<nowiki>Thanks for fixing my bad on the page that I merged. Next time I will read the instructions!</nowiki>{{unsigned|Thelmadatter|28 February 2008}}
<nowiki>Thanks for fixing my bad on the page that I merged. Next time I will read the instructions!</nowiki>{{unsigned|Thelmadatter|28 February 2008}}
:You're welcome. :) As I mentioned, it's a common mistake. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:You're welcome. :) As I mentioned, it's a common mistake. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
== Albums ==
You're a fucking whore,
what the fuck is your problem? you issue threats when there is no cause you stupid bitch, what gives you the right to do that?
You are a wikipedia editor, fuck you, you cunt.
--[[User:Tom.mevlie|Tom.mevlie]] ([[User talk:Tom.mevlie|talk]]) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Tom.mevlie|Tom.mevlie]] ([[User talk:Tom.mevlie|talk]]) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Tom.mevlie|Tom.mevlie]] ([[User talk:Tom.mevlie|talk]]) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Tom.mevlie|Tom.mevlie]] ([[User talk:Tom.mevlie|talk]]) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Tom.mevlie|Tom.mevlie]] ([[User talk:Tom.mevlie|talk]]) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Tom.mevlie|Tom.mevlie]] ([[User talk:Tom.mevlie|talk]]) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Tom.mevlie|Tom.mevlie]] ([[User talk:Tom.mevlie|talk]]) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Tom.mevlie|Tom.mevlie]] ([[User talk:Tom.mevlie|talk]]) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the plus sign at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil comments here, unless you specify that you would rather I respond at your talk page. If I've left a note for you to which I think you may respond, I'm watching your page. Typically, I do not watch pages where I've left simple policy clarifications. If you want to discuss a note with me further and aren't sure if I'm watching your page, please feel free to open a new discussion with me here.
If you have a question about an album assessment I have made, please look first at the album assessment guidelines. It may answer your question. If it doesn't or if you'd like me to reassess, please let me know.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template warning I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here.
Wikipedia has a problem with the article about the message board system called Yuku. I believe the disruptions have been going back and forth for several years. Could you please have a look at the end of the part called objectivity? Seems like a couple of the editors are mostly interested in a negative angle because of their own personal negative experience. I don't believe this kind of editing is in harmony with the pillars of the Wikipedia.
Hi. I don't see any evidence of a problem in the article. As far as the discussion is concerned, if the people who want to include criticism about Yuku find reliable sourcing to verify its accuracy and if it is properly weighted according to WP:NPOV, then its inclusion wouldn't be a problem. Take a look at the article on LiveJournal for example, with its criticism section. We can't disallow people from editing an article just because they don't like something, or we would also have to disallow people from editing it if they like it. :) We assume good faith until an editor demonstrates that the assumption is obviously mistaken. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guy posted the link to his own private blog. The blog is a diary of his private vendetta with this online service. He had probably removed the link when you looked. If you have seen the blog, you would probably see it is not in good faith. I understand your point though and I had already read the part about good faith.
I also thought wiki was based on editors working for consensus. He is constantly removing anything anybody is writing that may be positive. He has chased away all the other editors. It is just amazing. It makes people stop believing in Wikipedia. It is sad. He is using the Wikipedia for his private battleground. Could you please keep an eye on us? Although, I will probally give up just like the others.--{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I missed that. Wikipedia is supposed to be about working for consensus. I can keep an eye on the article, but given our prior relationship suspect that the other editor would not find me an uninvolved party. The dispute resolution process lists a few places you can go for assistance to find uninvolved editors. WP:30 is a good place when there are only 2 editors involved. Another good first step is to ask for input from a related wikiproject (I can't think of one!) or policy page. You seem to be doing a good job engaging him in dialog. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he may be. :) "Good faith" refers to his attitudes towards and actions on Wikipedia. His userpage says he's trying to ensure "accurate information" in the articles, which is within WP:NPOV. As I said above, we can't stop everyone who dislikes something from editing articles about it anymore than we can stop everyone who likes it from editing those articles. It all comes down to what he's actually doing at the page. It may not be fun butting heads against somebody who is approaching a topic from a very different perspective than you, but it's probably actually better for the project that you are. As long as all involved can remain civil in your negotiations, it will probably result in a balanced, well-sourced article. Sometimes this leads to lots of discussion behind the scenes! If you feel like his edits are not motivated by a desire to keep Yuku neutral rather than overly positive, you might want to request assistance at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but I see that you managed to reach compromise here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Category:Wikipedians interested in books
The problem is that the Job queue is severely backlogged, so the page is still showing up in the category. When you remove a category from a template, the page transcluding that template will still show up in the category until the job queue catches up and removes it. There are several other categories on the working page that have been correctly emptied, just waiting for the same thing. If you look at the bottom of the page and you don't see the category, then it will disappear when the job queue catches up. So you are free to remove Category:Wikipedians interested in books from the working list, good work! VegaDark (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Traub
