User talk:Mangojuice

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

Archives
15,000,000,000 BC – 17 Feb 2006 17 Feb 2006 – 17 Apr 2006 17 Apr 2006 – 10 May 2006 10 May 2006 – 9 Jun 2006 9 Jun 2006 – 12 Jul 2006 12 Jul 2006 – 26 Aug 2006 26 Aug 2006 – 19 Oct 2006 19 Oct 2006 – 3 Dec 2006 3 Dec 2006 – 16 Mar 2007 16 Mar 2007 – 22 Aug 2007 22 Aug 2007 – 20 Jan 2008 20 Jan 2008 – 7 Oct 2008

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I think people casually reading my talk page would be interested in my response, in which case I'll respond here. Thanks!

Eric Robert Rudolph

I removed terrorist from the lead per WP:BLP and WP:TERRORISM. The FBI statement talks about "terrorist attacks" but does not say "Rudolph is a terrorist." That bit needed removed as unsourced libel. Just thought I'd let you know if you wanted to peak over and keep an eye open for an uprising of the masses. Thanks, Grsz^X 02:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It also says that within the Domestic Terrorism Program, there is (was) no higher priority than ... Eric Rudolph. So, the FBI was pursuing him under their Domestic Terrorism Program, which means they considered him a terrorist. Mangojuice^talk 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

IReceivedDeathThreats / BlueHippo / 208.48.6.195

Please respond at the bottom of this .

BTW, I just (v. belatedly) noticed that 208.48.6.195 is assigned to Blue Hippo (per mtr) and had been attempting to censor its own page. Sample diff. How do you think I should proceed? AN/I? ^{Proof: URL:http://www.fifi.org/services/traceroute?hostname=208.48.6.195&nprobes=1&resolved=yes&submit=Traceroute. Accessed: 2008-10-08. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5bQ9eOLlF)} Is it possible to run http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=TronixCounty on the full page edit history? It would seem to me that all (anon and user) editing from these IPs might need to be blocked.

Likewise, [Dittus], a public relations firm, has been editing via 12.160.63.70, e.g. diff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRDT (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I read your response, but I can't find an answer therein. Are you saying you won't unblock IReceivedDeathThreats at all? Here's what I am asking:

Thank you for being a voice of reason. ... I need to think about things in light of what I've learned: I've read the current RFCN but my experience to date suggests engaging that or a new RFCN would be highly counterproductive. I'll hold out for you (who wrote "...I also don't think you need to be forced to change it...") to read my unblock request above and decide to honor it.

Mangojuice, please respond; did you mean I don't have to change my username? Did you mean that's your opinion and you will unblock me on that basis? Or did you just mean that's your opinion and you will unblock me only for the purpose of further discussion?--IRDT (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion. I'm not willing to act on my own while there are admins who have supported the block. Can you explain why you want to keep this username? And what do you think of the objections that have been raised to it? Mangojuicetalk 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I can do those things, but my experience to date suggests engaging in a RFCN would be highly counterproductive. If I felt I could have a debate on the merits of the username IReceivedDeathThreats, then I'd be up for it. Do you think that could happen? If you do, why? What could you or I do to make that happen? The discussions to date were anything but a debate on the merits. Instead, the ANI and UAA were mostly blatantly false statements and other trollbait, and discussions thereof. And then there was the apparent oversight. As for the RFC, the link to it here is broken; where is it? I've already said "I do not feel comfortable elaborating on why I feel I need to retain the name IReceivedDeathThreats." --IRDT (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, the more I think it over, I don't think a discussion would be worthwhile, and I don't think there's any possible good reason to go back to your ill-advised previous username. Here is the discussion -- the feedback was basically unanimous. While I don't like the block-first-discuss-later approach for borderline usernames, in the end, you should be forced to change your username given the objections if you can't counter them, and you are apparently not interested in doing that. Mangojuice^talk 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If I felt I could have a debate on the merits of the username IReceivedDeathThreats, then I'd be up for it. Do you think that could happen? Given that, as I recently pointed out at the start of this thread (on IReceivedDeathThreats' talk page), 2 admins didn't think I should have to change my username, I don't see how you can say that it was "basically unanimous". Do you want to reconsider saying that? --IRDT (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at RFCN was indeed basically unanimous. Look, I've had enough of this. If you want to open an RFCN go ahead. You know that it may well be unproductive. If you aren't willing to divulge your secret reasons to me, I can't advise you. Mangojuice^talk 05:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Two things

1. User_talk:Dareheaven#Block has answered your questions and is requesting unblock. 2. Archive this damn page! :) MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, you listened. Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 12:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly just don't notice that stuff. Sections aren't numbered when you just hit "end" every time you load your page... but what did I have, like 200 sections there? I should really archive more often than that... Mangojuice^talk 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Per my reply to you on User_talk:PrinceOfCanada, I'd like to formally request your input on the community discussion regarding G2bambino. My reply here is the specific issue that I'd like your input on - but the proposals begin here. Above that section is the context and diffs. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You should really make this a WP:RFC. ANI is a fine venue for quick action on clear problems but this case is way too complicated for that venue. Mangojuice^talk 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Paperwork

Heya, one last piece of paperwork. When you notify an editor about an Arb case, it has to be logged on the case page itself. For Pseudoscience, since it's combined with another case (just to make things that bit more complicated, heh), this is at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications. If you check there, you'll see the format. Just list their name, and a diff of the notification. --Elonka 16:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, taken care of. Mangojuice^talk 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Hi, thanks for the note about Pseudoscience. I wish I would have gotten something like that before I got blocked. If you have a chance, could you have a look at the events that happened, as I and many other editors (including one that was directly involved--the other didn't weigh in) never knew there was an edit war until I got blocked. The only reason I have this article (and many others) on my watch list is because disruption or vandalism had spilled over onto other pages I normally edit... I just kept an eye on pseudoscience to help maintain order. Just a thought, but maybe 3RR needs to only apply when there's actually an edit war going on.

Also (as long as I've got your ear), when I was unblocked, Elonka said there might be an autoblock that I should mention on my talk page to undo, but after the unblock I couldn't even edit my talk page. I emailed Elonka, but she didn't get around to resolving the issue until just now. I also emailed the address given in the help section, but there has been no response to that in the past 15 hours. Why wasn't I even able to edit my talk page? NJGW (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As for whether the 3RR block was right on its own, I do think that most of the time there is someone who complains... but the rule is meant to be a bright line and you definitely crossed it, so the block was legit. As for the arbcom ruling, you would not have been blocked under it until being made aware, that's part of the ruling. But now that you know, you should just try to be extra careful in reverting on that page and on similar ones. On a highly watched page, remember that it can be someone else's turn to revert an edit if it's inappropriate... and that approach can also give you an idea if maybe others might feel differently. As for the email list, honestly, responses can be a bit slow, {{unblock}} is much faster. But those procedures are really designed for long-term blocks: short ones automatically get removed, after all. As for your talk page, it's possible you tried to edit it while the autoblock was still in place but you hadn't logged in? Only thing I can think of. If you showed me the full text of the message you saw, I could help you figure it out, but it's probably working now. Mangojuice^talk 05:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The message that appeared when I tried editing my talk page said the IP was autoblocked because of the 3rr block, mentioned my ID, and said if I have trouble then I should add the template to my talk page... kind of hard to do when I can't edit my talk page. I was logged in, and I logged out and in again just to be sure, tried it a few times throughout the day. NJGW (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that shouldn't happen. It might have been a cache thing possibly. Anyway, you can edit your page now, right? Mangojuice^talk 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I can edit now (Elonka removed the autoblock), but I just want to know what exactly happened in case this is happening to other people, or in case Elonka made some technical error... I pressed ctrl-R several times, closed the window and reopened it, and then erased my cache through the tools menu, none of which worked. Have you ever heard of users not being able to edit their talk pages besides when fully protected? NJGW (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but then, I'm not a developer. See WP:BUGS for info on reporting bugs. Mangojuice^talk 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Lemansbjw

