do so. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it, but is that what I should do or?--Doug Weller (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, User:Dougweller has undone his merge of material from High Admiral (Honorverse) to Grayson Space Navy.
  (We've met before, but I don't recall the circumstances; hi!) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  Hi. :D Thanks for your assistance. The matter seems to be handled now, with everything where it ought to be and nothing where it oughtn't. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  I'm still trying to figure out what happened. I saw you restored the tags I put there; was that due to my (now deleted) edit being in the middle of things? Also, what links to it is now showing tons of links, but I remove the link from {{Honorverse}} which is where most of them were coming from. What's with that? Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, your edit was to a page that had the GFDL violating material attached. To preclude the possibility of the material being later restored, given that I could easily replace your tags (no real fear of GFDL issue, but I credited you anyway :D), the best procedure seemed to be to delete the additions entirely. I don't know what's with the links. I'll go take a look and see if I can figure it out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not going to be able to figure out much, I'm afraid. The links seem obviously related to the template from which you removed the page a few hours ago. I have been told in the past that transclusion can take a while to catch up. I do not know if this is true or, if true, why. :) I'd say check back tomorrow, and if the problem persists we can take it up at the help desk or village pump technical. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  But, but, but… <joke>that cost me an edit-count!</joke> Yes, my real concern is stuff being stealthily resurrected down the road. The link thing is probably some sort of caching issue; see if it just goes away. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  above edit-conflicted with your reply; I've seen this sort of thing before but it didn't persist for long; database just got thrashed; check tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  LOL! :D Okay, tomorrow. I'm pretty useless with the technical side of things. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  Well, you seem to have the history merge down. Ask if you ever think I might be of help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. I surely will. Ditto. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• The pages that link to… question seems to have sorted itself. Also, you may wish to see this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grayson Space Navy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

An edit-war about music genres

Hi Moonriddengirl. I would like the assistance of a cool-headed admin. As much as I swore that I would never get involved in edit wars about music genres, here I am at Glassjaw. I was drawn in (and requested page protection) when some anon IPs were warring back and forth and clogging the page history. Someone had gone to the effort of finding sources for genres but User:Mrbelial, who is likely also User:189.24.99.171 and User:189.24.85.13 (among others) keeps deleting sourced material. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. When we pointed out WP:V, the user expressed an opinion about music magazines, but since then has simply kept reverting without discussing. I have warned the user that one could be blocked for edit warring even without breaking 3RR, and have suggested dispute resolution repeatedly to no avail. If you have a moment to look at this, offer any advice, I would appreciate it very much. I had considered a 3RR report but I don't think the user technically went beyond 3RR. I considered RfC or 3rd-opinion, but that seems unnecessary because all other editors already at the page seem to disagree with Mrbelial. I considered a report to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but the user is not communicating at all at this point. Thanks for any suggestions, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll head over and see if I can assist in just a second. I'm framing a note for WP:BLPN. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious that this editor is resisting efforts at dispute resolution, given that multiple notes have been left unanswered on his or her user page trying to encourage that. I have left a warning about edit warring and will keep an eye on the article to be sure that edit warring does not continue. I will not edit or revert anything myself, in order to maintain my neutrality, which does mean that if the page winds up needing protection, it might not be in the form you prefer. Since several editors have tried approaching this editor, you might consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Meanwhile, if you have good reason to believe that this user is currently (or if s/he resumes) avoiding 3RR under multiple identities, may I suggest you consider pursuing a sock puppetry investigation? And my apologies for any unnecessary wikilinks; I am in the habit of double bracketing almost everything. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look, and making those additional suggestions; that's very helpful. Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

One more note: you also might want to consider simply requesting page protection yourself. Technically, such edits should be reportable to the 3RR noticeboard, but I've seen that they aren't always addressed. I've seen them reported at WP:ANI with varying types of response. I suppose it depends on whether the admins who respond there perceive the editor as a good faith, valuable contributor who is caught up in a content dispute or a tendentious editor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OldAfD

By the way, and I hope you don't mind, after you accidentally did this, I did this. Those pesky redirects! :) --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind? I'm grateful. Thanks much! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Random stranger approval

Hey, thanks! Glad to be able to help out! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Post on my talk page

Well, I really didn't ever use CSD categories before I got huggle, and I saw the tag for "re-creation", and the obvious happened. Thanks for letting me know about that, So should I use db-importance or db-attack or whatever I would use if I had never seen the article before? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Little help?

Can you please block User:Cjohn17? Look at Jeremiah Wright if you need evidence. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was odd. Done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was getting a little sick of staying on that article waiting for him to vandalize it again... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've been there. :) I started off in recent change patrol. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you get rid of User:82.17.187.68? See Nexon Corporation... Thanks, and sorry for bugging you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Already handled. :) I've been off-wiki a bit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Card

Greetings from Kitty53

Happy St. Patrick's Day! -- Kitty53 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day!Kitty53 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Syrym removed with no explanation/no indication of who did it

Just curious if you know why a page that the Wikipedia community determined to "Keep" has now been deleted? I couldn't find any information on who deleted the article, but I saw that you had previously commented on it and thought you might have some insight. It seems that people make certain determinations on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to music, based on taste and not facts. For example, someone has included Rod Stewart on a list of hard rock musicians, though Stewart has never recorded anything even vaguely approximating hard rock. I happen to think Syrym is not only a good band, but that they have legitimacy based on both who they are and the bands their members have previously (or currently) been associated with. If you've got any insight into this situation, I'd be grateful for the knowledge. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedic volume, not a popularity contest. Crunch23 (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a slightly tricky one. Ordinarily, an article that has survived AfD as keep can't be speedied for notability concerns, but this one has a complication in that the AfD was essentially withdrawn by the nominator. Depending on whose viewing it, that may or may not be considered a factor. The deletion log says it was deleted as "not yet notable" by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (I see he left behind the talk page.) The next step would be to civilly approach it with him, point out the AfD and the band's connection with point 6 of the notability guidelines for musicians & ensembles at WP:MUSIC. (As I said in the AfD, a redirect may be more appropriate until Syrym meets notability guidelines for other concerns.) If the admin disagrees with you that the article should be restored, you have the option to invite wider community review into whether the article meets WP:CSD#A7 at WP:DRV. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Hello. I'm sorry. I was nervous.. I be blue in the face. Really I'm sorry, serio..So please block me t because I earn on penalty. And I wrote message to Renata. Alden or talk with Alden 15:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just stop? That would be so much better all around. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh..Sometimes I'm nervous..And just..I'm moody, so you no block me? Please, I understood my mistake.. Alden or talk with Alden 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you've understood how your behavior is problematic with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines and you've stopped, there's no reason to block you. Blocks are not for punishment, but to stop disruption. Sometimes they may be necessary to reinforce that the rules and guidelines matter. Lots of people become emotional when working on Wikipedia; sometimes it's unavoidable. There are tips at "dispute resolution" for staying cool. Less seriously, but possibly also helpful, there are essays like Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. It's always better to work within guidelines to resolve differences. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry by trouble. And do you speak polish? Alden or talk with Alden 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, unfortunately the only languages I've studied other than my native tongue are no longer spoken in the modern world. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kudos and YB

Sometimes it's not easy to stay cool, when faced with a torrent of hate and personal attacks - but I've got practice :> And academic standards (unlike some of my anonymous flame-loving opponents). If you have time and will, neutral editor's comments would be appreciated at: Talk:Battle of Murowana Oszmianka; Talk:Vilnija#NPOV_dispute and Talk:Armia_Krajowa#Crimes_involving_Armia_Krajowa. Thanks for you comment,--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goodness. Three of them no less. :) I'll take a look and see if there's anything I can offer. I often find it difficult wading it to the middle of these sorts of dispute, because they are generally well developed by the time I get there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for reverting on my talk. Could you please, pretty please protect my user page? As this campaign would not stop. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If a brief block becomes necessary, that may be an avenue to take, but user talk pages are important for allowing others to contact you. In such cases, blocking the other party is the preferred response. I'm about to address this issue at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you again. M.K. (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for patrolling my user page. It is good to know that somebody is covering your back :) M.K. (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's on my watch list and will be until I'm reasonably sure that this user understands that harassment is not allowed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC proposal

As someone who has previously been involved in WP:MUSIC policy discussion. I would much appreciate your input on this proposal if possible. --neonwhite user page talk 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chalmerica enterprises

Hi, I'm turning to you as you deleted a false article (Steven Wolfe) created twice by Chalmerica enterprises, this user keeps posting hoaxes on the Kennisis Lake‎ article, would it be possible to act on this repeated vandalism? There is not much I can do anymore at that point - Wikigi | talk to me | 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The user has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Thanks for letting me know he or she was persisting. You can also report straightforward vandalism like that to WP:AIV for swifter resolution. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Stale deletion discussion

Could you take a look at the Afd for C & C Market Research? I can't close it, for obvious reasons, but it looks like it's gone stale. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll go take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

C & C Market Research

OHTHANKGAWD!!! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That is not the response I usually get when I delete an article. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as advertising, then resurrected based on promises of improvement, which almost immediately disappeared in favor of the advertising again. The editor was obnoxious, but clever, so he couldn't easily be dismissed, and required repeated explanations, which he simply ignored. I was chanting, "Die, die, DIE!!!" Ask Orange Mike. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon Courtney

Moonriddengirl -- you elected to keep this page; You've been had, convinced by a weak argument for notability by two self-confessed camp followers of this person, who now use wikipedia as an advertising medium. Let me ask you, have you ever heard of Jon Courtney?. All you have done is started now is an editing war when, with a simple merge you could have avoided thisJustpassinby (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC).

On the contrary, any editors who decide to edit war are doing so of their own volition and will be subject to the results of that. We don't side-step consensus just because of the fear of tendentious editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your earlier note. I've put a new note about all this at the WP:AN/I noticeboard as there have been further complications! Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Further dubious editing continues... I've also reported possible sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby (2nd). Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You know and I know that the 'concensus' method of article deletion is flawed and should be replaced with a debate based decision. My only beef with Jon Courtney is that he is not notable enough to merit a seperate entry in Wiki. Nothing that has been said has changed my view of this, and for you to say that you hadn't heard of him prior to this dispute and then to write such an ill sourced, ill-informed and lengthy article is simply taking the p*ss (spelled out, is abuse of your admin privileges). I can maintain the neutrality of the article by countering all your positively biased writing with my own negatively biased writing - there's enough sources out there. One thing is for sure - there's no point in taking the article to any further dispute given how you have already acted.Justpassinby (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justpassinby" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassinby (talk • contribs) 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus method of article deletion has flaws, yes. But if you think consensus is counting noses, you've misunderstood it. It is based on debate, but you were the only person arguing that the material had no place on Wikipedia in the AfD. Other editors also cited guidelines in setting out why it did. For your benefit and that of other editors who felt the article should not stand alone, I linked to Help:Merge, which sets out the proper procedure for proposing a merge. I find it perplexing that you consider the article ill-sourced, given that every line I added is attributed to a reliable source. And given further that you were yourself objecting to the poor sourcing of the article, I am entirely flummoxed that you regard my efforts to improve it by ensuring that it meets WP:V as admin abuse. (You'll find steps for following up on that here, as detailed on my userpage.) It was your own note on my userpage about the risk of edit warring that inspired me to make sure that wouldn't happen by bringing the article in line with policies and guidelines. I agreed that the material that existed at that time was positively biased ("credited with the ability to write well for contrasting male and female lead vocals") and poorly sourced. I'm not sure how you find efforts to fix that abusive. I have no issues with your using proper sources to keep this and its related articles neutral, but negatively biased writing is no more appropriate than positively biased writing. (And if you perceive bias in any article, you should consider seeking additional opinions, perhaps at WP:NPOVN.) If you think the Jon Courtney article shouldn't be here, propose a merge. Disrupting the article to make a point isn't going to help make your case or convince anyone that you're operating in good faith. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Duplicating response to above, since above was duplicated here. :)

Oh, P.S., if you disagree that the closure of an AfD was done properly, you should follow the procedure set out at deletion review. I presume you know about that, since it's mentioned at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Courtney and you've obviously read it. But perhaps you overlooked it. If you go that avenue, you will need to be prepared to explain how the closure misinterpreted the process. It is not for simply arguing with the debate's outcome or re-opening the debate, but for suggesting that the debate should have closed differently based on existing material within it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC) duplicating again. Rather not. Can we simply have this conversation in one place? :)

If there's one thing Wikipedia has taught me it is that there is little use debating issues with an administrator who has written an article that she has elected to keep, despite obvious opposition. We are arguing understanding of semantics with this article, and the real issue is getting lost in their interpretation. For someone who claims to have never heard of this subject, I would ask you what qualification do you have to write a biography? You have never met him, don't know him, you possibly wouldn't like his music if you heard it. However, in order to prove your point and to exemplify your status on Wiki, your are determined to go ahead and twist what little you know or can find on the web about this subject, in order to write an article that belongs in 'Teen' magazine.

I'm not going to go through any dispute resolution as that is pointless. You, as an admin, are omnipotent and can basically get away with writing any rubbish on Wikipedia. The fact that you haven't been challenged yet is simply a reflection on the unimportance of the subject and the perceived lack of integrity of your articles. Carry on. I will remember to sign this (another of your pet(ty) hates) just so that the other fan bondegezou doesnt get all uppity again, and I'll put a copy on your talk pageJustpassinby (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Flowforth Productions

User: Flowforth

I have just signed up and submitted three page suggestions:

Flowforth Productions Luna Trick Daniel Staniforth

Flowforth Productions was flagged for possible conflict of interest and use of the word "innovative."

I am just trying to get the info on Wikipedia - you may edit accordingly to suit your guidelines.

Please let me know if there is anything specific that I should do to achieve this.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowforth (talk • contribs) May 20 2008

Hello. I have responded at the drawing board. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Block me

Why did you block me on twenty four hours? I'm waiting for your answer on my talk page. Alden or talk with Alden 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied at talk page, as requested. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So why M.K. didn't blocked? He deleted my message on his talk, Greets;] Alden or talk with Alden 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Tony Mitra

Hi. Thought I'd ask another question here. On Santidev Ghosh's I wanted to make a few comments on the discussion page. But I could not find a way to start it. There is no "edit" link where I could make a comment. Silly question, but can you help? thanks again. Tony Tonymitra (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. To edit that talk page, you click the tab third in which says "edit this page" or hit "+". + automatically creates a new section. Following this link should get you there quickly. If it doesn't, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

History merge

Hi. I don't know if you are familiar with History merging, but I recommended it in the AfD for List of radio stations in Albuquerque as it is a good way to consolidate the history of a page which has been copy-pasted to another page, when the merged-to page does not contain significant edit history which overlaps the history of the merged-from page. I think this would be appropriate in the case of List of radio stations in Albuquerque which was copy-pasted into Media of Albuquerque. J-stan did this at the closure of the similar AfD for List of radio stations in Shreveport.

P.S. Thank you very much for restoring the California radio lists to my userspace. I do plan on working these into more comprehensive "Media" lists/articles, and am satisfied with the outcome of these more recent AfDs on citywide/regional radio station lists. DHowell (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad that the restored articles are working out for you. :) I do know about history merging, and closed an AfD around the same time as that one similarly. In this case, GFDL compliance is satisfied by the notes placed in the edit summaries of the articles, here and here, and by putting the redirected List of radio stations in Albuquerque in Category:Redirects from merges. That will ensure that the article is never deleted so that its history remains visible. I handled it as a full content paste merger. History merges are usually done to repair cut and paste moves, which is when the entire article has been relocated rather than placed into an existing article, as this was. I have done them as a more complete form of merger, though. If you would prefer a history merge, I have no objection to performing one. Just let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But the article Media of Albuquerque actually did not exist until Bearcat created it two minutes before he copied the radio station list into it. So it is in essence a copy-and-paste relocation (with added content) rather than a merger into a pre-existing page. While there were two edits before the information was copied over, these edits don't overlap the edits of the original list article so this should not be too confusing (no more so than the results of any history merge are), so I'd prefer a history merge as I think that it would make the origins of the page clearer, and would also be consistent with the history merge already done at Media of Shreveport, where Bearcat did the same thing (created the page with TV stations and then copied in the radio station list minutes later). On the other hand, if Media of Albuquerque had been a pre-existing page with significant edit history, I'd agree that a history merge would be inappropriate. DHowell (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do a history merge, then, as you prefer. It's not a question that doing a history merge would be inappropriate. I didn't feel it necessary, since the merge procedure covers retaining history, but there's no real reason not to do one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Better Courts for Missouri

Sure, no problem. I thought you had wanted me to do it (sorry, I'm busy and can't always count on a large block of time at the computer ...) Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisting AfD's

Thanks for the head's up on that. I think this was my first relist, although I did do a lot of AfD stuff before my wiki break last year and I might have tried one back then; I just don't remember. Either way it slipped my mind and I appreciate you catching it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Santidev Ghosh/Ghose Spelling

Hi. Troubling you again. I got a note from one of the nephew's of Mr. Ghosh, stating that the spelling of the first name has many English variations, but the person Santidev actually use a unique version of his last name, i.e. Ghose and not Ghosh. I tried changing the name on the page heading, but could not. I left a comment on the discussion page on Santidev Ghosh. I did alter the main text to include the Ghose variant to the name, and made it Ghose in the bio data box. Can you advise the best course of action at this point regarding the spelling of the last name on the main page heading? Thanks in advanceTonymitra (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've actually already responded to this question at the article's talk page, which leads me to suspect that I should tell you about watching pages. There is a tab at the top of Wikipedia pages that is labeled "watch". If you click on this, it adds the page to your watchlist. It does not keep track of every change to the page for you, but it will list the most recent change. To view your watchlist, you go the personal menu at the top corner of your page. There's your name, "my talk", "my preferences" and then "my watchlist". If you click that, the most recent changes to articles in your watchlist will be displayed for you. With regards to changing the name, as I said at the article's talk page, that is done by a page move. However, I would like to discuss with you there whether you are certain the move is appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD templates

Here's something where I could use some help from you, Moonriddengirl, if you're interested. I just noticed a comment from Ozzieboy at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (general), with a suggested change (inserting something along the lines of "or duplicate pages" or "a page which is an exact duplicate of another page" (latter is my version)) which seems reasonable to me. However, it also seems reasonable to me that if such a change is to be done, the policy (CSD) should be modified first, then the template, and I just replied so. Anyway, if you'd like to help, you can assist in reaching consensus on this, for example perhaps by proposing the suggested change at CSD yourself if you agree with it, or by replying to Ozzieboy with a reason why it wouldn't be a good idea, or some other action. I don't have strong feelings about including the suggestion or not; I just want to make sure that all concerns have been addressed reasonably. (Perhaps just doing nothing is OK too now that I've replied to Ozzieboy's message, anyway.) Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DONE: all the draft templates have been created. See my message at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Suggested new wordings for CSD templates. It would be helpful if you would look them over -- perhaps just checking that the wording is reasonable and/or is what was agreed on; I haven't checked them against any changes that have happened meanwhile in the CSD's, for example. I may have made mistakes copying the wording, too. I may be checking some of the programming-type details and hope that Happy-melon will check them over too. Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Go you! :D It's shut off time for me for tonight, but I will get on them tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. :-) Another thing to check: suggested deletion log summary wordings, which I've just written. These will automatically go in the deletion logs. See WT:CSD#Section break 2 and the tables in the subpages (this time it's the tables to be proofread/edited, not the templates yet). --Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

They look good to me (I tweaked some of the article ones), but I have to say that I use ^demon's script for deletion logs, so I'm not familiar with what stuff says *now*. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy-melon has written deletion summaries into the templates which don't necessarily correspond with what's in the tables. Thanks for your tweaks, but I think I'll leave things as they are: that is, if you want your tweaks to go into the templates you may have to do that yourself and/or discuss it with Happy-melon. It doesn't matter much to me exactly what the deletion logs say; that is, either your versions or Happy-melon's are fine. Happy-melon seems to lean towards very short deletion log summaries. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saying hello, as I just noticed we both seem to be online at the same time – or were; I have to go soon. By the way, I recently noticed (again?) a bunch of templates such as Template:db-xfd and Template:db-empty etc. that we also need to go over new wording for. More on that later. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Ready for implementation, although we aren't really ready for implementation. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Never ending, huh? :) I'll go take a look at the conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had no idea how long all this would take! It's satisfying, though.

You might be interested in these discussions at the pump: Tightening the screws and Reducing barriers to entry --Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

←I've looked at (and contributed to) one; I'll look at the other in a minute. As opposed to the new templates, I'm not sure how best I can help out. Is there anything specific I can or should do? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would look at the new templates, i.e. {{Db-xfd/new}} {{Db-blankcsd/new}} {{Db-disambig/new}} {{Db-blanktalk/new}} {{Db-copypaste/new}} {{Db-move/new}} {{Db-movedab/new}} and consider whether they represent policy adequately, or whether some of them should be deleted or have their wording changed to correspond more closely to policy (or whether policy needs to be changed to reflect actual template usage). I'm somewhat concerned that G6 is vague and that some of these templates invoke G6 with wording which does not appear at all in the G6 policy. I've tried to make the situation clearer by inserting "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance" and am not sure if this gets the point across that the other words are not a quote of G6. Maybe you can think of better wording. Also perhaps comment on the redirects and deletions suggested by Happy-melon. Thanks. (Note that due to a quirk in how the templates are implemented, A3 may need to be mentioned twice in blankcsd. It may not be worth the trouble to change that.) --Coppertwig (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I just gave Happy-melon my go-ahead to implement the new CSD templates (via MelonBot). I'm crossing my fingers that nothing else comes up to delay things. It's exciting! --Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Live Then Give Life

The above article had a Copy Vio tag and has been deleted. Kathleen.wright5 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Learning

I think I helped a suspected sockpuppet file a 3RR report. :-( Oh, well, I'm learning.  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. :/ But, you know, that's what WP:AGF is all about, right? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Actually believing what people say, and stuff like that.

Please read your email. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a situation where I posted practically identical messages to two users' talk pages at once, a format I've used previously. Here's a quote of me at WP:AN/3RR about it, with links: "The most recent post to the article talk page is Feb. 21. I've posted messages at Anishshah19's and IAF's talk pages encouraging them to use the article talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)" --Coppertwig (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello Moonriddengirl. How are you? I am planning to run for adminship. I am a little nervous! Do you have any helpful suggestions? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First, good luck & clear your calendar. Unless you are temperamentally very different than me, you may find the process surprisingly stressful. I would consider the following carefully: in what areas of Wikipedia do you plan to use the tools, and have you amply demonstrated ability to do so through your current history? For instance, if you plan to do WP:CSD, do you have CSD tags that demonstrate your understanding of the criteria? If you plan to work WP:AIV, do you have a history of effective vandalism fighting, with appropriate tags and follow-through? People will want to see a demonstration that you know how to do what you plan to do. :) They will also look for widespread contribution in various points of Wikipedia. They'll look at content building and at participation in project building--that is whether you communicate well with others in article talk space and at points in project space. (Like WP:COIN, WP:NPOVN, WP:HD and/or policy and guideline talk pages.) Based on my communication with you, I wouldn't imagine that civility is a concern, but they will be looking for that. I think the best suggestions I can give you, other than advising you to be sure that you have those points covered, is to remember to take your time in responding to questions. It is a surprisingly stressful process, and it's better to take half an hour to construct a careful response that accurately reflects you than a ten minute one that doesn't. I'd also recommend that you limit your communication in your RfA outside of responding to questions. If some raises an oppose point that you feel you can address, you should do so succinctly and (of course) politely, but I would not otherwise get chatty with opposers or supporters. During my RfA, one fellow suggested I go get drunk. :) I'm a non-drinker so didn't go that avenue, but the spirit of the suggestion—finding something off-wiki to distract—is quite good. It's a loooong week. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I am different than you! In fact, I am like you. Sometime I get nervous! Are you on-line? I have few things to say! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading your reply, I am more comfortable. I want to take part in the deletion process. Can you give me some suggestions? One more question: How did you cope with stress during your RfA? I am interested in psychology and I am capable of coping with stress. Your reply will be helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was online (am quite a lot) but was working off-wiki. I'm going on a trip next week, which has contributed to slightly busier workdays. :) I coped with the stress of my RfA by focusing on other things, to the best of my ability. Long walks helped. :D As far as preparing to take part in the deletion process, I think there are three areas that can be very helpful in getting you ready for that and in letting other people know how you approach it: first, new page patrol & tagging articles for PROD or CSD. This will give RFA responders a chance to see if your tags are appropriate, if you provide proper warnings to creators, and if you are within the spirit of those processes. (An example of what I mean by that: I myself do not like to see editors who tag articles for A1 or A3 too quickly. WP:CSD notes that editors often create articles incrementally and that is a good idea to see if they've finished before tagging an article on completeness concerns.) Also helpful is a history of participation at AfD. There you have a chance to demonstrate more nuanced grasp of policy, since those cases are often not so clear cut. People evaluating your RfA will get a chance to see how well you communicate on those issues and how well you understand inclusion guidelines. Finally, article creation is considered valuable experience for admins who are active in deletions. I know you've been active there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Your reply was very helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Ubiquitous Benevolence

		The Barnstar of Ubiquitous Benevolence
		I, Coppertwig, hereby award you, Moonriddengirl, this Barnstar of Ubiquitous Benevolence for reaching out and caring in supportagework for new users and others who need help, at the Drawing board and many other places.

Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! How nice. :) Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

PRR/Jon Courtney

Thank you for your kind words! Bondegezou (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

good work ! best wishes !

just saw some of ur AFD decisions so just came here greet u . best wishes . regards .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the ones I've seen today have been complicated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• still u have acted wise , ur decisions were good .regards --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mouled Sidi El-Latini

Hi there! what's up? Thanks for the rating on the article. Your recommendations and suggestions are quite logical and encourging. I did follow the links you mentioned and will try to use them to improve the article.

About the citations, i agree its a problem, but the thing is most of the information comes from hard copy magazines and newspapers which the band provided (in the form of scans) when i e-mailed them! I dont know if there's a way to provide those references but if there is one, please do notify me about it and i will see what i can do. About the reviews, i will try to search the internet for them but i dont think i will find anything. Oh, and this is Eftekasat's only album, so there are no release orders! Again, thanks for the suggestions and have a nice day. :) Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Happy if I could help. :) Citing print sources is not a problem. You can use the templates at WP:Citation templates. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, i will get started ASAP! Thanks for the info. :) Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I was wondering how you think I'm doing so far on Wikipedia, like what I should change or continue doing. Thanks! Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look when I get back in later this morning. (7:30 a.m. in my part of the world.) :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all those notes, that must've taken a while. :) Cheers, Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's what I signed up for. :D I hope it will prove helpful to you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. Alexis Stone Lopez, recently deleted.

Re. Alexis Stone Lopez, recently deleted.

I wonder if you could help me understand how to bring this article into compliance. This woman is a strong artist. One of few that received unanimous praise from all three judges on American Idol. Also in a recent Idol compilation, she outsold everyone else on the project. Television appearances have all gone well. In general, people appear very interested in her. She has a lot of MySpace popularity and a general Internet buzz is positive. Current newspaper articles mention her regularly. She is in constant demand on college radio. Perhaps none of these things I have mentioned carry enough weight, or have I just worded them badly? I could mention more of her accomplishments, but it is not my desire to appear self-serving. Your help or advice would be appreciated.

Thank you, Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studioguy (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. I'm sorry for your frustration with regards to this article. Wikipedia has specific guidelines that govern notability per people, as set out at WP:BIO (there are also some criteria at WP:MUSIC specifically related to musicians). Consensus at the two AfDs thus far (here & here) has been that she doesn't yet demonstrate sufficient notability per the relevant guideline to sustain a stand-alone article but is more appropriately covered in the article on American Idol (season 1). Many of the elements you mention above would not give her separate notability, although they certainly would substantiate the value of covering her in that parent article. If she's being regularly mentioned in current newspaper articles outside of the context of her American Idol participation, that might certainly help to establish notability. I don't see any of those referenced in the last incarnation of her solo article, however. Everything there seems to have been primary sourcing, which can't be used to verify notability. You need reliable secondary sourcing for that. (The only newspaper article I see in a google news search is a note about the AI album, which would not qualify as it is both related to the American Idol participation and insufficiently in-depth in regards to her specific contribution.) College radio rotation may not be sufficient to overcome notability concerns. WP:MUSIC lists "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" as a criterion of notability. It doesn't currently address college radio. Are there more specifics about her coverage in news media or other factors to consider? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your helpful and constructive advice on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Textbook, and also for your kindness in general. Acalamari 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate that. :) I try; I think it's important. And I hope that the advice will help him out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's nice to see someone who's willing to provide decent advice to people, and also be kind overall. Acalamari 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with Acalamari about you, Moonriddengirl...it's always wonderful to run across your posts! Dreadstar † 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are very sweet. :) And, you know, I have to say that in my observation people who notice kindness in others are usually kind themselves. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Syrym (moved from talk archive)

Unfortunately, even that appears to have been deleted. It doesn't appear that any attempt was made to discuss this article with the contributors to it, which leads me to believe that it was deleted based on someone's opinion only. If that is the case, there are a vast number of articles with much less content/value than the Syrym article, and they are all still in existence. Do you know if there is any way to recover the deleted article, or does all deleted content get wiped off the server? Crunch23 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I had responded to your question about the deletion of that here, in case you missed it. (Like the comment you were responding to, it has been archived.) The content can certainly be recovered, and it can be placed in your user space if you'd like to work further on the article. I'm leaving tomorrow for a week, so if I should not be here to help out with that, you can seek assistance at deletion review. The steps are listed there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship, award, etc.