Was he bugging you on email too? I got an email from him earlier asking me to explain why I deleted his article and blocked his account. I never heard back from him in email, but he apparently made a bit of a fuss in his page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I heard from him, it was quite a bit more harshly worded than a mere request. I tend to not respond to people like that over email, because then they'll have my address.. Mangojuice^talk 03:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Checkuserblock

Hi Mangojuice. There was so much vandalism coming from that IP that I felt the need to checkuserblock it; some of the vandalism was seemingly innocuous, but if you actually took a moment to consider it, it seemed like there was something more going on than met the eye. For example, a fair few of the users that have been affected by the block have put blocked templates on their own talk pages. This was all happening while the IP was blocked anon-only so I don't really want to unblock it. Feel free to grant that user block exemption if you think it's appropriate, though. --Deskana (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to change the Wikipedia:Autoblock page

I will refresh your memory in regard to this discussion you answered about revealing user's IP address when they are dealing with an autoblock last November (i know a while ago!). I think you should place some kind of information on the autoblock page that their IP address will be visible to everyone and if they don't want this to happen they should hold out and no one would be much the wiser. Note what it says on that page "The only circumstances in which a user may be associated with an IP address, are certain policy violations detailed by the checkuser policy", this obviously needs to change. Thanks 211.30.16.21 (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm not sure you will have the same IP address later, I'll leave my response here. I agree that users should be cautious in posting their IP address. However, that particular passage at Wikipedia:Autoblock is trying to make a different point: that admins can't help IP blocked users unless they post the IP address. I'm not entirely sure where it is best to leave this warning, but buried in the middle of the explanation of what an Autoblock is is probably not the best idea. Perhaps try posting about this issue at the Village Pump? You might get some helpful feedback there. Mangojuice^talk 14:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mangojuice

Thankyou for unblocking me, however, I am considering retiring from Wikipedia. Thankyou for all your help and support.

I now have a BLOG, and although I'll miss 'blogging' on Wikipedia, at least I won't get told off for blogging on blogger.com. Feel free to pop by my blog and leave a comment or send me an email, just go to http://thesecretworldofladyrenegade.blogspot.com/ (search engines won't work, type it directly into your URL).

It's sad to leave Wikipedia on bad terms, but I really don't think I am an editor of value.

Yours sincerely, HJH Lady Renegade.

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mango, Question.

In the future, when someone else is the one editing out stuff that I post that meet's WIKIPEDIA standards, whom do I go to specifically? Because if history is any experience, I know that user Scorion50something reacts negatively to ANYTHING that he does not like, even if it meets the standards (and in my own self-admission, when I was in the wrong as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_please.3F

Many thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Helio Ban

I think you may have missed the actual ban i was appealing and what I was saying. There was no ban ever communicated to me. If you've been able to find documentation that suggests otherwise feel free to point that out. But at no point after giving Shell my email address, providing IM information, or on the boards was it ever communicated to me that I was banned from anything. The ban I was appealing was the one previous to this "block evasion" one. What policy was that based on? What was the reason for it? Shell says there was never an issue of vandalism or any other breach of wikipedia policy so what was the need for the initial ban? In fact if you review the edits you'll see as soon as someone suggested posting the information instead in wikileaks is when I left it alone because I found that to be a reasonable alternative but never got around to it...66.186.44.2 (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Shell showed me an email to you that was quite clear that you were not to edit any articles having to do with Helio. The word "ban" wasn't mentioned, but you were told that *any* edits to those articles would result in a block: that is a topic ban. Same goes for the warning Ned Scott found and pointed out. The choice to impose the ban looks good to me: I was only really interested in the question of whether you were clearly and fairly informed first. Mangojuice^talk 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelley Limp

Hi. How exactly was it that the decision was "Keep", given that the article is an unsourced stub that has not established notability of the subject, and that all seven of the votes were for Delete or Merge? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SLAVE. There was no clear place to merge the article to. If you have a solution, go ahead, the AfD provides the consensus you might otherwise have to build. Mangojuice^talk 12:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Would you mind then restoring the articles discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken or at least sending them to my userspace for additional work like you previously refused to do? See User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was against deletion of Kelley Limp. The consensus was for deletion of those coaches; I merely remarked to those supporting merge that there was no place to merge in addition to lack of consensus to do so. As I said before, if you pick any one of those articles and show me some reliable sources you can use to build up a real article, I'd be happy to undelete in userspace for you. Otherwise, no, or find someone else. Mangojuice^talk 13:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Other similar articles have already been restored. It would be easier if you would simply userfy the articles in question. If you continue to wait, I'll simply work on other articles that have the head start and then the only ones left will be the ones you held up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given my condition. I think it's reasonable. So did Stifle last time we talked about this. If any other admin disagrees, them userfying for you is fine by me. See CAT:RESTORE for people you could try asking. Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The "condition" apparently has already been met and also is unreasonable, as seven similarly-deleted articles have already been restored, either by the original deleting admin or through their consent. Wikipedia is not an accumulation of blank pages, but I think you would prefer it that way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm a volunteer, and undeleting and userfying pages is work for me that I don't feel like doing if you can't be bothered to show even one reliable source on even ONE of the articles, to indicate to me that it might be minimally worthwhile. So quit bugging me about it if you aren't going to do the work. I looked at your project and it seems like most of the articles are still in deletable state , and at least one was moved back to the encyclopedia and subsequently deleted. If you want to gripe about me, WP:AN is the place. I'll delete any more of it that you post here. Mangojuice^talk 16:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you insist on continually deleting my requests and have asked that I open a WP:AN entry, I have done so here. Personally, I would have rather you had just userfied the articles on the first request instead of complain about not being paid. P.S. I'm a volunteer, too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I expected, another admin quickly userfied the articles once you bothered to ask someone else. Which has been my point for some time now. Mangojuice^talk 02:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Friends ;)

Hey Mangojuice, do you remember me from the "America Needs Jesus" incident? We had a discussion here, and I laugh as I went back through it. ;) My stupidy and misspelling, dumb "lol" jokes, etc. I do the same things with new users now (I'm an admin on Simple English Wikipedia and Wikiquote). I just wanted to thank you for pushing me to change my user name then, it has completely changed my life and helped me greatly. Thank you, and God bless. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear things are working out for you, thanks for the note. :) Mangojuice^talk 02:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack Stack article

You participated in an AfD Discussion on the article Jack Stack that resulted in that article being deleted. I have done some more research and have found a professional career and other sources and believe that the subject now meets WP:ATHLETE. Because normally articles like this are almost always kept, I decided to be bold and just place the article back where it was with the updates. However, if you still believe that there is a reason to delete this article, we can take it to any discussion forum you prefer.