Hello Moonriddengirl. How are you? I will run for adminship after few months. Right now, I am busy in real life. And....

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" to Moonriddengirl for her kindness in general. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will appreciate the award. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :D I think waiting until you're not busy in real life is probably a fine idea. The process can take a lot of time and attention. On the other hand, some people seem to think it's a good idea to do it when you are busy, so it doesn't leave so much time to worry about it. Still, if I were doing it over, I'd aim for non-busy time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

The common IP address 62.231.45.8 is the source of yet more vandalism, this time of the Allied Irish Banks page. You andothers have issued multiple final warnings. Can we ban the address indefinitely? Acad Ronin (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for bringing this up, although I'm afraid that as I was out of the country I wasn't able to address it in a very timely manner. We don't generally indefinitely block IP addresses because of the risk of inadvertently blocking legitimate contributors. If an IP address is a regular source of unconstructive editing, however, longer blocks may be issued. This particular IP has not received a final warning since the last block was issued on October 22nd. In most cases, a new block will not be imposed unless a recent final notice has been issued and disruptive editing continued beyond it. If you observe vandalism, you are welcome to issue notice yourself using the templates which can be found here. If a user continues vandalizing after a recent final notice, you can report him or her at WP:AIV, and an administrator will investigate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Another bad day

Moon ridden girl, I had another bad day at school. It was the second day in a row it happened, yesterday, it was moderately bad, this time, it is much worse! (crying) I need cheering up really badly! I even had to leave school early, because I didn't want to risk another outburst! Please respond on my talk page. Kitty53 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!Kitty53 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Moorcroft/Regulus Black

I can confirm that he is playing Regulus in the next Harry Potter film, mainly because it's me :) It's not actually a very big part as I appear alongside Jim Broadbent in a moving photograph of the Slytherin Quidditch team from the 1970s. TheHeartbreakKid15 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, congratulations on the role! :D I hope that it opens up great things for you. It's certainly a high profile film, even if it is a small part, and it sounds like an excellent resume line. :) In terms of your confirmation, though, we need to wait for something that qualifies as a reliable source to verify it for mention in one of the relevant articles, like Regulus Black. Wikipedia relies on the ability of others to verify facts by checking sources, so we have a policy against using information that counts as "original research". This is one of the reasons why autobiographies are problematic. If you know it's true, you'll probably be tempted to mention it. But we can't use it until it can be proven. Given the nature of the film, I imagine that will happen soon enough, if it hasn't already. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey ...

Welcome back!!!!!!!!!!
And thanks for the lovely barnstar -- much appreciated! --Coppertwig (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

article assessment

Ah okay, I should have thought to look there first. Thanks for the help! = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Moonriddengirl. Thank you! I don't know what to say! Thank you for the award. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

An incident

I posted to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility by Redthoreau re a situation where I've been acting in a mediator-like role (but not successfully enough, apparently :-\ --Coppertwig (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm making mistakes and (hopefully) learning from them. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all any of us can do, and my observations of you suggest that you do it well. I'm not sure how that resolved, since it's already quite buried in the archives and I don't know without digging through your contributions (which I might do if I hadn't spent an obscene amount of times in airports and airplanes today!) if it moved to another forum. I hope it's settled in some satisfactory way. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really!!! There have been at least four posts of mine over the past few weeks which Mattisse found to be threatening, ugly or attacking -- which I didn't intend them to be, except that the first one was a warning. I struck them out when I found out how Mattisse was reacting to them. The most recent one was here. Although I struck it out, Mattisse has, unfortunately, stopped editing the (Che Guevara) article and turned down the idea of mediation, but at least is still speaking to me. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. :( I presume this is the first edit of which you speak? Well, you certainly made an effort to apologize. Time might settle everybody down. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I very much over-reacted there, and wrote too long a message, too, as I tend to do. I thought maybe it was a mistake shortly after I posted it.

The archived link to the above incident report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive393#Incivility by Redthoreau. The other messages I struck out (and there may be more I'm forgetting) were here and here. The latter seems to have been a misunderstanding: Mattisse posted in a section of my talk page where a certain article was already being discussed with another user, so I thought Mattisse was (perhaps) referring to that article and I mentioned its name -- but the name of the article sounds like an insult! Another problem was that at least once when Redthoreau posted something on my talk page that was uncivil towards Mattisse, I didn't respond to it, which was quite unfair to Mattisse given the way I'd overreacted earlier. I suppose I need to try to develop a consistent response when people post attacks against other users on my talk page: perhaps something like "Please see the note at the top of the page about what types of messages are and are not welcome here." I don't like to delete stuff.

I think I could have benefitted from re-reading WP:No angry mastodons at certain points in this whole thing. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Always a helpful essay. :) Mediating disputes in any fashion is difficult, I'm sure. If you're reading the article name situation correctly (and it looks like you probably are), then I don't see how you could have done that much differently. The note was in that section and even indented as if threaded within that conversation. It's only natural that you would assume that s/he was talking about that article. Your response was very cordial and entirely appropriate there, I think. There is always a difficult balance between over-explaining and keeping it brief. I know a lot of people don't care for emoticons (one of my non-Wiki internet friends is outright offended by them), but I quite like them because I feel like they help with that balance. A ":)" is frequently short-hand for me for "I mean no harm by this" or "no offense intended". It doesn't always work, but I think it can help. I need all the shorthand tricks I can devise, because I definitely write long by nature. :D If you think that your messages are too long in such cases, maybe you should sandbox your initial response and then leave it to re-read before posting maybe 15 or 20 minutes later, after doing other things? I know I sometimes find that on later re-reads, I was not as clear as I thought I was. (And, of course, people will sometimes misinterpret you no matter how clear you may be, since they do have their own preconceptions.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Moonriddengirl. It's always reassuring to talk things over with you. I'll keep your suggestions in mind. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Old problems

Sorry for disturbing you again but old problems appears to continue, this time on different contributors talk page [7], curiously enough (see timing and article), the IP anon in corresponding article enrolled in reverts [8] [9]. Could you please advise on this issue or speak with user who obviously found new "target". Thanks, M.K. (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sorry I didn't get back with you sooner. I've been out of the country and have only just returned. The first difference seems to be problematic with regards to civility, and if the user persists I would probably consider taking it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. With regards to the others, if you think the user is logging out to game the system, the thing to do is probably to take it up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. If it was the same user, though, I'm not sure that there's necessarily any action to be taken at this point, since that user hasn't edited the article recently according to article history and so wouldn't necessarily be inappropriately using alternate accounts there. It might be best just to keep an eye on the situation and see what develops. If further response seems needed, please let me know. I'm pretty tired from traveling right now and might be missing the obvious. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I will keep and eye. Hope you had good traveling! Cya, M.K. (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I did. I'm not fond of the accompanying exhaustion. :) I'm off again in about two weeks and dreading it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, good luck with your new adventure! M.K. (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: East Central High School (Indiana)

OK, I will consider that in the future. It is now a redirect to Saint Leon, Indiana. --User:Iambus (speak | proposal) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal?

This man User talk:Grant.Alpaugh is vandal. I know this, because his my bro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LASurfer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(duplicating message from other talk page) Whether he is a vandal or not, his page does not qualify for deletion under the speedy criterion, any more than does mine or User talk:Madcoverboy. If you are concerned about the editing of an individual, you can certainly seek advice on dealing with vandalism or read through our vandalism policy for yourself. But please be advised that placing tags without a valid rationale can in itself be disruptive. I am curious as to why you have duplicated this userpage on your own. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NPA/Vandalism?

Hey, I was just wondering if you were warning me or the other jerks who were vandalisng/trying to delete my talk page? If you were talking to those people (which I'm pretty sure you were) is there any way you could talk to them about not deleting my talk page? That appears to be an open-and-shut case of vandalism. Thanks. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) My only edits to your talk page were to neutralize the deletion tag, here and here. I did tell the editor who placed the tag that placing such tags without rationale is disruption, but on his page, here (duplicated above). (He also placed the tags here and on my page. (So far, this editor has been persistently blanking his page.) The first notice I left him about the tag, here, assumed good faith, as I wasn't sure what he was attempting to communicate. The second notice, here, was the first in the vandalism series. He left me a personal note after that claiming some sort of personal relationship with you, which is when I gave him a more in-depth explanation (my first diff, above.) If he persists, he is certainly liable to be blocked as set out in the vandalism policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea who this guy is, though I think his user page suggests this is sockpuppetry. It's not the biggest of deals, but false accusations of vandalism can be really abusive especially when rather than vandalism, you've actually been working for several hours on templates and such in order to improve the articles he seems to be accusing me of vandalising. Hopefully your quick and firm actions have persuaded him to pursue this no further, and I thank you for being helpful as I have found you to be in the past. Thanks again and keep up the good work! -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

This matter Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak is a disappointment because you seem to have counted votes, rather than weighing the validity of arguments. Could you explain to me please why this subject is notable. Could you, for instance, point to one independent source that has covered the subject (not just mentioned them in passing), or show me where the subject was cited by independent, reliable sources? Surely if there were valid keep arguments it should be trivially easy to find such a thing. Remarkably, every time we check a reference, we either find that the reference does not say what is claimed in the article, or the reference was written or translated by the subject, so it is not independent. See Talk:Christian Polak#Bibliography problem. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that you may disappointed by my reading of consensus (or lack thereof) on this debate, but I assure you that I didn't arrive at my decision simply by counting votes. I spent an hour and a half reading the debate and making notes on it in my sandbox. Counting votes alone would have been much quicker. The job of any administrator closing an AfD is to use his or her best judgment to determine when and if rough consensus has been reached. As I mentioned in my closing rationale, I found arguments on both sides of the debate within policy. While some arguments on both sides were firmer grounded in policy than others, I was unable to discount the reasoning of contributors on either side. I do not believe that there was a dominant view for deletion or keeping in either of the grounded arguments. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am also an administrator, so I am familiar with how to do the job. Can you address specifically Talk:Christian Polak#Bibliography problem. The list of works authored by the subject was the basis for several keep arguments. Upon careful inspection, it appears that the list was substantially misrepresented. Is it within policy to misrepresent sources? Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for explaining what you already know. I don't recall having encountered you before (though, you know, it's a big wiki, so I might have done), and I did not realize that you are an admin. My impression from your first note was that you thought my job was to judge the article rather than weigh how the community of contributors to the AfD judged the article. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did consider every argument made on the AfD page, including accusations of misrepresentation of sources. Presumably, the other contributors to the AfD—including those who argued that the individual meets WP:N—did as well. You're welcome to read my notes in my sandbox, which I linked above for your convenience (obviously, since they're notes, they're much abbreviated). (I did not take notes from other areas, including the AfD talk page.) I have evaluated the debate to the best of my ability; I am sorry if my determination disappoints you. It's quite possible that the community at DRV will disagree. It's obviously a sticky issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to take this to DRV prematurely. I believe that many of the sourcing problems surfaced during or shortly after the AfD, so I do not think they were given full consideration by the participants. Recognizing the limits of your discretion, I do not think you did a bad job. Probably the best thing to do is wait a few days to see what other sourcing issues may appear, and then perhaps go to DRV on the basis of newly uncovered information. This would not reflect negatively on your work, because you have to judge the AfD comments that you find rather than guess what people would have said if they had complete information at the time. Thank you for your efforts here. Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. :) I knew when I addressed this one that it was likely to be difficult...or it wouldn't have been left in the "old" pile as long as it was. "Snow" closures are a lot less stressful and time consuming! Since I tend to work the "old" pile, somebody else usually gets those.

I just had a glance at the talk page of the article and see that concerns are continuing to evolve. I think you have a good idea in waiting a couple of days to make sure that all information is in so that a DRV is fully informed and definitive. For the record, I take your walled garden concerns very seriously. I tried to address it to the extent that I felt appropriate for me in the closure by noting my interpretation of policy that the existence of the article does not inherently validate the individual as a source for other articles. I considered linking to some notable but not necessarily credible scholar to demonstrate this, but the the one that came to mind isn't really analogous as he is himself accused of fraud. I would have had to think up somebody who has coverage but is not necessarily considered an expert in his field, some pop scientist or some such. (I'm sure they're out there, but I couldn't think of any.) In any event, I hope it all resolves to your satisfaction, either by alleviating your concerns or conclusively confirming them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment passing by --as I see recent deletion reviews it is almost impossible to get a no consensus close changed to delete (or to keep). he response almost always is, just try another afd in a few months. I'm not arguing the article should be kept--just that the procedure probably wont accomplish anything except prolong the dispute without advancing it. DGG (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to start a review myself. If somebody else thinks it is necessary they can. The more important issue is to verify the facts in the article so we can be confident that any future decisions have a proper basis. Jehochman ^Talk 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. I wrote a paper (in my own words) on SGF last year for grad school which I will use to create this entry. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfer7315 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I should imagine that would work well, as a graduate level paper will undoubtedly have the kinds of reliable sources that Wikipedia requires to verify information. If it's based on a paper, though, do be careful not to include any original research. We have to avoid copyright problems, but on the other hand as an encyclopedia we also avoid incorporating information that has not already been published elsewhere. If you have questions about any of these policies or guidelines, please let me know or ask at Wikipedia's help desk, which is typically manned around the clock by volunteers. There can be a bit of a learning curve at first, especially with citing references and suchlike. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I made some comments at the rewritten article--you might want to take a look yourself. DGG (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Metal Observer

I'm having an argument with a couple of users to find out wether this online-magazine's article should stay on Wikipedia or be deleted. They moved the article The Metal Observer to here (my own page), so that I could show its importance. It's a pretty visited metal-site, it covers all kinds of metal music. Please tell me what they asked for (here). Rockk3r (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The AfD closed as delete because consensus of the participants was that the article did not demonstrate notability through reliable sourcing. There are specific requirements at WP:WEB for what web content may warrant an article on Wikipedia. If you want to recreate an article on this web content, you'll need to be able to demonstrate that it meets at least one of those criteria. One of the most commonly used is demonstrating that the website has been written about in magazines or newspapers itself. It could also be discussed in television shows or other reliable websites (like Rolling Stone). Press releases don't count. It can also qualify if the website or its content has won a well-known, independent award. (You should read that full link for more.) Once you figure out if it currently qualifies, you need to be able to demonstrate this by providing reliable sources to prove that it meets the criteria. If you can do that, then you can move the draft back into article space. Until the article meets the notability guidelines, however, it is subject to being deleted again as a recreation of an article deleted after deletion debate that does not address the reasons for which the article was deleted. Please let me know if you need more information or assistance with any of these policies or guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Little Help?

I think that this is related to what happened the otherday with LA Surfer (If I had to guess I would say that LASurfer is a sockpuppet or friend of US - Jimmy Slade. I think if you look at Jimmy's talk page (he's since blanked it, but looking through history you can see the posts that caused his outburts) you'll see I did nothing untoward to provoke these outburts and I would appreciate something being done about them. Thank you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you've done to help. I want you to know that while I agree that my first comment can be misconstrued to seem belittling. I didn't mean it that way and was thankful (as you pointed out) that he was at least willing to listen to my arguments (which still have yet to be addressed on their merits on either talk page or the article's). Any sense of frustration with the level of his English came from the fact that I've been dealing with several situations similar to this one (though, thankfully, much more civil) and thathe purports to be at least a high school graduate (though as you are aware this is copied from someone else's user page), and should be able to communicate in English in a manner that allows me to understand what he's trying to say without having to endlessly parse and decode it. I suggested to him that he might find his efforts more fruitful if he was working on one of the other Wikipedias in a more familiar language. He responded that he simply knows so many languages that he cannot commmunicate properly in any of them, an argument I simply don't buy. After he started swearing at me and vandalising my page I kind of lost my cool, but I think that's understandable. In short, thank you for helping, and I appreciate you following up. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did suspect, as I mentioned, that you might not have intended your first comment to send belittling. With regards to the user page, I have not seen the page from which this one might have been copied. It was created in July of 2007 and seems to have evolved slowly from there. User:LASurfer was created as a duplicate on April 7th. Are you confusing these user pages, or have you discovered a duplicate of User:US - Jimmy Slade? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He's wrong

He changed the table on the page Major League Soccer. This is bad made, and incomprehensibly! Why when someone do here to standard, so this can block, but this guy no? Thanks LASurfer (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are means for dealing with content disputes. Edit summaries like this and posts like this are not acceptable. Civility is policy on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

LASurfer

I don't like vandalism and I'am not a vandal. I just don't like unfairness LASurfer (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

21st Century America Hates the Black Man

This article is at least as valid as the Antisemitism in the New Testament Article. I used the same logic that that article did. Please don't speedy delete before comparing to AsitNT.17:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truffy (talk • contribs) 9 April 2008)

Responded at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

last comment

A part of this conflict is my. Sometimes, I have annoyed. This is my defect:) So, sorry about that and Thank U US - Jimmy Slade (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that conflicts can get heated. Sometimes it can be helpful to step away from the computer for a few minutes until the initial emotional response settles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What's up?

Hey! Just wanted to see how your doing! Life going well? My goal is to make friends with every single person on wikipedia! Will you be my wiki-friend?

216.229.227.142 (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A little something for you

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Great work on Muktadhara! Phil Bridger (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I admire your work on AfDs, which makes me all the more appreciative. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding

Okay thanks, I will strike out instead. I've never had to do this so I wasn't quite sure what the proper way to do it was. Gary King (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'm at the very least happy with the fact that my civility and contributions have been taken into consideration along with everything else, two things which I am particularly proud of here. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jew and GSTS

I appreciate your comments. You are much nicer than I can be about the discussion, so it's good to have a sane voice. However, I've looked at the article Jew, and I cannot find where it says its use is derogatory? I know it is, but I gave up looking through Wikipedia, and ended up using a link to the Shoah foundation, who finds the usage inappropriate. Can you point me where it says it in the article? Because if it doesn't, it should. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) At this point, it is confined to footnote #13, which is the first footnote for article text. It's a lengthy footnote, though. It's much more prominent in the article Jew (word). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in history

Hi. After a talk page discussion, I have (at the request of another editor) initiated a semi-formal "What now?" discussion for Category:Wikipedians interested in history at WP:UCFD (direct link). Since you closed the February discussion about the same category, I wanted to let you know. (I probably should have let you know sooner but the idea didn't occur to me until now.) Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries about not mentioning it sooner. I pitched in there briefly to help out with backlog and don't have strong opinion myself at this point on user categories. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then. :) Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your input on this AfD. Your comment summed up my exact thought process! I was baffled when other editors couldn't see it. dissolve^talk 18:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I kept looking at it myself wondering what I was missing. :) I listed them all out just to verify to myself that I was seeing what I thought I was seeing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Need Help!!!

Hello, Moonriddengirl, this is Survir here. I really need your help. This user 99.248.47.141 is keep vanalizing the article of television series Kasamh Se. Everytime I or some other user readd the info, this user comes back and delete the information. So can you please tell me how to stop this user. I will really appreciate your help. Your friend, Survir ^(talk) 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Survir. :) There are two approaches you could take here. I see that the user has received a level 3 vandalism warning for the last instance of vandalism. If they vandalize again, you may leave them a {{uw-vand4}} warning. (To place this, you can just copy after the colon: {{uw-vand4}} --~~~~.) That warning lets them know that they will be blocked the next time they vandalize the article. If they vandalize the article again, you can go to WP:AIV to request that an administrator deal with them. Under the "user reported" section of AIV, you can just paste * {{IPvandal|99.248.47.141}} Persistent vandalism after final warning. ~~~~ You must be sure, though, that they have continued vandalizing after receiving a level 4 warning. If they haven't been given that final warning, they probably won't be blocked. If they return to the same vandalism pattern after their initial block, you can start at a higher level, like {{Uw-vandalism4im}}, which is an "only" notice. I would only use this, though, if they returned to the same pattern of vandalism. IP editors sometimes change, and what looks like vandalism can be cluelessness from a new user at the same address. :) That's the first approach, and it's the best in this situation. The second approach, if other IP editors started vandalizing the same article, is to request page protection at Requests for page protection. The page can be semi-protected so that only established editors can change it. This is not a good first choice, since our goal here is to let anyone edit and improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, sometimes we have no choice. :/ Let me know if any of this is unclear or if you need more assistance with it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl for your help. Now I am just going to wait to see if this user vandalize the article again and then take action. Thanks again! Survir ^(talk) 19:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

You have one new one. Rudget (review) 09:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. :) I will take a look in short order. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Solusi University Faculty of Science & Technology

I'm closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solusi University Faculty of Science & Technology as "merge and redirect". You volunteered to do the legwork in your comment/opinion/!vote. Would you mind taking care of the merge? I'd really appreciate it. My own mind is only half here tonight and my jaw is slack at the prospect of the task. Feel free to call on me for some cleanup tasks or help in the future. But this is hardly necessary to say, right? Cheers, Pigman☿ 04:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! Merging has become one of the things I do a lot of; I could probably do them in my sleep. :D And I will certainly feel free to call on you if need be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I find it both strange and amazing that editors develop particular areas of skill and/or affinity on WP. I still always boggle when someone displays incredibly detailed understanding of something that's almost a mystery to me. I know it's just more experience and knowledge of the area but it still shocks me a little. I might be able to do a really simple merge (like transferring a whole article into a section of another) but for some reason I just don't have the knack for taking two articles and integrating them into a single entity. Most of the time, anyway. I bog down in the many possible variations of combining the info. Perhaps I'm just simpleminded. ;D Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are, you aren't alone. :D I'm good with merges. I run screaming from the more technical aspects of Wikipedia (I can handle very simple templates now). I'm also very tentative about blocking still when it isn't clear-cut vandalism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Oops, sorry, I had no idea. TONY (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism clean up

You're welcome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.22 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Derek Roddy, deletion?

I'm sorry for deleting the notice. I considered the discussion closed, as the article was extended, and there hasn't been any response for a while. I don't see any further reason for deleting this article, though it was a bit rash deleting the notice. Derek Roddy, though not well-known among a wide audience (but hey, Brutal Death Metal in general isn't either, nor is e.g. drummer Tim Yeung), is worthy of a Wikipedia page. I probably didn´t do it the right way, for which I am sorry. I´m still learning! ;-) Joost de Kleine (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Replied at user talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Dapto High

The school is in the district of Shellharbour. I have reverted you and added a reference Regards--Matilda ^talk 01:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done, then. The material was removed for being unsourced and suspect in that it was added by a known vandal, as evidenced by his subsequent edit here. (Look at the history of that talk page and the article and this history of this article and you'll see what I mean.) Unfortunately, this contributor has made it impossible to assume good faith where he is concerned, especially when he is actively vandalizing in the same time period. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Ameobi

Hi, thanks for your explanation about removing the speedy tag. That makes a lot of sense. For future reference are there any guidelines about tagging articles for speedy deletion when they are currently being discussed at AFD? I presume it is ok for blatant hoaxes, copyvios etc. In future, should I leave them alone, say for example if there is no assertion of notability? I can see your reasoning in this case, and just wondering the best way to go in the future. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :D There are no specific guidelines that I'm aware of; certainly, I've never encountered any. Personally, I evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. If the speedy deletion is urgent—if the article is a copyright violation or an attack page—I'd probably go ahead and tag it. Otherwise, I'd only tag in the most blatant and obvious cases, where even if a future article is created there's unlikely to be need of an AfD. (For all I know, it's evident and obvious to sports fans that this guy is non-notable, but the article doesn't show that, so I presume it's best to be cautious with a mind to the future.) That doesn't mean I'd take a clearly non-notable article to AfD just in case it's recreated, of course. But if the AfD is already underway, sometimes it may be better to let it play out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. --BelovedFreak 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Cinema

Please let me know if I should have used a different tag? I can't use bio as it isn't about a person and spam is the only other one I know of. Is there simply a non-notable speedy tag? There's nothing at google that I could find. Didn't want to have to AfD for just a one line article. Any advice you can provide is greatly appreciated. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) There is no process currently for deleting non-notable articles other than bios and web content by speedy. Adding other article types has been discussed, but so far no consensus has formed to do so. I'd probably WP:PROD this one and go ahead and take it to AfD if the prod is challenged. It was previously speedily deleted as spam, but the article in that case was more clearly promotional. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ray Bandar

Thanks for fixing that capitalization. I could not figure out how to do that. Much appreciate.

Rpchurch (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)RpchurchRpchurch (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) After you've been registered for four days, you have an option to "move" pages in the tabs along the top. This is the way to handle capitalization errors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

International Reaction to Fitna edits

Well done. You've cleanly removed the need for the flagicons. Race you to the next Bucket o' Crazy! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's one colorful article. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying Hi

Dear Moon, It's been a while since we last talked. Question: Do you have admin blocking abilities? If so, can you take care of this? The user I accused needs to blocked for sock puppetry ( See:[10]. Let me know. Thanks.Jrod2) (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jrod. :) I do have blocking abilities. Last time I blocked a checkuser-confirmed sock, though, I was told that the clerks generally handle that. If I were you, I'd give them a day or so to get to it. The master account may or may not be blocked, though the sock account almost certainly will. I believe that the check-user will probably consider the extensiveness of the sock-puppetry and the contributions of the sockmaster. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK Moon, I got it (Still think your name is so lovely). Best, Jrod2 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your message

I believe the language is Arabic. If you go to the main page, it is the second language down, under Simple English. I've no idea what the article is about, or what it says. All I know is that this is the English Wikipedia, and accordingly articles should be in one of the variations of the English language. That is why I tagged it for speedy deletion. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with the speedy tag being removed. Only problem is one never knows with these articles in Arabic whether they are genuine articles or whether there is an anti-Western rant, anti-non-Muslim rant or whatever being posted. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry!!!

i wasnt trying to be rude or anything, but i was finishing a group of uploading, and was willing to answer you back... plus i didnt actually get to understand what you exactly want my help for??

Arab League User (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

well, the first one, (مكتبة الاسكندرية) is mainly about the Burning of the Alexandria Library (Bebleothica), while the other one is about St paulis.. im not sure if they are considered as Attack articles or not, im pretty sure that the second one is, but the first one is just stating facts, facts that im not sure of, but they dont seem to be hurtfull to anyone, perhaps the Romans and the Byzantines only

Arab League User (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Valhalla High School, Valhalla

Whoops; didn't realize it exempted schools. It's in AfD right now, so that can run its course. Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Livemocha deletion

Hi Moonriddengirl :)

You deleted Livemocha on the grounds of significance. I have left a message on the talk page as to why I think it meets significance/notability guildelines. I'm slowly working on improving the article on my user page here. Obviously, it needs work but I think it's appropriate to get up so that people can contribute to it. What needs to be done to get it to the right standard?

I haven't done a lot of editing on Wikipedia, so I apologise for not starting an article that meets the right standards.