To be fair, I am notifying everyone who made a comment on the AfD. If you wish to make any comments, it might be best to put them on the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mack Flenniken who had a professional career with the New York Giants and Chicago Cardinals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WOOPS Typo--it is Jack Sack not Jack Stack. Apologies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress: two other articles were restored when clear-cut notability was discovered, Jimmy Robertson (American football) and Dwight V. Beede was merged into Dwight "Dike" Beede. I also have sent several of the articles for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 7, and some are still waiting for improvement. You may wish to participate at the deletion review discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with my user page

I'm hoping to avoid whatever mistake I made last time with my Bard Ventures page. You moved it back into my user space after I changed my username. I'm confused as to how i make it "live", how i take the "user" away and make it an official page by it's proper name, and not be viewed as a spammer? I've tripled checked the references, and the industry association, and it's all legit. Should I make any remarks in the editing notes so no one else does speedy deletion (the last editor deleted it without observing my references.I appreciate your help.Natasha 23:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Natasha —Preceding unsigned comment added by YogaN (talk • contribs)

re: bard ventures

Thx alot for the feedback. Now I know what to work on. Natasha 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Natasha —Preceding unsigned comment added by YogaN (talk • contribs)

wow, dude, thanks for deleting so many literary philosophy pages right when i need them for my friggin' term paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.247.69 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD: European Jews for a Just Peace

I realize there was no consensus, but the article had nothing in it to establish notability, and there was no hope of anything significant being added that could change that. You will understand if I consider keeping such an article as problematic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I understand perfectly. But then, there is no deadline, and sources have been brought forward that can be used to improve the article. I suggest, tag it as unreferenced (I think that's fair, their own website wouldn't count), and nominate it again in (say) 6 months if it hasn't been improved up to minimum standard. Mangojuice^talk 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also want to ask you about this [1], in which Darkspots says that the user who initiated the AfD should not vote. Is there such a rule, or established wiki-etiquette? If so I will not do that again. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's normal for a nominator to have a bolded "vote" in their nomination or directly below it. If there is no such vote, it is normally assumed (after all, if you nominate page X for deletion, presumably you want it deleted.) So I agree with Darkspot's crossing of your vote but only because it was substantially removed from your nomination. Mangojuice^talk 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

common sense

A few of us took a bet on who would be the one who would object to the notion that common sense is policy. Oh well, if you consider it optional....--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it's optional, it's that the category of policy pages should be kept as small and important as possible. Each one ought to present its own unique, critical aspect of the workings of the Wikipedia community. Mangojuice^talk 18:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And common sense isn't among the important things?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also very important that you remember to breathe while you edit, but I don't think we should be emphasizing it to people who want to learn the rules. And anyway, the point of WP:COMMON is not that people should use common sense, it's that using one's common sense is the proper way to interpret WP:IAR. In other words, it's a particular way of explaining WP:IAR, but not the same as the policy itself. It's just the same as the other explanatory pages WP:WIARM, WP:UIAR, and WP:EXCEPTIONS; those are all essays, even though they say much more important things than WP:COMMON does. Mangojuice^talk 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome

Hi, since you have previously shown an interest in the topic of CFS, this is to inform you that I have started an attempt to resolve a long list of existing disputes on Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. You are welcome to participate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure of July 29 in Rail Transport.

Hello, I just want to let you know that I disagree with your closure of July 29 in rail transport. I went ahead and took the matter up to deletion review. Link: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. Your comments are welcome there and I'm sorry I didn't take it up with you sooner. Tavix (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're sorry, withdraw the request. I spent over an hour composing that message, and I had to get another admin to actually remove the templates afterwards because I had taken so long, and your not discussing this with me first is a slap in the face to both of us. Your nomination wasn't in bad faith, obviously, but the debate was not a good start at addressing the issue because this is not really an area where policy will say one thing or the other. So, like article editing, a change here is most likely through persuasion and compromise, rather than a big fight like the AfD debate makes it. I don't think you were doing anything in bad faith, and I see that this made the most sense to you. My only criticism of your nomination is that you could have tried discussion first before a mass deletion nomination. But you obviously didn't learn anything from that because here you are starting another contentious debate without discussing the issue with me first. Mangojuice^talk 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

Thank you for helping me get unblocked and i appologise for not realising that i was unblocked sooner i just thought that i would get rejected Harry weasley (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

Block log icon

I notice that the icon on your user page links to someone else's block log: ...&type=block&user=Jza84&... A mistake, I guess? Jubileeclipman 03:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi MangoJuice,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the discussion on my article I tried to create on Sambucol. In the last discussion I had referenced some articles as well as the mention by Dr. Weil. Would it help if I can provide scans of the Weil mention? I have no problem sending this to you. I could also send you any other documentation that you might need to consider the product notable. Please let me know if there is anything I can do. --Sambucol (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Willicon block

Thankee kindly! 'twas a bad mistake on my part. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking my username. Moronicbajebus (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

YAY!

I have been waiting for someone to block my school for...well...since i got here actually. I'm no admin, so i can't do that. 5 years...awesome. I won't have to continue getting autoblock messages for something dumb! THANK YOU!  Buffered Input Output 17:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pidgin English Dictionary, Port Moresby

I understand that you are liaising with the author of this to add it to Wikibooks. I have been dealing with the issue on OTRS (OTRS:2334014); can you please advise where it's been added on Wikibooks so that I can add an OTRS ticket accordingly? Stifle (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did it today. It's at "wikibooks:English / Tok Pisin dictionary." Mangojuice^talk 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kokondo

The reference of Kokondo.com is no longer valid. You continue to post a link directly to www.kokondo.com - which now redirects to www.seirenkai.com, which has NO information or reference to Kokondo whatsoever. As such, the link is no longer appropriate as it no longer contains any information on Kokondo.

My only objective is to ensure that Kokondo is accurately reflected. By utilizing references that no longer include information to Kokondo or are no longer affiliated, it is not an accurate reflection of Kokondo. The idea is that someone clicks on a link to learn more about Kokondo...if that link doesn't direct them to a source that reflects the information, what is the point of the link?

My intention is not have a battle here, but I think any objective person can click onto Kokondo.com and clearly see that there is no information from the wikipedia there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am a member of the association but am not acting on behalf of the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether the name is Jukido or Jukido-ka or JukidoJuice, is irrelevent. In order to keep the conversation on topic though, I don't have any objection to changing the username.

I do not have a misunderstanding regarding what a "reference" is and what an external link is, although I appreciate your detailed explaination. Once again, my one and only conern is to ensure that any links (whether they appear in the reference section or the external link section, or within the article itself) within the Kokondo article do lead to a destination that reflects the material on the wikipage. I would suggest that Veracity demands that this be the case... if the reference mentions a website (www.kokondo.com), it is safe to assume that the wiki-vistor might very well visit the page for additional reading. Without mentioning that kokondo.com NO LONGER contains this information, it isn't complying with veracity and is misleading. Saying one thing and doing another..

In any case, perhaps a mature solution would be to ensure that the references do NOT contain liks to Kokondo.com. If the material was drawn from Kokondo.com (and DOES NOT APPEAR IN SANKOSHO), then it could be stated that the material came from Kokondo.com but that this site NO LONGER contains that information - in order to have veracity and not mislead the public.

I look forward to your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your respone and I feel that this is beginning to develop into a more constructive dialogue. In lieu of me going in and deleting the references line, I would rather you remove the second line (if you don't mind) referencing Shihan Arel's bio on kokondo.com. I have added a line that references that exact same bio (word for word), which appears on page 31 of Sankosho. Given that the text is identical, I don't see why this would be an issue.

I look forward to getting your reply and hoping that you'll remove that line. I appreciate your constructive correspondence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside of the picture used on each - the bio that appeared on Kokondo.com and the bio on page 31 of Sankosho are identical. However, I do agree that Sankosho should be considered the primary source of information.

I appreciate your efforts and I look forward maintaining the Kokondo page as reliable, I'm confident that you will be a part of that effort as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Donaldstrumpcard

I'd be inclined to unblock, now. There is evidence that he isn't a sock [2] and he appears to be promising to be good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok with me, go for it. Mangojuice^talk 05:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Inferno, Lord of Penguins

He's been unblocked, with a barnstar as well for owning up to the other account's actions. Thanks for giving me the chance to look over this, I do appreciate it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jake the Bean Guy

His account was mistakenly created for him by the account creation team, because they didn't notice he shared both an IP and an email address with a banned sockpuppeteer. He is User:Fang76, User:Fang2009, User:Free a nude gay, and User:Fangisawesome. They all make various attacks on MBisanz. Prodego ^talk 16:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concise and excellent summary

of the deletion review of Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Just what I had wished for. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I have read and understood your comments. I will make an additional effort to explain edits in future. I will leave the other issue to yourself and fellow administrators. Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Brutanti unblock decline

You summed it up perfectly; thanks for seeing the deeper context behind my block. Tan | 39 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But I'd encourage you to be more accurate in your block summaries... if for no other reason, so that the blocked user can at least try to adjust their behavior. :) Mangojuice^talk 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Tan | 39 19:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Expertise

Hi MangoJuice. How are you? I was wondering if I needed your experise on some Sikh related articles could you spare the time? --Sikh-history (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey -- sorry I missed this the first time around. Could you be more specific? I really don't know much about Sikhism, but if there's a behavior or policy issue I can certainly help. Mangojuice^talk 19:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the unblock

hey, thanks for unblocking me, and that bit of advice on the cold reading article will come in useful Phallicmonkey (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Apogologies

Hi there, sorry for the inconvenience I caused you regarding the block extension due to me misintepreting and breaking the allowable alternative accounts rule. Least thats cleared up for me, won't repeat that again. Then again, I'll try not to get blocked again in the first place hah hah (sheepish laughter). I'm glad to report though that the other editor involved in the edit war has finally accepted my reasoning on why my cites are valid (apparently due to the detailed reasons I gave), so this should not happen again. No offence taken at the Block Extention, I'm still continueing to learn how to be a good Wiki editor every step and every day, and everything that happens is a lesson learnt.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy

Howdy! Are you having a fine day?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Utahboysranchnetwork

Saw your message on the above's talk page. I don't know what's going on at West Ridge Academy - new Good K (talk · contribs · logs) showed up there yesterday, only making edits to that article, but I cannot tell whether they are editing from the same POV as UBRN or not... – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, gang; I love it when these things work the way they should. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Unrealkitten block

Thanks for letting me know, and for handling the unblock request. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Maltese (dog)

If this is the purpose of RfC, to have side choosing and one more editor to tip the balance on one side then this is pointless. Pietru as a UK based person has much much resources to gather support of the likes of Elm-39 and Crotchety Old Man. The two previously named editors have expressed a simmilar agreement to revert the article back to a version before I came along.

If Wikipedia has no way to stop trolls and griefers like Pietru, from deleting sourced edits and during those deletions offend fellow editors. I think that the 3O is a better choice for now and we shall see how it goes. Latter this week I will try to finish the RfC and also contact the Wikiproject (even if it is preety much "dead").

Imbris (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I respond here?

1. Thanks for your response. I would like to mention that Mljet is an island which was called during Roman times Melitae. Also it was called Meleda in Italian language. I hope that you would not be offended if I say that it is not unreasonable to mention Croatia because if mentioning Publius/Martial is "quite interesting" then why not. Croatia is currently not mentioned at all and Malta is mentioned four times. Italy (Italians and the Italian language) are mentioned three times. For those three should be mentioned because those three had connection with the word Melitae. So Malta 4 times, Italy 3 times and Croatia zero.
2. If the oposing editor agreed once that we should list viable names, why stoping the issue with "This is English Wikipedia". Please see Talk:Maltese (dog)#Other names issue. The Bichon Frisé has in the other names section Bichon à poil frisé and Bichon Tenerife.
3. This section will host more and more sources, for now, Talk:Maltese (dog)#Other sources that the general connection should be omitted.
4. We will return to this, less important topic.
5. I am sorry but I cannot understand why Publius/Martial should be taken out the history section and used as corroboration of the illusion of the origin being Malta. If we can agree that it is only in name connected to the three places, Mljet, Sicillian historical Melita and Malta. Why should we use a one time event like Publius Issa and construde a story based on one poem.
6. Ok.
7. Talk:Maltese (dog)#Other sources that the general connection should be omitted. We also have sources, currently in the article which do not speak of Malta but of Adriatic Melitae like Callimachus and Pliny the Elder. We have Briggs in mid 1800. and lots of them who did mention Malta as not the place of origin.

Imbris (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you would reconsider on some points. -- Imbris (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope to hear from you regarding the No. 1 issue. Don't you think it would be POV to list Malta (one poem's worth of sources) four times, Italy (the current patron of the breed) three times and not list Mljet in its Croatian context? Callimachus wrote about it (he is Greek), Pliny the Elder confirmed (he was Roman), then we have others like Bochart, Aldrovandus that by Briggs quote the first two. Melitae is mentioned in the works of Timon, Aelian, Artimidorus, Epaminodus, Strabo, and Saint Clement of Alexandria (which all should be checked out). Lee Rawdon Briggs wrote:

• "Many early writers have mentioned these little dogs of Malta. Aristotle did, and he died 322 B.C., whilst the elder Callimachus, who was almost his contemporary, likewise alludes to them, and has something to say as to hounds and dogs generally in his poem to Diana. No doubt those Canes Melitaei were pretty much identical with the long-haired, white little dog which is the Maltese of the present day, and that he was of an ancient race even the is evedent from the fact that there appears to be some confusion as from whence he came. There are two islands bearing the name of Melita, from either of which this dog may have been originally introduced."
• "The one island was Melita in the Adriatic, near Dalmatia; the other Melita in the Mediterranean, near Sicily, and the Malta of to-day. Callimachus, already alluded to, and who was undoubtedly an authority on dogs in his day, say the little animal originally came from the Melita in the Adriatic, and the learned Bochart, in his "Hierozoicon," quotes him as likely to be right in his statement. Others have said the dog first came from Melita in the Mediterranean, which island is at the present time generally acknowledged, though I belive wrongly, to be the native country of the Maltese toy dog."
• At pages 314 and 315

The question is why the article should not list Croatia and the name in the Croatian language, why this information would be deemed not neccessary, not interesting?

Previously Pietru requested that Callimachus would be proclaimed obsolete and we should use just Publius and Martial, then he deemed neccessary we use modern sources. Two of those modern sources are listed in the Talk page.

Please answer here and not on the Talk:Maltese (dog).

Imbris (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are considering an edit-war over whether to say "Mljet" or "Mljet, Croatia" you really need to get some perspective: it just doesn't really matter that much. As to the name in the Croatian language: why should we list that, and not, say, its name in Japanese, Hebrew, Swedish, Spanish, and Urdu, despite that no other dog breed article lists translations into other languages? It sounded from the phrasing of the question that "Bichon Maltaise," being French, was being questioned: if that is not a common term for this breed of dog in English writings, I would favor removing it. That is the standard I think should apply: names in the infobox should be commonly-used names for the dog breed that people use when writing about them in English; this does not inherently preclude a foreign name, but would allow only such foreign names that are in common usage in English. If you think my interpretation of the standard is incorrect I'd like to hear why; it certainly seems to be the approach in the 7 or 8 random dog breed articles I looked at. It sounds like you want to portray this dog breed as Croatian, but I don't think the sources support that.