Regards,

Roobz (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Roobz. The press coverage you mention on the talk page would certainly have been enough to avoid speedy deletion. :) I imagine you might not have followed the link to Wikipedia:Your first article in the "notice" box at the top when you started editing your new page. (I know I didn't when I first created articles; there's so much text around that it's kind of easy to lose sight of it.) Unfortunately, certain article types may be deleted speedily if they do not indicate that their topics are important or significant at the outset. Web content is one of those specific article types. The article as it sits in your sandbox here would probably avoid being tagged for deletion; certainly, if I encountered the article tagged for speedy deletion, I would decline it. You do need to fix the Wall Street Journal, citation, though. Perhaps the link takes you to the article; as a non-subscriber, I get a little blurb about MC Hammer. That's not fatal to your article; you can just pull out full information and use {{citenews}} to put it down the old-fashioned way. (You should also link directly to international press; company website and press releases can't be used as sources to verify notability, so this is not really helpful to you.) There's no reason you can't move it into article space as it is by using the "move" tag at the top of your page. While it can be hard to re-establish an article that has been through a deletion debate, there's no reason you can't re-create an article that has been speedily deleted as long as the new article addresses those concerns. And forgive me, please, if I link to policies and procedures you already know. :) You've been here a while, so I try to avoid overlinking but also don't want to leave you wondering what I'm talking about. If I can explain something better or if you have more questions for me, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl. You're very right about me not looking at Wikipedia:Your first article. Rookie mistake! :) I'll get started on fixing those sources the way you mention and then move it into article space. I really appreciate your input, and though you covered a lot of policies I have seen before, there's just so many out there that I appreciate the odd reminder! Many thanks! --Roobz (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My appologies

Sorry, I thought I had left this link to the debate in the template. Something must have gone wrong. I know you guys are kept busy and I thought by leaving this link and the G4 I done the right thing. Believe me, after having had to nominate the "Dynamo-hall of fame" (or its alter ego "Dynamo Hall of fame") three times for deletion yesterday and the same multi-blocked user recreating it over and over again and telling me I don't think that you fucking bastard, which is a racist is needet in america (what ever it means, since I'm neither American nor live in any part of America), I'm getting a bit tired of the affair too. Thanks for your patience,EA210269 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I can understand why you might be frustrated. And somewhat confused. I know that we're meant to be insulted, but sometimes I just have to go, "What?" (Insults fall flat when they don't make sense.) Anyway, I went back to look at the deleted material. You did include it in the code. I can see it in the source. I don't know why it shouldn't render in the template. I checked to see if somebody had monkeyed with the template today, but I can't see any sign that they did. One of the mysteries of Wikipedia, I guess. (Then again, I don't know why when I nominate an article for AfD through Twinkle, the deletion discussion often remains a redlink well after it is transcluded and running. I'm not the most technical admin on the block.) Anyway, I hope that things settle down now. I've protected this space, too, but I know that this is person is likely to look for an alternative. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, the tecnicalities of wikipedia are a mystery to me too, most times. I'm sure those odd little things happen for a reason, I just don't know why. And, yes, he will look for an alternative but I keep an eye on him. His obsession with SV Dynamo and his, mostly sensless, insults makes him easy to spot, under whatever username or IP address. Thanks for your help,EA210269 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Article editing protocol

• An editor has been contending that if I add something to an article and he removes it, I am supposed to start a discussion on the Talk page and only add the information back into the article depending on the results of the discussion. Is this correct?
  
• He says that if I was to add something to the article and he removes it and I put it back in without discussing it on the Talk page, then that is edit-warring. Is that true? --Jagz (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz is misrepresenting facts. An uncontroversial sentence approved of by several editors was removed by Jagz. He had opened up a discussion section, but did not in fact involve himself in a proper discussion. My only edits ever to this article, apart from a few grammatical corrections, have been the restoration of this consensus sentence. I am still slightly surprised that Jagz refused even to discuss mediation a week or two ago. I have restored the sentence once (following Ramdrake), so it is in fact Jagz who has deleted it twice in the last 24 hours. I also added three references, following the insertion of the "dubious" tag. Jagz seems to be a loan voice on Race and Intelligence. Jagz's deletions seem to be part of his attempt to make a part of WP:FRINGE science appear mainstream. Mathsci (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please disregard the disruptive and inappropriate comment by Mathsci. I was neither referring to him or the edit he is referring to. Indeed, I never even made reference to a particular article. --Jagz (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict. This has taken me a long time to compose.) Okay. In regards to your questions, Jagz, both of them, that's a "usually." It's based on specifics, obviously. This is a traditional method of reaching consensus on Wikipedia as set out at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. In almost all cases, you should discuss and find consensus when another contributor disagrees with you. There are shades to consider, based on the specifics of a situation. These may include ownership of articles, absolutely unacceptable material (like libel and copyright violations) and "trump" questions, like sourcing (context for that statement: burden lies on editor adding or re-adding information to verify it. We aren't required to specifically disprove the statement "Today, Microsoft announced its bankruptcy; its holdings are being purchased by Ben & Jerry's." Seldom will we run into a situation that clear-cut from good faith contributors, of course, and more complex shades of "trump" issues may not actually "trump". We have to be careful to avoid Wikipedia:Wikilawyering here.).

Edit warring isn't a simple formula because of such considerations, so admins typically use their best judgment to determine when an editor is attempting to bypass consensus and force through his or her perspective. Usually, this seems to involve looking through talk pages to see who seems willing to talk and who doesn't. And if they can't figure it out, they usually just protect the page.

In response to Mathsci's perspective, if mediation has been offered, I would go with the mediation. If you seem to be "rejecting community input" (as they phrase it) you run the risk of being interpreted as a disruptive influence, which may lead to your input being discounted completely on the article. If you feel that your perspective is valid and that the article is improved by your shaping influence, you should make every effort you can to stay well within the dispute resolution policy when others disagree with you. This is particularly the case if yours is a minority position.

Since I started drafting this, you've edited to suggest that Mathsci is not discussing the situation about which you're asking. I'm adding this to note that my response is general and does not relate to any specific matter. My note on Mathsci's perspective is, I believe, good advice regardless of the situation. Working within process is the best way to demonstrate your own good faith, which helps to ensure that others (particularly neutral, uninvolved others) give serious consideration to your input. I'm not attempting to suggest that you are not working within policy, note. My response here is general and without investigation of specifics.

And I have undoubtedly overlinked in my response. :) As I said to another editor above, I prefer to err by overdoing than underdoing. I can well imagine that you're already very familiar with everything I've linked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Matter of The Powerpuff Girls articles!

The Powerpuff Girls episodes section needs articles for EACH individual episode. But the leader of updating the Cartoonnetwork articles does not want to consider the idea since it came from me. So I need much of your help. I'd go at it alone but I don't know how to create valid articles linked to specific text.

It's would take too long for you to go into detail about the article creation and such. But if you could:

1. Create an article 2. fill it with little tidbits of exclusive information so it doesn't get deleted immediately or mark it with some sort of tag that says it will shortly be updated(by me((it doesn't have to say "by me" specifically but I WILL get to it as soon as you've created it and further fill it up until it is worthy of being called an article))).

The plot all comes together. The only thing I need is cooperation...that, and you MUST NOT tell treelo. He/she doesn't like me at. ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ThegreatWakkorati. I think the best help that I can probably give you is a pointer to the dispute resolution policy. If you and one other user disagree, then you might wish to consider requesting a third opinion at the third opinion board. If there are more people involved, you might want to look for help at one of the other locations mentioned in that policy, like Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard. There are two reasons why I would not feel comfortable writing these articles. First, I have very little experience writing articles about television subjects and am not deeply familiar with Powerpuff Girls, so I would not know where to begin real world context necessary according to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Second, if there is already discussion underway about this, it would be inappropriate for me to knowingly disrupt consensus. Since consensus is so important to the development of the project, the project is very careful in ensuring that it be allowed to develop naturally. In fact, even bringing up the subject this way is is a concern within the guidelines on canvassing. I believe it would be looked as "campaigning". Why don't you have a look at the canvassing guideline to be sure that you don't accidentally wind up on the wrong side of it and then consider neutrally asking for feedback at WP:3O or one of the other places mentioned in WP:DPR? (Not mention but possibly appropriate is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.) Please be sure to be neutral in informing others of the conversation and inviting them to participate. :) --11:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dammit. Not you too. I need someone with neutral opinion towards other users.

First let me ask you, could you please sign your post with 4 tidles(ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC))?

Second, I know for a fact that production is most certainly NOT in the works for these extra articles. I f they were then I wouldn't have came to you for this.

Third, if you're too afraid of going against the rules at least cough someone a hint. Don't withold information just for the heck of it.

Four, Just tell me how to creat an article. I've checked the tutorials and none of them seem to make proper sense.

Don't worry about this thing with me and treelo. It's not worth starting a entirely different journey. Nothing will be perfect, users WON'T all get along with each other. But let's stick to the subject. This is about adding redirecting links to new articles in The Powerpuff Girls episodes section to Powerpuff girl episodes. Can you do it?ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the signature error. I accidentally typed five tildes rather than four. Just as note, if you want to demonstrate the use of the tildes, you need to put your demo between {{nowiki}} tags. Otherwise it will expand as it did above into your signature, which may not be helpful. I did not indicate that production was underway; I said discussion was underway. You indicated as much above. You'll find plenty of people who have neutral opinions towards other users at the places mentioned at WP:DPR. If the general direction of a discussion doesn't work for you, you're welcome to neutrally request opinions at any of those places. The canvassing guidelines will help you know if your request is properly formatted.

As for your other questions, if you haven't already, you might want to read WP:Your first article and Wikipedia:Tutorial. If those are the tutorials that don't make proper sense to you (I can't guess which parts you find confusing and you specified above that "It's would take too long for you to go into detail about the article creation and such"), you might ask your specific questions at their talk pages or at the help desk. If in your final question, you're talking about creating the little italicized notices directing readers to other articles (example: Harry potter series#Universe starts with one), I will gladly tell you how, but I am not interested in contributing to Powerpuff girls articles at this time. You can do this by placing the template {{Main}}. In code, this would look like {{Main|Otherarticletitle}}, substituting the title of the desired article for Otherarticletitle. If that's not what you mean, I'm afraid you haven't offered enough information for me to help you. Happy editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, quite helpful actually...ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archived delete debates

I am posting this on the talk pages of the editors (mostly admins.) who are keeping Wikipedia:Archived delete debates up to date most frequently: Consistent with the recent rename of Wikipedia:Deletion debates to Wikipedia:Deletion discussions (largely to have a title that is more civil, hopefuilly encouraging a more civil tone in them), I would like to rename Wikipedia:Archived delete debates to Wikipedia:Archived delete discussions via a move. Any objections? Reply here, and hearing none I will let you know when complete so you can continue your good work of keeping the page up to date at its new location. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No objection from me. Rose, as sweet, suchlike. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Move completed. Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Race and intelligence article

• I need some advice on theRace and intelligence article. Here is a timeline:
  

There were some edits made by an editor to which I added {{fact}} tags, which were promptly deleted.[11]
I then started a discussion on the Talk page.[12]
After waiting over 24 hours with no one adding to the discussion, I removed the unsupported parts of the sentence but my edit was promptly reverted.[13]
I then deleted the whole sentence and asked for discussion on the Talk page but the change was promptly reverted.[14]
I then disputed the statement by adding a {{disputed}} tag but that was promptly reverted.[15]
I am not sure what else I can do to fix the inaccurate sentence. Do editors have the right to revert tags added by another editor? --Jagz (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As explained below, I added three references for the critics of Rushton et al. As far as I know, this is the normal way to edit WP. Mathsci (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, in the future maybe you can start adding the references prior to removing my tag and prior to me stating that I am going to have a discussion with an administrator. --Jagz (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear here that I'll be answering this question in the theoretical. :) Unless I wind up specifying otherwise somewhere, nothing I say is meant specifically to relate to this situation. Given my history with this article (hosting a content dispute in my user subpages) and my promise to remain neutral with regards to it, I would not feel comfortable opining on content questions, so unless we were talking clearly inappropriate material (vandalism, copyright concerns) I would not feel I'm an appropriate contributor. I am perfectly comfortable offering general input, however, on how to handle such situations.

Other editors have the right to contest and remove tags, with a few notable exceptions (detailed at WP:Vandalism; these include policy tags, AfD tags, CSD tags and the like). Doing so without resolving them or discussing them is frowned upon and continuing to do so without discussing them or resolving them may be interpreted as disruptive, particularly if there is evidence of tendentious editing. When dealing with good faith contributors, this should be handled like any other content dispute, through the various avenues recommended in dispute resolution. If it's a dispute between two people, assistance might be sought at WP:3O. If it's a wider dispute, one of the other boards would be appropriate. On a question regarding WP:V, you might go to its talk page, for instance. Remember to be neutral in requesting feedback, to avoid swaying the outcome or appearing to attempt to do so. If other editor(s) resist all efforts at communication and reject community input, it's sometimes necessary to seek intervention. I know you're already well aware of the protection policy, if the conflict escalates to edit warring, and I imagine you're aware of the the three revert rule.

My general advice in such a situation would be to continue trying to address the other editors and, if necessary, seek wider community input at appropriate dispute resolution outlets. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note these more recent edits by user Slrubenstein that seem aimed at preventing an amicable resolution over the sentence discussed above. He seems to be encouraging his buddies not to participate in the discussion or am I supposed to assume that these edits were well intentioned?[16][17] --Jagz (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He is definitely not assuming good faith with those. I will address it with him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading him correctly, he seems to feel at this point that good faith has been exhausted here. I've already suggested that you accept mediation. He recommended that I advise you to initiate it. Given that all other contributors to that article have demonstrated willingness to move in that direction, that seems like an excellent idea to me. Perhaps you should consider that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

AGFC

very nice. Here is mine on that question, might give perspective [18] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! So it's an actual conflict. Thanks for letting me know. :D And I like how succinctly you put things. In terms of very nice answers, well said! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

susan wayland

it was under Susan Wayland. restore the tag now? ninety:one 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

why i hate teh wiki sometimes :p. so i now have to AfD it? *smashes head* ninety:one 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

speedied as db-bio. thanks for your help :) ninety:one 15:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Susan Wayland requires urgent help please!!!

Dear Moonriddengirl Please Help me,some guy is keeping taging my article regarding Susan Wayland for speedy deletion,I refined it several times but it seems that some one either hates me or hate Miss wayland,Please if the article is not legiable for publishing for some reason then fine,inform me on my talk page,if I didnt correct the mistake then delete it,but believe me,I checked many bios and found that my article is way much better than alot of them.tell me about the mistake to correct it,the always say that this is a bio about real person with no significance mentioned,I did mentioned the significance but still no work. PLLLLLLLLLLLLEAAAAAAAAAAASEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loover (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 April 2008

Give me a moment, please. I'm looking into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Loover. I see that the article has been speedily deleted today for failing to assert importance or significance by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), once under Susan wayland and once under Susan Wayland. I see that it has been speedily deleted for the same reason before and that you spoke to the deleting administrator then (beginning here).

What he seems to have been attempting to explain to you then (but with a lot of jargon!) is that you should review the notability guidelines for biographies first to see if Ms. Wayland meets them. If she doesn't, even if the article survives speedy deletion, it is likely to be deleted by other processes, like an "articles for deletion debate" (also called AfD). The best way to demonstrate that she meets those guidelines is to verify it with reliable secondary sources. The subject's own websites cannot be used for this. Neither can other Wikis, like this one. Magazine and newspaper articles are ideal, but they are not the only usable sources. Unconnected reliable websites can help. For example, if Ms. Wayland had a more extensive credit list on IMDb to demonstrate notable roles, that could be useful. (As it stands now, IMDb is a reliable source, but it doesn't help indicate that she meets notability guidelines.)