I am not considering edit-war over the issue but will continue with my requests that Croatia would be included. It is fairly easy to emphasize why Croatia and the name in the Croatian language should be included. We are not talking about origin. I have successfully explained the matter to Pietru that we are talking about the name. There are three historical locations that sources list as the location from which the dog got its name. Mljet (Melita, Meleda) has most of those sources, historical Melita on Sicily has a few and Malta has been found to have least to do with the name. This is why the name Mljetski psić or Mljetski pas (which has more Google hits "Worldwide") should be included. If you want we can even agree that formating the name without Template:Lang-hr. The names in those three languages which have some support in history should be used despite their usage in the English language. This is the least that an English encyclopaedia should do because the English are the ones who without sources determined that the dog should be called Maltese. I have no doubt that this would be most NPOV way to go about the name issue. Also I belive that you have not looked for the names that have nothing to do with the English language in those 7 or 8 dog breed articles. If you have looked its full of non-English names. Your objection that I seem to portray the breed as Croatian is without foundations. Have I insisted on deleting all the words "Malta" from the article - No. I have added all Italian content in the article and the Etruscan and the Greek, and Spain and Lyons and you want me to say that there is no need to enter that Mljet is in Croatia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources aren't disregarded as obsolete on Wikipedia so I definitely disagree with Pietru's point. The best approach is to simply report on what we know of what reliable sources say in a neutral and straightforward fashion. As long as we aren't trying to establish which belief is the common one, or whether one is a fringe theory, there's no need to talk about the relative importance of sources so long as they are clearly reliable. Mangojuice^talk 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to hear that my work on bringing historical sources was not in vain. I do not support fringe theory here, simply pointing out that three location which used to be called Melita exist and that Melita in the Adriatic near Dalmatia and "Black Corfu" (Korčula) has the most support in sources to be associated as the "provider" of name for the dog breed. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of fact: "Mljetski psić" (and similar spellings) turn up zero documents on Google in English apart from Wikipedia itself, and all of those mentions are due to you. So I see as strong evidence of lack of use of the term in English as one could possibly hope for. Mangojuice^talk 19:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why have you looked only in the English language, Mljetski psić is supported by almost all of former Yugoslavia and we have a second form that is more popular, Mljetski pas, a form used by Antun Gustav Matoš before the WWI (he was from Slavonia, studied some veterinary medicine and hardly ever been in Dalmatia). I belive that Gino Pugnetti in the All about Dogs described the Maltese as Mljetski psić. He was Italian. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As for point #5, I have no idea what you are trying to get at, but including the famous story about Publius and his dog does not violate WP:NPOV. It should be included; let the facts speak for themselves. I'm just saying that if you think having those two sentences next to one another causes some kind of problem of emphasis, they can be split up, but both are relevant to the article. I was merely thinking that if a section talks about the early history of writing about the dog breed, that would be an appropriate place for the Publius story. Mangojuice^talk 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to omitt the Publius/Martial stuff but to place the info in the appropriate historical flow. They could not be mentioned as a strengthening tool to sentences that should be omitted. The info should be split up. I agree that it would be the appropriate place, meaning early history. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, if you have the time and the willingnes, what about the point 7. Are Callimachus, Pliny the Elder, and others who quoted them, to this century like Robert Leighton, William Drury and Dan Rice, not to mention Lee Rawdon Briggs from mid 1800's. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok: final word on the name business. I checked, and my perception was spot on: the documentation of the infobox template Template:Infobox Dogbreed clearly specifies that "altname" should list other names by which the breed is known in English. Furthermore, as far as I can tell this dog breed has effectively nothing to do with Croatia at all. The island of Melita, which happens to be currently Croatian, is only noted as the name of a place with a common word root with Malta/Maltese; all the refs I've seen that dispute the dog as associated with Malta talk about it as if it was all over the Meditteranean. The fact that there is such a minor connection and yet you are so adamant about this silly Croatian name business makes me extremely concerned that you are approaching the article with an inappropriate agenda. Mangojuice^talk 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate agenda is keeping the article with mentioning Malta 4 times, Italy 3, Spain, Lyons, French name Bichon Maltaise, quite interesting facts like New South Wales most something, etc., If Mljetski psić or Mljetski pas doesn't deserve to be menioned in the infobox by rule of a template (whatever, there are no rules that templates are policy) then the name Mljetski psić and Mljetski pas should be mentioned in the history section per sources. First and second (maybe even third) paragraph of the article contain a list of names, some of which are not even used in this time and age. I propose that the name should be placed there. The island is not just currently Croatian but long term Croatian.

The documentation of the template doesn't even include patronage section (which I added to solve simmilar sittuations).

Mljet in its natural context of Croatia is common sense so if the name of the dog in the Croatian language should not be listed in the infobox, neither should be listed the name of the dog breed in the French language.

The dog has nothing to do with Croatia but it has to do with Malta and Italy, that is what you are saying. Those three have everything to do with the dog's name and also those three have something to do with the origin of the dog being Central Mediterranean Area. All the refs you have seen support that Malta has nothing to do with the dogs name and Malta is mentioned four times.

I do not wish for Malta to be completely stricken from the article, it is mentioned enough but Croatia should be mentioned not only for the name issue (in the appropriate history section) but also in the context of Mljet, Dalmatia and Croatia (Dalmatia as Croatian historical region).

When I found the article it was complete Malta POV and now after my work on the article, when a few facts need to be included you speak about your concern over my agenda. I simply want to quote sources that approve of the Croatian name of the dog in this wikipedia's article about the dog.

As a contributor who added much valuable content to the article I think that I am in the boundaries of WP to list the content if not in the infobox then in the history section.

Imbris (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to mention the Croatian name in the article anywhere. Stop arguing about it to me, I'm not going to change my mind on this. The island has barely anything to do with the dog. From a Google web search for English pages, I found 2100 hits that contain "Bichon Maltaise" and none that contain the Croatian name. So I think there's a decent argument for including the so-called French name, as it's in substantial use in English. But there is no argument for the Croatian name. And mentioning the name in the article is ridiculous: that's what interwiki links are for. Mangojuice^talk 13:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the history section of the article on the Maltese Dog. There are lots of names there, I have added Italian names for the dog. Please note that we are not talking about the infobox but rather on the history section (paragraph No. 1). I do not see any other reason for your constant objection to the insertion of the Croatian name (of the language or of the country) as trying to get a compromisal solution that will satisfy the biased user Pietru and thus solve the dispute for a longer period of time. You are training striktness on me even if I have contributed only sourced info. Have you seen the Pharaoh Hound article, they use Maltese sources and in the Maltese language all over the article, and in the Ethical dillema section they desribe a completely POV view to protect the national Maltese symbol - the Il-Kelb tal-Fenek. Why are you trying to omitt Croatia from the "equation". This kind of mediation, calling for a comment, knowing that nobody would answer to betterment of sources and to a broader inclusion of facts. Why shouldn't we quote from the article by Ratimir Orban Malteški pas je zapravo naš mljetski psić, published in the magazine for kinology, Moj pas, No. 7-8-9, year 1992. Why should not we list sources that are not in the English language. Not everything has been written in English. The dispute is not going to be solved by mentioning Malta four times, Italy three times and Croatia zero times. -- Imbris (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now what about the point 7 and all the sources presented in favour of the clarification of the general association. -- Imbris (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about point 7 any more, it's fine if sources support it. Stop harassing me about my opinion, you aren't going to change my mind by continuing to restate the same bad arguments endlessly. The point of the RfC is to solve these issues by establishing consensus, not by you hammering your points over and over until people agree with you. Mangojuice^talk 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is OK I prefer to solve some issues here. Issue (1) Iiris Hyytinen. Did you ask yourself what she meant to say when she wrote "FCI breed standard" below the title "Maltese - a Lovely Little Toy Dog". Maybe she meant that Maltese is a FCI accepted breed. She did not write FCI-Standard N° 65 / 06. 04. 1998 / GB, using the standards' number, date, or anything that would support your claim and even defamation of her writing.

Issue (2) I would like you to stop with supporting sources that cannot be verified, authenticated, proved or whatever to be called reliable sources. There are lots of wikipedia's cut-copy-paste sources and people that belive Malta has something other to do with the dog than Publius (one specimen) Issa (a proto-Maltese) about which Martial sung a one poem. However worthy do you belive; Malta POV it is undefendable. From what you wrote I do not know what do you think about point 7, and since you have started caring again, I would greatly appreciate to hear from you (on your talk page) about the main point - point 7.

Imbris (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were answering me, you could have done that at my talk. Publius/Martial is mentioned in the article, no dispute there, but the mentioning of Publius/Martial in the context of "general association" is what is the problem. What reliable sources the "general association" has, none, zero, this "general association" could be mentioned only in the context of disproven belief. -- Imbris (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) - Iiris Hyytinen is credited as the author of that source. I found the first two paragraphs of the "history" text in a few other translations, but the rest seems to be original work of Iiris Hyytinen. Is she an expert? If so it's reliable text, but since it's self-published it might not be on par with other sources such as books. Issue (2): what sources? Do not assume I'm reading random web pages and mistaking them for reliable sources. I haven't named sources but I've been working exclusively with text from Google Books; that is, I've been looking at published books about the Maltese specifically or about dog breeds more generally. The books I'm using are published by reputable publishers, and I have no reason to believe these fall short in any way of the reliable sources standards. When I get a chance tomorrow afternoon I will attempt to list some of the ones I found most useful. Finally, I'm going to ignore point 7 because I think the article needs general rewriting and expansion; I did see the "without offering... proof" statement in a source so I understand how that is sourced.

However, your comment here has me concerned for two reasons: first, you are criticizing the reasoning in these sources, as if they have no right to claim that the Maltese dog is associated with Malta unless there is some kind of proof that the dog originated there. Sources are sources and we do not get to pick and choose which ones we consider to be "worthy". Similarly, your statement that "Malta POV it is undefendable" is very concerning because your agenda has consistently been against Malta for whatever reason, and now it's like you're saying that any source that lends some support to an association between Malta and Maltese dogs is automatically unreliable because you don't agree with it. This is not the way things work; if you can agree to follow the Wikipedia approach, that is, gathering reliable sources and forming prose out of the statements in them, without drawing our own conclusions or distoring the balance, then we should be able to proceed amicably. If you continue to try to argue against published and respected sources because you disagree with them, or try to "balance" points of view by insiting on equal consideration for unequally important viewpoints, then that will be the source of disagreements between us. Mangojuice^talk 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) Iiris Hyytinen is the Chairperson of the Maltese Club of Finland (est. 1974, publish a magazine) which is a full member of the Finnish Toy Dog Association (est. 1921, in this form from 1986). The web-site belongs to the Finnish Toy Dog Association. Mrs. Hyytinen is a well established breeder, begun in 1986 and owned a Maltese Dog from her childhood on. She owns Kreivinkartanon Kennel in Kasvattaja, Finland.

(2) Sources that say Maltese, yeah it's from Malta, the name says it all are not reliable and also I have not spoke about reasoning (where did you find that word in my writing and in the context of sources pertaining to Malta POV). I spoke about verified, authenticated, proved or whatever to be called reliable sources. Sources that lend biased support to Malta (speak only of Malta without quoting anything) can be quoted to describe the sentence that Maltese has nothing to do with Malta. The general association should be formulated differently by all means feel free to say what is on your mind.

(3) We shall see about that disagreement, but arguing against sources is allowed, natturaly on the talk page. We shall see. Also the name of the dog in the Croatian language goes into the article per second commentator.

Imbris (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) Ok, I am not sure that establishes her as expert enough that anything she writes is reliable, but, clearly the Finnish Toy Dog Association considered her expert enough to publish what she wrote on the matter... I guess that is editorial oversight. I am concerned that this source isn't as reliable as others (say, books) but it sounds like it's usable, so, I think this matter is settled. (2) That is exactly what you just did. "Sources that say Maltese, yeah it's fram Malta, the name says it all" are reliable if they meet WP:RS. On the other hand, no one says that. Published, authoritative sources are by and large pretty thorough on the matter. Look, I'm not taking a blind approach to this, and maybe it's time to start discussing actual text: I assure you that the association (meaning, the association in peoples' minds) exists but there is a lot of skepticism about its merits and quite little in terms of arguments for it. If we just present that story, I can't see it as a pro-Malta bias. (3) Actually that user said that in a case like this where the country of origin is disputed we should go with the FCI, which lists no country for this breed, instead saying "Central Meditteranean area" (source #1 on the article). Its "patronage" is listed as Italy. If we're going to have an origin name listed in the infobox it should probably be "Canes Melitenses" (Aristotle's name), which is the oldest, or the latin version of it, which I have seen also referred to as an English name for the breed. Mangojuice^talk 13:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The following are sources I've found that I consider reliable. This is not an exhaustive list.

• The Up-to-date Toy Dog Lillian C. Raymond-Mallock; originally written in 1924, first published in 2005. (notes Malta/Melita name confusion)
• British Dogs, Their Points, Selection, and Show Preparation By William D. Drury, 1903. (Debunks the Malta theory.)
• The illustrated natural history By John George Wood, Dalziel Brothers, 1865. (Says they are from Malta, no details.)
• Dogs and All about Them By Robert Leighton, 1910. (Says they are probably from Melita, but this cannot be confirmed)
• The dogs of the British Islands By John Henry Walsh, Cornell University. College of Veterinary Medicine. 1878 version, 1882 version, and the 1872 version, the earliest of which contains much more detail on the Malta connection.
• Toy Dogs and Their Ancestors By Wentworth, 1911. (Very extensive, discusses naming confusion and how it arose, and also breed confusion; says the original "Canis Melitei" may have really bean a Pomeranian.) Title page says this is by "the Hon. Mrs. Neville Lytton," Google Books must have wrong info there.
• The Portrayal of the Dog on Greek Vases by Helen M. Johnson, in The Classical World, vol. XII num. 27, 1919.
• Maltese: A complete pet owner's manual by Joe Fulda, 1995.
• The Mythology of Dogs by Gerald and Loretta Hausman, 1998.
• Small Dog Breeds by Dan Rice, 2002.

Mangojuice^talk 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) Question for the first source, what Early writers mentioned two islands of Malta, even if the author(s) lists the Melita in the Adriatic near Dalmatia first we know that there are no Early writers that mentioned Melita (between Africa and Sicily in the Sicilian Sea of the Mediterranean). We should be careful in using this source because it quotes only Aristotle.