So, to review, WP:BIO tells you what makes a person qualify for an article (pay particular attention to the subsection that relates to her career.) To avoid speedy deletion, you need to state in your article that she is important. To avoid other deletion processes, you need to make clear in your article how she is notable in relation to those guidelines. You need reliable sources that are not connected to the subject to verify that she is.

If you think that the article as it existed did not qualify for WP:CSD#A7, you might choose to politely bring the matter up to User:Orangemike to see if you can persuade him to your point of view. If he does not agree, you have the option to request further review of the matter at "deletion review". I have to tell you, though, that I'm afraid on looking at your article that even if it survived speedy, it would not survive AfD. If I were you, I would look to getting it in good enough shape by those guidelines and policies that it would survive even an AfD before moving it into article space again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response The guy who tagged my article said that my article doesnt fall under the notability of pornographic figures,but actually it does,this is my response to him: Hyyyyyyyyyyyyyy,did you really read the article????? 1- she appeared on the covers of many famous fetish-porn mags like marquies,skin two and pirates,latex fetish is considered as a soft porn genre. 2- she won 2006 the Hollywood Award for the best music video. so she does fall under the notability of porngraphic models. Please read the article 1st before tagging it,as it seems that you didnt

Unfortunatly,many useres and admins delete or tag articles for deletion with out reading them well,Miss wayland appeard on the covers of many latex fetish mags including the most famous in the genre like skin two and marquies,besides that she won a famous prize,isnt that enough. I see that you are really a practical admin,so I relay on your help,my article fits exactly the notabilit category,please helpppp.

Probably easier if we have this conversation in one place. I can't find anywhere that says she won the award? ninety:one 20:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My question to you would have to be where the verification is through reliable sources? Looking at your links, this IMDb profile can only validate one appearance, which isn't sufficient, unfortunately, to qualify. susanwayland.com and myspace can't be used to verify notability, because they are primary sources (as is this. This is a blog, which is not acceptable for verifying notability. This is a wiki, which is also not a reliable source (for the same reason as blogs; you can read about it at the last link). Youtube doesn't verify notability of the music videos, although it may verify existence. It might be problematic with regards to copyright. In terms of your specific points, with regards to the Hollywood Award, you would need to be able to demonstrate through reliable sources that (a) she received it and (b) it is notable. Her magazine appearances may or may not qualify; you would need reliable sources to demonstrate that her appearances there are in some way "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

An outside view, happened upon it because I watchlist (and respect) Moonriddengirl's talkpage. According to Ms. Wayland's myspace (not reliable necessarily I know), the video she was in received the "2006 Hollywood Award". Ms. Wayland did not personally receive the award (if in fact the award is notable in and of itself is also up for debate IMO). The video was for a song, called "Wrong Love", which Ms. Wayland appeared in, along with other models. The video was for Smatka Molot, not for Ms. Wayland. In the rest of my google searching, I can find nothing (news, scholar, or general google) that asserts Ms. Wayland's notability. Endorse the deletion of this article as failing both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Keeper76! Much appreciated. That's some useful perspective. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What about mags covers????and Calenders????

Dark Spy Magazine #17 2007, DDIMag International #63 2007, Fet-X #1 2007, Fullsize #3 2005, Gum #203, Massad #227 May/June 2007, Marquis #37, Pirate #98, Skin Two #52 CALENDARS: Fetish Universe, Marquis Calendar 2006, Calendar - SWAY 2008

BOOKS: Fetishuniverse No Respect Latex Collection. Fetish Universe 2005/06

CATALOGUES: Marquis Fashion Cataloge 05/06 - Cover Model and Fashion Model, Marquis Fetish Model Directory 2005/06 - large portfolio on 4 pages, Patrice Catanzaro - Feeling by Patrice Catanzaro Tome 2

(Loover (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

As I mentioned above, "Her magazine appearances may or may not qualify; you would need reliable sources to demonstrate that her appearances there are in some way "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre." Has she been interviewed by any of these magazines? Or talked about extensively in any documentaries? That would help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

About Christine Slaughter page

Hi, I was just currious to why it was deleted. I was told with the warning template that if i placed {{hold on}} at the top that it would not be deleted right away and then in the discussion of the article I posted a question to why it was not notable, if you could please clarify, that would be awesome. Thanks. BekkaMarie (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your question, and I answered that question on your talk page. I'm afraid that you may have misunderstood the purpose of the {{hangon}}. It does not prevent your article from being deleted. As the speedy advisement that you were left indicates, "be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay." If you believe that the article's subject is notable, you can recreate the article, but please only do so if you can indicate importance as I noted at your talkpage and if you can support it with reliable sources. This young woman's myspace account is insufficient. Are there are newspaper or magazine articles talking about her surfing or snowboarding? Has she won any demonstrably notable awards? Has her clothing company received reference in the press that is extensive and not trivial? These are the kinds of things necessary to establish a biographical article on an individual. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio from what page?

Hi! I see you've deleted the article Общенациональное телевидение as a blatant copyright infringement. But it is copyvio of what webpage? I was translating the article, but I saw that you've deleted the article. Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 11:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I written a new article about this TV station.

OK, I've already found the copyvio page. Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 11:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for adding a new article about it. I've noticed your translation work (most recently at The Burning of the Library of Alexandria), and I think it's very cool that you do what you do. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No. 24 Squadron (Finalnd)

I was trying to move this article, but I mis-spelled "Finland". I tried to revert it three times but the edit revisions wouldn't take. So I need the assistance of an editor. Thank you. Pen of bushido (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm working on it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject of Ethnic Poles

Thanks for catching my mistake Moonriddengirl. I think I misread the year wrong on the revisions... it is 2006 and I though it was 2008. I carefully looked through the 2008 revisions to the Poles page and could find no merge, and I could not find any merged content on the current version, so I assumed the content had not been merged because frankly the content at the point of the merge was a little meandering. Anyway, as there was a merge and therefore the edit history is meaningful... my deletion request was inappropriate... thanks for double-checking. --Marcinjeske (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) That's the value of a collaborative project. The 2006-2008 confusion is understandable. Since merges were not handled then the way they are now, with direct link to destination articles and source articles in edit summaries, older merges are easy to overlook! Your deletion request had the net positive value of pointing out the need to put the article in Category:Redirects from merges. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl.

Actually, mostly I just wanted to say, how do you like my new signature? I use a unicode character. The other thing is I just thought I would mention one or two statements I had posted about Iantresman: User talk:Coppertwig#Iantresman and User talk:Iantresman#No evidence of sockpuppetry?. I think anybody (e.g. me) is allowed to remove suspected sockpuppet templates in a case like that; I thought I would wait a bit to see if anybody objects first. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Like the signature. :) And maybe now I will finally finish this note! (I've been delayed by other communications that seemed more "emergency" each time I've started to do so. I didn't see it this morning!) I've done a bit of reading through all this. Good gracious! It's complex. Under ordinary circumstances, I'd feel confident removing a suspected tag after a check-user account disproved, but there are complications here in the whole inconclusive earlier report and all. Since I don't do much with sock puppetry, this is the kind of thing where I'd probably ask feedback from an admin familiar with that area how these tags would usually be handled. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Moonriddengirl, and thanks for liking my signature. I asked at User talk:Jehochman#Iantresman and now have some homework to do! For now, I took the smiley out of my signature, actually, so I can post custom smileys of various sizes and colours. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz

Sorry, but no. Many editors on the page agree that over the past year or longer this user has added nothing to the article except disruptive and sometimes racist comments. For a long time there was a tag on the article, that it was in violation of NPOV (because of its emphasis on views that many considered racist and fringe); he kept removing it. Everytime he removed the tag, someone reverted him (from a range of other editors). Eventually he filed an RfC and the consensus of a great many commentators was that the article violates NPOV. At that point several editors in fact sought mediation. He pointedly and repeatedly refused to support any mediation, and the request was turned down. In fact, a day or two ago he complained that he would go to an administrator and someone reminded him about the discussion concerning mediation - apparently, that is when he turned to you.

This is what is going on: rather than accept mediation, or file a complaint at ArbCom, where he would have to provide a history of evidence and others would provide their own views and additional evidence, Jagz periodically turns to administrators who have not been following the article for the past year and therefore cannot possibly see his pattern of racist and disruptive edits.

So with all due respect, no. If you genuinely wish to help you can volunteer for informal mediation and see whether he and other people active on the page - and perhaps some people who were driven off the page by his persistent racist edits - would agree to groundrules. I would go along with that. Or, advise Jagz to make an application for formal mediation. In the meantime, I will call attention to every disruptive edit he makes, because I do not want to see a Wikipedia article that gives undue weight to fringe racist theories that whites are, for genetic reasons, of superior intelligence to blacks. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, here's a diff from his talk page where he removed all the warnings about his POV-pushing. Here's also a diff where Jagz is specifically asking some editors to not participate in his rewriting of the article. So, MRG, please forgive me if I find that Jagz' behaviour at this point is very much like asking the other parent. I concur 100% with Slrubenstein.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to prevent Ramdrake and Redpen from continuing their edit-warring on a draft section as I explained here:

"Don't worry, you'll get a crack at it later. There is just no sense continuing an edit war now on a draft section. It would have been easier to have left the section in the article and edited it while discussing on the Talk page. Taking it out makes it more difficult. It was counterproductive. --Jagz (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)"

--Jagz (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been, in my usual slow fashion, drafting a response at Slrubenstein's page for, oh, 45 minutes or so. It's almost done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be most constructive for Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, Alun/Wobble and others to edit the "Genetic hypothesis" section. They can call it fringe or pseudoscience if they have reliable sources. Here is the link: [19]. So I say, quit complaining and start editing the section. --Jagz (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Slrubenstein on my removing the neutrality/POV/NPOV tag from the article, here is a history:
19:40, 20 March 2008 Ramdrake (Talk | contribs) (115,158 bytes) (Undid revision 199648888 by Jagz (talk) No, there are BOTH balance and POV concerns. Please leave the tag alone until addressed.) (undo) [tag added and still in article]
18:52, 20 March 2008 Jagz (Talk | contribs) (115,134 bytes) (removed redundant tag, the other tag covers the concern) (undo) [tag removed]
15:54, 19 March 2008 Ramdrake (Talk | contribs) (115,055 bytes) (Tagging - this article is slipping into a racist tone again.) (undo) [tag added along with another tag]
21:01, 17 March 2008 Jagz (Talk | contribs) (118,926 bytes) (removed POV tag because there was no discussion about it since put on a week ago) (undo) [tag removed after giving warning on Talk page about no discussion]
01:42, 10 March 2008 Himhifi (Talk | contribs) (116,835 bytes) (Adding Neutrality check tag- see the talk page for details!) (undo) [tag added]
00:44, 10 March 2008 Jagz (Talk | contribs) (116,804 bytes) (Undid revision 197120484 by Himhifi (talk) removed tag, no discussion of tag found on Talk page) (undo) [tag removed]
00:23, 10 March 2008 Himhifi (Talk | contribs) (116,835 bytes) (Article is biased, and written with racist POV of vested interests- requires cleanup!) (undo) [tag added]
17:23, 22 February 2008 Jagz (Talk | contribs) (81,784 bytes) (removed tag since the article has undergone recent improvement) (undo) [tag removed]
13:24, 1 February 2008 Moonriddengirl (Talk | contribs) (123,189 bytes) (Remove protection template; protection expired) (undo) [tag already in article] --Jagz (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be heading into the territory of content dispute and is probably best presented at whatever dispute resolution forum you choose to take it. Again, mediation looks like it's probably a good choice, as it should attract neutral editors to review the arguments of all sides. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely like to see Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, Alun/Wobble, and others make a serious effort at editing the "Genetic hypothesis" section before doing anything else. They can't just shake sticks at the article and cry foul, racism, POV-pushing, fringe, and pseudoscience. Let's see what they come up with in that section so there is something concrete to discuss. (However, they need to abide by Wikipedia quality standards in doing so such as the use of reliable sources.) --Jagz (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any of them are currently monitoring my talk page, but it seems you've requested their input at the article talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I just read both of your extentsive and thoughtful replies on my talkpage. You are right: I would like a community ban of Jagz from the article. I am afraid nothing you will say at this point will change my mind. If I am a minority of one, my views will indeed go nowhere and hey, maybe I will get blocked or banned from the page! I just do not think I am alone, or that the evidence is against me. For a very long time I assumed good faith and treated Jagz as a well-intentioned editor. After a very long time of contentious editing, a few things are now very clear to me: he knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about the topic; he is a racist; his agenda is to ensure that racist fringe views are included in the article, and he has an array of strategies for disruptive editing. The current one is a paerfect example, "all I want ..." - the section he is talking about ... we cannot get around content here ... is fundamentally fringed and racist. No geneticist would dispute that there is a genetic component to intelligence. But no geneticist supports the claim that IQ differences between different races (and races are social constructs, not genetic populations) are genetic. The only people who make this claim are non-experts and racists. It is a fringe view that should not be provided alongside other explanations for IQ test result differences discussed by mainstream scientists. When I and several editors pointed this out to Jagz, we went back and forth for over a month where Jagz kept saying that he would not accept any deletion of fringe views until someone explained to him why they were deleting it. Everyone someone provided an explanation, he just said, "I am just asking for an explanation." Out of countext, his line seems well-intentioned and constructive. In context, it was just a cleverly disguised form of trolling. When he insisted that there have been genetic discoveries supporting his view, I asked him to provide a reliable source for just one discovery, and he ignored me. I asked him about a half dozen times just for him to provide anything of substance to support his claim and he ignored me. Obviously, there have not been any such discoveries, or Jagz simply does not know about them, i.e. he refuses to do any research. Again, out of context his claim that there have been many discoveries in genetics about the genetic baiss for differences in racial intelligence sounds like the reasonable comment of an editor who has researched the topic. In fact, it was just pure bullshit. nd after a half dozen rounds of "Please give us one example of such a discovery," Jagz' line now is "all I have wanted all along is for you to edit this section." In context, it is trolling. If you do not know the history of the discussion, it seems reasonable unless you start thinking - who is Jagz to invite someone to edit an article? Why is he making this request? In fact, we have made edits to the article, and have been criticizing racist and unsupported edits, or edits reflecting fringe views, jagz has put in the article. This is the context for his latest request: it is clear that several editors think an entire section in the article gives undue weight to racist views and should be deleted, and his response is that we should edit it to make it good. That implies that we have knowledge of genetics that wouldimprove the section, when we have spent six months to a year explaining to him that our knowledge of genetics leads us to delete this section or minimize it to a footnote. In this context, his request is really disingenuous provocation, an example of trolling.