(2) The link leads to no page

(3) He said that "As the name implies, it was originally brought from Malta. (my comment: by simple trade maybe)

(4) The link leads to no page but I think there exists an edition of Robert Leighton in 2007 or 2008

(5) The earliest version doesn't even have the section preview and the complete title lack: Being a Series of Articles and Letters by Various Contributors, Reprinted from the "Field" Newspaper; thus sound less reliable. The map section of the link doesn't contain Malta. Also John Henry Walsh is reffered to as "Stonehenge", who, in his earliest work on the dog, describes the breed as nearly extinct, but, although "scarce, still to be obtained in Malta." He, however, in the same work gives an engraving of a dog, as a Maltese, imported from Manilla. In "The dogs of the British Islands," stil hankering after Malta as their birthplace, he confesses his inability "to trace any record of the dog, after many inquiries made amongst residents in Malta.". page 575 by William Drury

But in The dogs of the British Islands, being a series of articles on the points of their various breeds, and the treatment of the diseases to which they are subject (1882) the text speaks differently.

(6) the link leads to no particular page [3] leads to a sentence on the page 23 which goes: those which Callimachus calls Melitei from the Island of Melita in the Sicilian strait whence that kind chiefly had its origin also. So this source falsely quote Callimachus

(7) Point to nothing, no page

(8)(Fulda) on page 11 "l believe. and at least two other canine scholars agree. that the Maltese did. in fact. originate on the isle of Malta." should be quoted very carefuly since he and his companions are in obvious denial of historical sources and promotes a fringe theory of origin. Also his "manual" is not a historical or scientifical work with sources but a meere manual. On page 6 he and his companions base their writing on Publius/Martial (one specimen named Issa), but also bring some interesting authors like E. Topsell, Linnaeus and Danberton. They completely avoid Callimachus and Pliny the Elder. That source should be listed as it is named Maltese: Everything about Purchase, Care, Nutrition, Behavior, and Training, by Joe Fulda, Betsy Sikora-Siino and Michele Earle-Bridges, Barron's Educational Series, 2005- a meere manual.

(9) Points to nothing, no page

(10) I have quoted that source also.

About the name in Croatian language which is not a hoax like the derived name by Pietru in the Maltese language would go in the history section and would be sourced by Antun Gustav Matoš, Ratimir Orban and baroness Turković also Mljet in the context of Croatia should go into the article.

Imbris (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* No, it shouldn't. There is nothing about Croatia in a single one of these sources. Melita, yes. Mljet isn't mentioned anywhere either, but it certainly seems relevant. Why are you so insistent on this irrelevant point? NPOV does not mean that we discuss every possible national perspective with equal weight: see WP:UNDUE. Mangojuice^talk 13:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about the information being presented in those sources you listed? I did no such thing, did you? I have said that according to other sources Croatia is going into the article. Something like ...All ancient sources mention Melita in the Adriatic Sea near Dalmatia (Illyrian Melita). Croatian writer Antun Gustav Matoš called the breed Mljetski pas according to the name of that island in the Croatian language, that being Mljet. Croatian Kinologists Ratimir Orban and baroness Ksenija Turković use the name Mljetski psić.

Also about your worries of my offences against Pietru, let me point out to you my answer at the subtitle Utterly Absurd Editing in the Talk:Maltese (dog). I hope that I will communicate less and less with Pietru alltogether. -- Imbris (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If a particular dog named Issa and a song about that dog is quite interesting then it is also quite interesting that in the Croatian language there are four, maybe even five different names: Mljetski pas, Mljetski psić, Maltezer, Maltezac, Maltež (Northern Dalmatia and the surroundings of Zadar). Croatian language is the only language that calls the breed with a possesive noun Mljet-ski according to the supposition on its origin of Mljet. -- Imbris (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Show me one source that attributes any kind of significance to the Croatian name and I might change my tune. Naturally, a source in Croation that confirms this is the term would be easy to find but it's irrelevant. You have a theory: that the Croatian name lends extra credence to the theory that Melita, not Malta, is the origin of this breed. Show me a source that espouses this theory, or this is WP:OR and unsuitable. In fact, show me more than one -- every other origin argument I've seen has been argued in multiple sources, so if this deserves to be in the article it ought to be there too. If you can't do it, drop it: you're outnumbered 3 to 1 on this. Mangojuice^talk 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Save the Netbooks RfD

Hi Mango, you were very nice to me when I was extremely green, so I'm putting this request on your page to see if you can help sort out the big old mess that is going on on the RfD on the Save_the_Netbooks page.

Background The author of the page is the "leader" of the movement. The movement want to strip a legally obtained trademark from a public company because they believe the trademark is invalidly held. whatever the decision, the USPTO is meant to be making up its own mind. Dell computers have got involved in the trademark dispute and it's all pretty much out of anyones hands.

Anyway, the author has a bad habit of brushing off criticism and removing tags calling for COI and such without allowing any moderation/mediation to take place. I've attempted to have a dialogue with him over the last few days, but it seems impossible to resolve the issues with him as it stands, complete stalemate. Add in to this that some other unrelated individuals are goading him now. I'm finding it hard to side with their call for deletion, but I also believe that the original editor SamJ is not a suitable candidate to edit the page. really, it needs a snap decision from someone with experience and authority.

My objection: the page is hateful, bordering on liable against Psion the legal holder of the trademark (or at least has been at stages - it was edited quite extensively today and I haven't read it through again recently.) A lot of the reference the editor uses to support notability are just press releases and announcements. Little real original content. Lots of blogs and such.

If you are not in a position to do anything, I'd appreciate it is you pass this matter to another admin to look in to. It is getting beyond a joke, especially when the editor claims thing such as "british conspiracy" "organised editing", when quite frankly I have never even been acquainted with any of the members who have been editing today.

Thanks in advance for any help in brining a final decision, no matter what that might be. Memsom (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Having issues with a user accusing me of having multiple accounts

Hi Mango, me again. The user SamJ has, yet again, accused me of being a sock puppet - despite the fact he has no proof what so ever. This User_talk:SamJohnston#Polite_request is a link to me retraction/request that he stop accusing me. I do not have multiple accounts. I have forgotton to log in a few times, and I only recently started signing my entries properly. I hardly ever edit articles on Wikipedia, because this usually happens. Not really making me want to do much more contribution as it stands :-( Memsom (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback Removed

I just want to apologize for my miss-judgement using the rollback tool. The reason I did it was because two users (which were SE KinG and Adolphus79)reverted it before I came in, and alerted me to revert that edit for being vandalism and unsourced. I admit I've gone a little bit overboard with the talk page, but I thought it was vandalism because it was uncivil. This is an unfortunate event that happened. So, have I have my rollback permissions back? Thanks.

Regards,

Techman224^Talk 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I took rollback away from Adolphus79 also over his error, but yours was far worse. I gave his back after he reflected on it, but I feel I have to draw a distinction between the two of you. You reverted two sourced additions to a page as vandalism and removed a talk page comment that wasn't even uncivil, just agitated. Actually, the talk page comment you removed was the new user's honest attempt at dialog concerning edits that had been reverted with no explanation; that comment was necessary and removing it made the situation degenerate. You also left a level 4 vandalism warning for it that led an admin to indefinitely block the user for making this sourced addition. I am glad you seem to have changed your opinion on reflection but I think you did worse than make a mistake, you were being very careless. I don't think tools like Huggle and Rollback belong in the hands of someone who uses them carelessly. I also think you continue to not understand that nothing you reverted was vandalism. I think the best thing is to simply put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions whenever you are ready, but you'll have to convince the people there that this kind of issue won't come up again. Myself, I might support restoring the tool in a few months absent any other incidents, but I wouldn't support it now. Mangojuice^talk 05:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

you truly are amassing

you are amassing but I have one question. Have you edited the Jonas brothers page? If not you should. the brothers are truly amassing just like you--I love jd (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[sarcasm]I just have one question, what exactly is he amassing, and in in what quantities?[sarcasm]WackoJackO 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Response on Kokondo article