Maybe this is more than you wanted to hear but since you left two more comments on my page I felt you deserved a response. Jagz is a racist troll who is an ignoramous about research on race and intelligence and who moreover refuses to do anything approaching serious research required for scientific articles. If this were the Evolution article and he kept proposing to add creationist crap I assure you he would be treated the same way ... and if he persisted for a year in his attempts to push fringe views in the article, many people would indeed stop asuming good faith ... but I doubt that any admin then tell editors at the Evolution page to giv him another chance or be more open to his suggestions. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I invite Slrubenstein and others to edit the "Genetic hypothesis" section so they can put their money where their mouth is so to speak instead of spending hours filling up the Talk page; if it is fringe or whatever, surely they could write a paragraph in the section that states that and back it up with reliable sources, otherwise we are just dealing with hot air. I'm not going to take the time to refute his comments here. Slrubenstein seems to read a lot of books but seems to not be inherently scientifically gifted. He has misrepresented my comments on the Talk page due to his shortcomings or perhaps he is just being contrary. In any case, he has been preaching essentially the same line since 2002 on the article Talk page and has not achieved anything. He is so extraordinarily opposed to including anything in the article that could be viewed as being racist that he is willing to reshape the world to conform to his personal beliefs if necessary. Since the article was unlocked on Februrary 1, Slrubenstein's contributions to the article have been next to nil. This shows he is continuing to make disruptive edits [20] [21] without discussing the matter on the Talk page. I think the article would be better served if Slrubenstein stopped participating. --Jagz (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Article

I am curious why an article I wrote about Ashley Tisdale's second studio album was deleted. I listed as much information that was released and also referenced a website to a producer who produced a new song for her for the album. I also referenced interviews, specifically with ExtraTV.com, where she has stated she began recording songs for the second album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teoth (talk • contribs) April 20 2008

Hi. I'll take a look and see what I can find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your deleted contribution history, you're talking about Tisdale's Second Studio Album, which was deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G4, which means that the article was previously deleted by deletion debate and the new article was either substantially identical or did not address the concerns that led to deletion. Articles on the subject have been deleted following discussion here and here, on April 11th. Consensus in those discussions was that an article on this subject is premature, lacking more reliable sourcing than was currently available. I would imagine that the administrator who deleted your article did not feel that the additional sources you added satisfied the concerns expressed in those deletion debates. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do a semi-driveby comment here, because I'm the one that tagged it as CSD material. All the sources said was that she wants to do an album. No firm release date. No tracklist. No title. That isn't enough to build an article on. There's a reference to the interview in the main Ashley Tisdale article. Until she actually says something concrete about the album, that's all that Wikipedia needs to have on the topic.Kww (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad day

Moon Ridden Girl, I was having a good day until now. Now I need cheering up very badly.:'-(Kitty53 (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kitty53. Remember me? I hope you feel better soon. ☺☺☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. (And nice smiles, Coppertwig!) And I hope that they continue. I'm going to be gone after today for a couple of weeks. Maybe this will cheer you up? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Muktadhara and more

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		I award you for that amazing application of The Heymann Standard and saving the article from people who didn't know better. And, also for showing how well this collaborative-anarchist community functions. Sorry that I wasn't looking this way when it happened and missed the action. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :D That's a nice thing to return to. :D I'm happy to help an article when I can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the layout on Disappointment

--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. And thanks for adding the picture! I think it's a fabulous representation. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

copyrighted material?? I think not.

The stuff I posted was a copy from a website. but it was in no way copyrighted.....

there was no (c) symbol and i'm sure he didn't do a poor man's copyright or sum such.

I know saying this will do nothing. but Fight the Fight is all it's good for.

Wikipedia Ustu be good. it's the internet. one big grey area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexgo (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As the copyright policy on Wikipedia indicates, "All works are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." In this case, that does not seem to apply. Lack of a "c" symbol doesn't constitute explicit disclaimer of copyright. You are welcome, however, to post an article in your own words, though in this case you might wish to first review the notability guidelines on films so you can be sure that your article demonstrates that it meets those guidelines. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New fan?

Hi Moonriddengirl. I happened to see this edit showing up at hideliu. He he, that guy/girl must really love you! Apparently a few anons are targeting Talk:University of Western Sydney. I will put that page in my watchlist for the time being. Cheers, Face 10:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Such comments are extremely disgusting. I think such IPs should be blocked from editing. Moonriddengirl will be back on May 6. I will put this page in my watchlist. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No matter how much I like to agree with you, the IP might be dynamic, or used by a public computer, so blocking is not a good option. Giving warnings might be useless too, because the person might never see them, and someone else gets to read them. According to this whois, the address is used by Optus in Australia. I wish I knew how... - Face 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! It is a dynamic IP. Based on a pattern of grammar and spelling, it's likely the same anon editor who has been vandalizing the article for some time, since last August or so. (see the history of it.) Warnings seem pointless at this juncture. The individual received proper warnings early on (here and here). For the past six months or so, it's been handled differently. :) University of Western Sydney has been long-term semi-protected, so at this point keeping vandalism off the talk page is the main objective here. More eyes on the article and its related vandalism target, Dapto High School (an example of the vandalism of which you can see here), are good and would be welcome. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! And thanks for your advice. I keep an eye on Dapto too. Talking about that page, what are those names doing there at the See also section? Cheers, Face 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: how do you know that IP is dynamic? It most likely is, but if you found out, I would like to know how. Cheers, Face 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

←Thanks. :) I'm glad to be back, but pretty out of it still! I'm not one of those people who can stroll off of 25 hours worth of airplane/airport time unphased. I'll probably be recovering for half the year. :P As for its being dynamic, I'm really taking somebody's word for it. The pattern of vandalism came up at ANI a while back--November, maybe?--and one of the contributors who weighed in there said that the whole range of IPs was dynamic. Whois does indicate that they are "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" (I'm not shouting; I'm copy-pasting :D), but whether it is true that these are typically dynamic (as suggested here) I don't know. Those names I would imagine are misplaced "notable alumni". I'd imagine they should be moved. I'm surprised they've been sitting there so long! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AmiDaniel said some interesting things there. Thanks for the link. As for those names, I removed them, because the only person on it who had an article was some footballer called Steve Morris. I did a quick search, but I don't think there is a source available which confirms that he's an alumnis of that school. Cheers, Face 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hello Moonriddengirl. How are you? Welcome back! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :D I'm recovering, I believe. As I indicated above, I do not cross timezones very well. I hope that things are going well with you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

== Brian Sherwin ==

Hi. I'm new to contributing articles on wikipedia. I'd like some opinions about this article/bio I contributed. My plan is to contribute bios for other art bloggers/writers of note like Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene once I finish with the Sherwin bio. Do you have any suggestions? For example, should I mentioned the Alexa ranking of the Myartspace Blog? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Hi, and thanks for taking on the challenging task of adding content. :) I will gladly take a look at the article this evening. I see that it's up for AfD, but it should have days before that closes. There's time to address the concerns. I'm not that familiar with blogging as a profession, so I'll probably need to poke about a bit to see what kinds of information might be best to include. I don't even know at this point what an Alexa ranking is, I'm afraid. :/ Before looking, I'll just note that my general approach is to be sure to incorporate lots of references from reliable sources, like news media or magazines. In fact, I probably go a little overboard in including such things myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

←*Response Hi. I'm sorry it took me longer to get back to you than I had believed it would. I'm afraid that I haven't been able to come up with anything specifically helpful. :/ I've done some searching on google, but didn't disclose any sourcing of the sort that I would usually include. Because of that, my suggestions remain very general.

Authors fall under the specific section of the notability guidelines for "creative professionals". There are some specific benchmarks that other contributors to Wikipedia look for here. First, if the gentleman has been the subject of discussion of multiple unrelated reliable sources, he passes by the general criteria. Those would be news media or magazines, as I said, or could also include unrelated, reputable websites. Other possible points include the following, each of which require specific verification through reliable sources.

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Things I would be looking for in your position would be:

• widespread coverage in reliable sources, first and primarily. If you can find that, none of the rest of this is really required.
• alternatively, evidence of wide citation by peers, as in other journalists saying things like "In the Sherwin interview, Blahdeblah said this...." The challenge here is that those peers should themselves be notable. I wouldn't feel at all confident relying on that criterion myself, if they were not.
• evidence of critical attention, as opposed to popular attention (or # of hits). Has this writer received any notable awards? Has he placed well in any notable competitions?
• finally, evidence of intense if not widespread coverage. Has this individual been heavily or deeply examined by at least a couple of reliable sources? If the references are not trivial, the depth of coverage may be sufficient to overcome lack of breadth of coverage. A dream scenario "for instance": a profile in The New York Times. This may not in itself be enough to establish that the individual is notable, but depending on the content and the quality of the few sources, it may.

Good luck, and I do hope that some of this helps. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I think I mentioned I'm new. I don't think that matters but I do think things here are a bit unfair. For example, the Brian Sherwin bio was deleted within minutes the first few times I tried working on it. No debate, no talks. Just deleted as if for personal reasons. So I think it is unfair for it to be marked as repeatedly deleted when it was deleted without cause the prior times. I don't really agree with the voting on here because some people end up going along with past vote statements that have nothing to do with the status of the bio at present meaning they did not even bother to read what they are voting on. Not to mention that several votes for delete contain wild assumptions and false information that had nothing to do with the bio at hand. I've seen bios about sports figures on here and the only thing notable about them is the team they played for but an interviewer and writer documenting contemporary art culture through over 400 interviews with artists like Michael Craig-Martin and James Rosenquist is not? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry that this experience has been so frustrating for you. I can well imagine it would be. :/ I didn't even dare attempt writing a new article until I had been active for some time because as a new user I also found some of the requirements confusing. There are different standards for different types of articles; there is also more variation than there probably should be in how different administrators apply those standards when considering speedy deletions. Articles for Deletion debates are shaped by the contributors to them. The administrator who closes it will assess how the contributors evaluated the article according to policy, but it's undeniable that individual interpretation shapes the outcome. I myself once took part in two almost identical AfDs, one on the list of Indian women and another on the list of Iranian women. The list of Indian women ended in delete. The list of Iranian women is still here. So, yes, I would agree with you that things here are not always fair. In defense of the system, though, I'll note that I believe it is intended to be and is probably about as fair as an open contributor system can be, but there is undoubtedly a lot of "left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing".

There are checks and balances. If an article is speedily deleted that should not have been or if an AfD is closed with improper interpretation, after approaching the administrator, you do have the option of deletion review. This is not necessarily a cure-all in itself since it is also open contributor and some contributors may bring their own biases, but it's a start. The other option is to pitch in and work from the policy level. The policies and guidelines that govern what articles may be kept and what may not are also created by the contributors here. If you see a flaw in those guidelines, you can propose a change at the talk page of the guideline and perhaps you will persuade others to your perspective. Not every good contributor has the time and energy to take this on, I know, but not long ago I ran into another in a similar situation to yours—a brand new contributor creating an article on a school—who wound up actively involved in the school guidelines project (which is still not finished).

Just to let you know, I've considered it best that I stay away from the AfD of this article, since there is a policy against soliciting support in AfDs and I worry that my participation could taint your case, since I was not familiar with the article prior to your arriving on my talk page. I have looked at it, though, and I see that you've received a couple of supports. If you continue to defend your article calmly and succinctly there, it's possible that you may persuade the other contributors. Meanwhile, if you locate additional sourcing, please include a brief note to that effect in the discussion so that the administrator who closes it may consider whether the new material invalidates earlier opinions.

I hope however this comes down, you won't let it discourage you from contributing. There are a maze of policies and guidelines that can seem very daunting to new contributors. (There's a valuable sort of compendium of them at WP:5P.) There are things that you can do when establishing a new article to help ensure that it isn't deleted before you've at least had a chance to finish writing it. Many experienced contributors choose to create articles in "sandboxes" in their user spaces. I do that myself when I have an article that I think may appear borderline with regards to notability. Even if I'm sure that my subject would be universally regarded as notable, I still put {{inuse}} at the top of every new article I create. This lets reviewers know that it's under construction. (There is a tag called {{underconstruction}}, but I prefer inuse because it specifies that I will be finished within hours, not days.)

Finally, I took the liberty of peaking at your contributions, and I see that you've left a note for BWH76 in his archive, [22]. Archives are records of old discussions, and he may not see your note there. I know his talk page looks unusual, but you may wish to contribute your note to it instead. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the note so hopefully he will obtain it. Is there any form of check and balance system for admins? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes, absolutely. It would generally depend on the situation in which an admin is involved. You can read more about what is expected of administrators. We aren't required to be perfect (thank heavens! we wouldn't have any left :D), but admins are expected to work with a good faith effort to conform to community standards and practices. The first "check & balance" is the adminship system itself. Admins are created after a fairly grueling process of community scrutiny similar to AfD (if you're curious, you can take a look at it here). Once established, admins who misuse (intentionally or otherwise) "the tools" may be dealt with through one of the processes here. There are also checks & balances on admin behavior in some of the other "checks & balance" systems. :) An admin whose deletions wind up successfully challenged at WP:DRV will probably get a better idea of what community standards are. (Soon after becoming an admin, an article I had deleted was taken to DRV and restored. There are certain exceptions to A7, some of which I've since worked on the guidelines with others to make more explicit.)

One important policy when dealing with other editors or admins, is "assume good faith". We do start with the presumption that the other party means well, and we deal with them from that basis. That's why dispute resolution with anyone should always begin with talking to that person. Not all of them are open to conversation, but many of them are. If an admin has made a mistake or has misunderstood something, they often learn from such conversations. If they don't, the other processes can help bring the point home. In rare cases of egregious or persistent misuse, administrator status may be revoked.

One final point in this regard—it may not always be easy to determine when you are dealing with an administrator and when you are not. Most of the people you encounter on Wikipedia likely aren't. I've taken care to identify my role clearly on my userpage, but not everyone does. Many administrators will simply have a note at the bottom of their pages. Some might have no note at all. If you aren't sure and want to know, check out the list of administrators. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Hi. That did not go over well. I guess I did not understand.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Hmm. I had not read the content of your note, but simply seen that it was misplaced. For what it's worth, I disagree with the editor in question that requesting a second look on his talk page is inappropriate. Many editors comment on AfDs and do not watchlist them. I have seen requests for second looks done many times; as long as they are neutral and polite, I have never seen one objected to. References to "bad faith" should not be made lightly, however. Even if you believe an editor is misguided in his judgment, "bad faith" has a specific connotation on Wikipedia that an editor is actively trying to undermine Wikipedia. These are likely to be "fighting words" and should definitely be avoided. It's much better to focus on the weight of the argument and leave motivation (or judgments about the arguer) out of it unless you have strong evidence otherwise. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong evidence? I think when someone votes delete per someone else's opinion when that opinion is proven wrong by the current state of the bio there is a problem. He obviously based his opinion on the opinion of the other voter instead of reading the current bio. This can lead one to assume many things. Did someone send him there for the delete vote? Did he do it for brownie points? I'll assume all I want when assumptions and false information is deciding votes on an article I've taken time to write. The bio never said anything about Sherwin being the creator of the Myartspace site and I don't think the notability (or lack thereof) of myartspace should have anything to do with a bio about a writer, interviewer, and art critic that has been published both online and offline. Interviewing 400 artists in just a couple of years is worthy of note when you consider that most of the major art publications interview two or three artists per month. I asked the other guy to look at the bio again as well and in his eyes a person is not notable unless they have been in the New York Times. Which I think is a great error and I believe putting those obstacles before bios goes against what wikipedia is about or what I thought it was about. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

That may be strong evidence of a flawed assumption, if you're correct in your reading of the situation. But it is not evidence of bad faith. It is also extremely common in evaluating deletion debates to incorporate by reference another person's words. This saves considerable redundancy. Your article was one of 109 nominated for deletion through deletion debate on that day; you can see the list of them here. Many contributors visit those lists to choose the debates in which they will participate.

Regardless, whatever assumptions you may choose to make, accusations of bad faith deviate from the guideline set out at Wikipedia:Etiquette and are only likely to obscure any good points you may be making in your argument. If your wish is to make a place for this and similar articles on Wikipedia, it will serve you much better to focus merely on what makes the subject notable or on why the obstacles to such articles are unfair (at the guideline itself). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Delete as NN; the website he's notable for (myartspace) wouldn't even meet notability; even if it did, there have been a great many AfDs for a NN creator of a notable website. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)"

"Delete per JeremyMcCracken. BWH76 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)"

So in your eyes this is balanced voting? This is acceptable? As I mentioned on the debate page after JeremyMcCracken's statement, Sherwin is NOT the creator of Myartspace and the notability (or lack of notability) of Myartspace is not on trial here. So it would appear that BWH76 did not even bother to read the bio or the statements I made after JeremyMcCracken's vote on the debate page. Have I violated Wikipedia etiquette? I don't think I'm the only one. I'm going to walk away for a day or so because I don't want this turning into a flame war. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Walking away may be a good idea if you feel that you're too emotionally invested to avoid flaming. As for the above, I didn't indicate whether I felt it was balanced !voting or not. I didn't mean to imply a conclusion either way. My point was that, if you are correct in your reading of the situation, it may be strong evidence that the assumptions of the editor in question are flawed. I am not evaluating the argument or the deletion debate for the reason I expressed above. It would be inappropriate for me to do so. I did indicate that it isn't evidence of bad faith, which, as I explained above, has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Bad faith is a deliberate effort to undermine the project. Speaking in generalities, even if we feel another editor on Wikipedia has badly misjudged something, we still start from the assumption that his misjudgment was well-intentioned. Even if we feel another editor on Wikipedia has the critical evaluation skills of a 5 year old (I've known Wikipedians as young as 10; I've never that I know of encountered a 5-year-old), we still start from the assumption that his efforts are well-intentioned. Assuming good faith does not mean that we must agree with another editor's conclusions or opinions or that we are not permitted to debate the argument. By all means, refute it if it is flawed. But I will reiterate that without strong evidence of malice (as opposed to error or even incompetence) on the part of any editor on Wikipedia, an accusation of bad faith is only likely to obscure your valid argument. I'd also like to point out that with regards to etiquette, even if somebody has already violated it, we must remain with the boundaries of WP:CIVIL ourselves. If you feel another editor has been egregiously uncivil to you, you can take it up at WP:WQA, which is a board where civility issues are examined and opinions offered by uninvolved parties. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your time and concern. So it is OK to vote without looking at the bio or article? Because if he had he would not have agreed with the other person because the other person's statements had nothing to do with the bio at that time (or ever). I call it as I see it. We will just see how this turns out. But I have learned a few things and I'm looking forward to debating about other bios in the future. :)(Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

I don't like not responding, so I wanted to say that I think it's probably best to let this drop. You seem to be doing fine, and I can't see that I have much more to offer along these lines. Your perceptions ("So in your eyes"; "So it is OK") about what I'm saying suggest that there's a communication issue here. In a nutshell, don't presume malice without strong evidence, correct even egregious mistakes with civility, and avoid ad hominems. This is the heart of WP:AGF. Good luck with your article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English#الجودر

Please see my comment there. PS: the first line on your talk page refers to a "plus sign" - it seems the interface has been changed. Cbdorsett (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Good find. In all cases. Somebody mentioned the "plus sign" earlier on the page, but it didn't occur to me that this was mentioned on my own talk page. :) I appreciate your looking into the history for me. Obviously, I wasn't confident in that decision, and I was right not to be. :) In the matter of the copyright violation, I see that you've marked them with "possible copyright infringement". Are you certain to the point that these should be speedily deleted as blatant copyright infringements? My uneducated glance would suggest so, but I'm extremely unfamiliar with the Arabic alphabet and am not comfortable making that assessment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• The copy-paste was imperfect (roughly ten words were left out) but otherwise, the whole thing comes from the cited page. Let me suggest that, if you feel uncomfortable with evaluating the copyvio tag issue yourself, you let another admin do it. Asking me whether I think I'm right, and basing your own action on my answer, basically gives me admin rights. I thought the idea of tagging a copyvio was to let another editor independently judge the claim. I'm flattered that you think well enough of my judgment to ask, but I think we should stick to process. I am always careful to verify the copying when I tag an article for deletion, which unfortunatly you can't really verify, since deleted pages disappear from my own edit history. Am I sure it's a copyvio? Yeah. Should you simply take my word for it? That's up to you. Maybe you could locate an Arabic-speaking admin to take on this one? Thanks. Cbdorsett (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This does not mean that you should not tag them for speedy deletion as a copyvio if you are certain. After all, that Arabic speaking administrator has to discover them somehow. :) If I was certain, I could tag them myself or simply delete them. (A second reviewer is not necessary when copyright violation is clear-cut.) If you'd prefer to let the slower process play out, though, with the tag you've currently placed, that's fine, but you should probably list the articles at the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_May_10/Articles. (Currently it seems they'd be the first, so the bottom is obviously the top. :) The template you would use to list them is located on the tags you put on the articles.) The tag you chose puts the article automatically into a category of copyright violations, but I'm not sure how long it will be before an admin trawls that category, since it is considerably easier to see the listings in order at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. :) Like the {{notenglish}} tag, it needs a finishing step.

As a couple of side notes, though, I can actually see the deleted pages in your own history...one of the admin tools. And administrators do routinely rely on the judgment of volunteers in the translation project to help determine what is and is not appropriate. I see that you listed Deebabukatish as an A7, and it was accordingly deleted untranslated. Persica digital went as spam. Dorregeest was deleted as an attack page. It's always possible that some of those administrators read the languages involved, but I'm pretty sure in some cases that they did not. The latter, for instance, was in Dutch. The administrator who deleted it lists his languages, and Dutch is not among them. This does not mean that they didn't use some auto-translator, of course, or that they don't have some smattering of language skills not listed. But relying on the advice of experienced participants in the translation project seems reasonable, particularly given that if the articles are not translated in two weeks they are subject to deletion anyway. You guys have undertaken a very important job! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Once again, thanks. I have noticed that the articles I tag for speedy delete usually disappear quite quickly, even without being listed on any special pages. But I'll follow up on your tip later, when my little one's nap time rolls around again. Cbdorsett (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Articles that you tag for speedy deletion are listed on a special page, automatically. There's no need to duplicate the listing. With {{copyvio}}, however, a follow-up step is necessary. They have been reviewed and deleted, however, so with these it's no longer a concern. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, there! On your user page you claim that you:

"typically do not work on articles in which I have a strong personal interest. I work on a "catch and release" philosophy, and after my involvement with an article and a brief period of nurturing will usually let it go. I have not yet encountered any kind of ownership issues, and I don't want to. :)"

But have you ever, say, posted a person's unpublished CV and arranged for it to be cited on the web, in order to shoehorn unverified information into a biography article? Have you ever edited biography articles of persons who are known to you? Have you ever edited biography articles at the behest of the subject of the article?Irvine22 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Irvine22, please be civil. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Three questions. I'll respond first to the last. Yes; occasionally in the context of responding to requests to edit articles by persons with announced COI and more commonly in monitoring against harassment or what seems to be biased editing in response to requests at WP:BLPN. There are several articles I monitor and/or have monitored for such reasons; in addition to the one where we've interacted, they include Tom Barker and Susan Polk. I would much rather not have to. I monitor Don Black (white nationalist) for vandalism following a request at BLPN, even though I personally find the subject of white nationalism distasteful, to say the least. :P I don't know David Eppstein (talk · contribs) and don't believe there's very much overlap in our contributions to Wikipedia, but we did intersect here, at which point I added that article to my watchlist as one to keep an eye on. As far as posting unpublished CVs, nope. I have, however, provided references to material challenged in articles where I find them; when it doesn't concern notability, the subject's own webspace is a fine source for biographical information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You've inspired me to add some info on my userpage about this aspect of my work. :) While I haven't been that active at BLPN lately, I've accumulated enough of this to merit more explanation...particularly as one of the articles I monitor for problems has become my "most frequently contributed to" article! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Motocade

Hi Moonriddengirl. Thank you for your helpful comments regarding the Motocade article. As a somewhat disinterested person just looking for information of a mildly famous band from New Zealand I was surprised that no Wikipedia article existed. I see someone did a very poor start that was marked as vandalism and I was hoping to create something that at least could be built upon by actual fans. I guess there must be hundreds of garage bands nobody has heard of trying to create their own article so admins must keep an eye out. Anyhow I have decided to forget about it but I do appreciate your input. Forgive me if I have placed this in the wrong place I cannot see any plus sign at the top of the page just the "new section" having a alt-shift-+ shortcut. I am somewhat of a Wikipedia newbie but I try to do my best. Cheers. Kelpi (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kelpi. Thanks for your note. You've hit the nail on the head with the problem with garage bands. It's because of this that bands are subject to speedy deletion at all. Given what you say about rotation, it seems the band should probably meet the notability guidelines. If you change your mind about establishing the article and would like feedback, please feel free to let me know. Music-related articles are of particular interest to me. Although I typically work on album articles, I'm very familiar with the notability guidelines on music. And if you decide quite certainly that you will not develop the article further, please consider tagging it with {{db-u1}}. This will notify admins that you no longer require it in your userspace so they can tidy up. Oh, and you've placed this note in precisely the right place. I'm not sure what happened to the little plus at the top of the page. I came back from a trip abroad to find that "new section" tab. Guess the developers have been tweaking. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelpi and MRG - sorry to snoop. If you go to your preferences tab, then "Gadgets", then "interface gadgets", you can change the "new section" tab back to the "+" tab if you preferred it that way. Wikipedia is all about choices! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to snoop on my talk page any time, o knowledgeable one. :D Thanks! I do prefer the +, as it's easier to see at a glance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Gasp!* You can add an "edit" tab to the lead? :O I'm so glad you chimed in! Not being very techie, I tend to avoid things that can be personalized in the interest of not breaking the magic box. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that wonderful? I noticed that a while back when copyediting A GA nominee. The lead needed *lots* of help, and with my slow browser, I surely appreciated the "edit section" for the top paragraph. I'll never go back! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! I've also added a UTC clock to the browser (I suppose; I haven't looked to see if it worked yet :D). I'm enough of a Wikiholic that I have a clock on my desk set to UTC. Maybe I can hide my addiction better. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We are two peas in the same wiki-addicted pod, my friend. I added the clock myself not too long ago. I also added WP:HOTCAT. Very cool. Look into it, especially as someone that "rescues" newly created articles from deletion and needs to quick add cats to make a n00b's article look more rescuable.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

←Ah! Thanks so much. I will most definitely add it. It can save me some time hunting around for stuff to put on. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan

Hi Moonriddengirl - thanks for your assessment and response :) I'm very busy with work right now; as soon as I get a moment I'll think about the personnel issue that you raise and respond to it. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Please just let me (or the more general us at the project if you prefer) know if and when you'd like a re-assessment. It's a good-looking article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Another editor has just filled in a Personnel listing for Freewheelin'. Is this listing adequate? Mick gold (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! Re-assessed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That is gratifying :) Should I propose it for GA assessment, or is that over-ambitious? Mick gold (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is your ego up for it? ;D I've only been involved in one GA review (and that as an article contributor), so I'm not that familiar with the process, though I know it can take a while. But I'd say sure, why not? If nothing else, you should get some good feedback for improvement! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Arise (Sepultura album)

Hi, thank you for your accessment of the Arise (album) page. Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Always nice to see a complete article. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Sad

Thanks for the advice, i've added the personnel from AMG now. Actually i've used that quite a lot but never noticed the credits section before! Do you rate song articles as well? If so i'd appreciate some input on Song to the Siren too. It's like working in a dark hole with Tim Buckley articles! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

When I first started working on album articles, I had no idea there were all those little tabs in AMG. I once asked somebody how they knew about song charting, not knowing that AMG has that information as well. :) They didn't answer, but I eventually figured it out on my own. I have no experience with song articles, but I'll be happy to take a look at the criteria & at the article to see if I can offer some suggestions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not being familiar with song articles, it looks to me like at least a B. It's a fine looking article. What I would do in your position is head over to the project page and ask on the talk page for somebody to rate it. You may or may not get any takers, but it would be a start. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User access levels/archivelist

Hi Moonriddengirl, I requested a deletion of Wikipedia:User access levels/archivelist earlier today, which you deleted, you also deleted Wikipedia talk:User access levels/archivelist, which is used in the archive box of Wikipedia talk:User access levels, could you undelete it? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, certainly! It's done. Sorry about that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		I've been lucky to work with you over the past few weeks, and I've had the opportunity to truly harness your attitude, which is relentingly positive. Thank you. Rudget (Help?) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! How nice. :D Thank you so much. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Waltham Town Lock

I am sorry. The article had just one edit and I presumed Waltham Town Lock to be a lock manufacturing company.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I can totally see how that might have happened. :) I paused over that one a long time, trying to figure out if it needed additional action. Had it not been a geographical article and had I not found so many on locks, I might well have at least tagged it for notability concerns. As I said at your talk page, though, I thought it best to tag the wikiproject and let its participants sort it out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)