MangoJuice, I have responded on the Kokondo talk page. I look forward to working together (as opposed to each other) - I'll remain hopeful. :-) Jukidoka (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi Mangojuice. Thank you for unblocking 24.62.100.100; I've only just started using the blocking part of adminship today, and don't have the confidence/experience to reverse another admin's decision, even though it seemed to be clearly in error. The sockpuppeting user has tried to have several other users blocked undeservingly today (other sock traits are declining unblocks and warning and reverting IPs when they've done nothing wrong). Do you think a Checkuser request is necessary to find other sleeper accounts? Thanks, Somno (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ignore my earlier comments. Yes, clearly TWM was a sleeper account, there are probably others. Mangojuice^talk 14:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done (hopefully correctly). Thanks, Somno (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your help with that mistake. I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.100.100 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

MangoJuice

You can rever the welcome message back. No problem. Additionally, I've added some points to our discussion on the sources in the Kokondo article. I look forward to your response on my page or on the Kokondo talk page. Jukidoka (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time ...

... to review and comment on my unblock request. It is very frustrating to be blocked without any way to respond to the accusation that led to the block. Sometimes all a person wants is the opportunity to be heard. You let me know that at least one administrator did hear my side of the story. Oh, and by the way, your link to wp:lame was spot on. (But it seemed so important at the time.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Best Practices for COI

[4] - I hope you don't mind. Revert with my blessings if you do. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no, not at all. It's in WP space, I've got no special ownership. And AGF is definitely a good one for the reading list. Mangojuice^talk 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

COI Tag on Steven Toushin

Hi Mangojuice! You helped keep the Steven Toushin page from being deleted last December. I made a request on the discussion page to have the COI tag removed from the page. Can you take a look?De Bergerac (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride

As you may or may not be aware, there is currently an ArbCom case currently open regarding this Administrator. I humbly suggest that you may want to delay this block until the conclusion of that case, as the running of Adminbots is pertinent to it. Blocking him now will only lead to further acrimony and division. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Botched block review of Histopher Critchens and Wikipedius Reparo

Please see this comment:

Again, I am not Wikipedius Reparo. Wikipedius Reparo is not me. The claim that my "contribs are suspicious" is absurd -- back this up with one single example, rather than tossing around unsupported allegations. Please unblock Wikipedius Reparo's account. I can understand honest mistakes, but this is becoming ridiculous -- I'll file a complaint against the offending admins unless you all clean this up quickly. Histopher Critchens (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Histopher Critchens (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey -- sorry, but it's up to Wikipdius Reparo to request unblocking himself. Mangojuice^talk 17:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stopping MZMcBride's deletions (though understandably a difficult situation). You just beat me by a couple of minutes, as I did not feel to perform the block myself as an involved party. Thanks again! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Prekazi 81 about blocking

Oky. I understand your point about projecting the pages and informations. Than I try to be clear. I am trying to make Turkish football club pages with true and clear pages. I don't know if it's called a project or whatever. But the reason of my work is, almost evry pages about my topic are full of wrong and careless informations, and also links. I don't mean to make this whole thing without dicsussing but to be honest it seemed very hard to watch the wikipedia instructions. So I would be glad if you or anybody guide me about this. Cause I really want to work on that.

Kokondo

MangoJuice:

My apologies for not answering the Kokondo discussion in the last several days - business has picked up and wikipedia time has taken a hit. :-)

In any case, I noticed that you reposted what you believe to be the best references on the page. I would prefer that we reach some type of mutual agreement in good faith (as I posted in my last contribution to the page), before making any edits. I certainly don't think having an edit war is helpful, beneficial, or the most mature way to go about it.

I'll post my comments on the Kokondo page. Thanks. Jukidoka (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

MangoJuice - Thanks for the communication. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Adil your

I think recent edits show that he is very disruptive and hopeless. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Threeblur0

Hi there, I see you commenting about Threeblur0 possibly being unblocked. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for me to continue to comment at Versageek's talk, so I figured I should contact you here. There's more than enough evidence that Threeblur0 is IP .219 (see Talk:Akron, Ohio) as well as a few points I left on Versageek's talk. The issues, though, go farther than just an article. Some of the more major issues include the creation of User:Wuanridingjerk a direct attack on User:JonRidinger and threatening gun violence (I live just a few hours away from where this guy is at). Other than the tons of copyright issues here and Commons which added up would end in a long-term block, the user continually adds cruft to Akron with some sort of obsession. It has been mentioned by many that the article needs cleaned up, and when that happens they come in with 2 or more socks sometimes and "undo" everything we've removed. It's a senseless cycle and I'd really like to just see this stop. I understand that I have a bias against this user, so my comments probably don't mean much to you, but I think this has gone past the unblocking of someone with 3 or 4 accounts and blocking someone with over a dozen, plus a few IP, accounts. Isn't there a limit where having too many socks is "bad" and we should just ignore these people? Thanks for "hearing" my thoughts. Feel free to reply wherever or not at all for that matter, §hep^Talk 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It would help me if I had a better idea of the full picture of the disruption this user has caused. I think the evidence is pretty clear that this one is a sock, but that said, they have offered to avoid the Akron article if unblocked, and that makes me think some kind of acceptable terms could be reached. Mangojuice^talk 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems we have differing opinions. It would be bad form for me to reply to comments made about me at Threeblur0's talk, correct? The "little fibs" has me peeved a bit. They also claim to have only used one accounts at a time, I consider an IP an account of sorts, Talk:Akron,_Ohio#Meth_capital, #Recent editing, #Picture removals, moves, #Editors, #Ahem and others are examples where they've used more than one sock to "gang up" against any opposition to him/her. They're still not being straight after "coming clean". I'm sorry, I'll stop posting here now; I know you could probably care less about what I have to say (anyone would) and this probably isn't the best venue either. §hep^Talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for unblocking me. I need to confirm that can I create my page Alok S Sharma. Its says there is no such page exists. If yes, then can I write a short bio about me? Like where I am from and how I can help other members of Wikipedia.

Also, is my talk page meant for other people to leave a message for me which I can respond to them?

I want to become active member of Wiki and contribute all the knowledge I have and share it with other members and visitors.

I am more interested in contributing and writing articles on cruelty to animals. I want to create awareness amongst the people and the world that what pain and suffering animals go through right from their birth to their death. Even, their death is more painful than the life span they lived.

Please suggest me how I can contribute my articles. And once again, thank you for giving me a change to improve my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alok S Sharma (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Panthkhalsa

Thanks, I was thinking of referring the case to another admin. But, then I thought that this is a case of blatant vandalism -- the user is basically introducing deliberate errors in spite of being shown (see User talk:Panthkhalsa#Your_edits); so, I decided to block the user. Anyways, I should have referred the case to a third party -- I'll take care in future. utcursch | talk 18:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Kalliopethemuse

It appears that Kalliopethemuse decided not to wait for the rename request to be processed, and instead created the new User:Lindyhophannah account, then deprodded one of the articles created under the first account. Not sure if this is allowed? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Alok S Sharma

Hello Mangojuice,

I have posted my first contribution at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Auction_Scam. Please let me know if I am doing it correctly and where I need to improve.

Basically, I was a victim of a domain auction scam and lost $700. I did a search on this topic and it did not exist, so I thought to open it.

Can I put my example on the above page? Its a very big and a deep story and also involves the negligence of PayPal. I have all the documents and communications with me.