Hi Moon,
Regarding the speedy deletion, an NPR piece on my latest commissioned work, ItSpace will be heard on NPR's Day to Day some time in the next week or two. The radio piece has been completed and picked up by the show, it is just a matter of scheduling as to when they will fit it in (it is a news show and the major news stories come first). Once the piece is broadcast, I will meet the basic criteria (if I don't already) for musician entries "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network". Several of my pieces have also been exhibited in notable new media and network art exhibits, but there doesn't seem to be a criteria that includes those within the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Many thanks! 0r4ngecrush (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Figures that my answer to the WP:AN call for assistance in that department would bring me into something controversial. :) I've never seen an XfD launched so soon after closure (I spend most of my time in the WP:CSD neightborhood) and will watch to see how it is handled. Just to note, while I have almost no experience in CfDs and even less in UCfD, I did note that there seems to be a trend in this direction. I myself closed a cold UCfD debate of a very similar nature: consensus was to depopulate Category:Wikipedians interested in history. Currently up is Category:Wikipedians interested in radio. I would guess that categories that are viewed as too general or too specific are regarded as problematic. I'll watch your renewed conversation, and if it develops in such a way that I might be able to offer something of value, I will certainly chime in. And if it results in the category being repopulated, I will slog through my contribution list backwards. (There's a reason they call it a mop.) :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
help (again)
hey there.
OK so I post a complaint at ANI about the incessant anti-Semitic rants by an editor all over an article Talk Page, and I get told by some supposed admin to "shut the hell up?" I get a warning on my talk page about calling an editor a Nazi (I understand the rule about calling people you disagree with nazis, but soes it apply when they are nazis?) Fine I'm used to abuse here, but noone will address the substantive issue. If I am going to be abused for bringing a complaint about a clear violation of talk page policy, not to mention rancid anti-Semitism on talk pages, I am out of here muy pronto. Any suggestions? thanks in advance, again. Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd hate for you to leave. I see there's already an admin quite active in that talk page. If I were in your position, the first place I would have headed would have been to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Then I'd have gone to requests for comments. But I note that you seem to be having trouble remaining calm in conversation with this individual. I'm afraid that this is not going to help your case on any board. Readers who come in later cannot easily trace the emotional evolution of a disagreement. If it seems that civility has broken down on both sides, they may perceive you as contributory to the problem. I honestly think the best way to make your case is to remain calm and civil, even if the other editor does not. --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well each time I asked that editor to refrain from posting anti-Semitic rants on that page, it got worse and devolved further into Jew-baiting of me. Call me Draconian, but anything less than a zero tolerance attitude towards anti-Semitic, racist sexist etc etc ranting and baiting of editors is too much tolerance for me. I cannot accept that I am to remain "civil" and not respond to such viciousness on the part of twisted editors, while admins look the other way in the face of their clear violations of WP:TALK (they should at least enforce that, if they're not going to take a stand against vile anti-Semitism being spouted in this project). Thanks, but I remain dismayed. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okie, besides ranting (or in additon to ranting) I took your always sage advice and posted here. Took a handful of Pepsids to stomach wading through this editors racist claptrap again. And not a little ironic to me to have to complain about a vicious anti-Semite violating so dainty a sounding thing as "Wikiquette." I picture the Nuremberg trials, and a series of Nazis slapped on the wrist for their lapses in etiquette ("Mr Goring, yuor just a mean, mean man!"). But thats just me. In any case, this user's rants will stop; I think you know that when I set my little mind to something....:) Cheers, Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is very difficult to remain civil in some circumstances, but in my experience it helps if you focus on the larger picture. (I also understand your dismay. I have learned that even though civil is policy, it is not consistently enforced.) Perhaps it would help you to consider it this way: civility is intrinsically intertwined with civilization. It is a mark of a civilized society that it can treat even its enemies with fairness and dignity. Civil discourse doesn't mean accepting villainy; it just means not descending to that level ourselves. We take our criminals to trial, but we don't taunt them from the stand or behind bars. Further, in public discourse, conversations are witnessed. It pays to remember that even if we cannot persuade our opponent, we may be persuading those who stand by. If our message is not muddied by insults and sarcasms, others hear it more clearly. (They hear it when it's muddied by insults and sarcasms, too, but generally then it titillates baser emotions; I'd rather sway their reason than be a spectacle for their enjoyment.) Finally (and the most petty reason), it can be personally very satisfying when others try to goad you to refuse to be goaded. You know that you are depriving them of the satisfaction of seeing you lose your cool, you are displaying yourself and your beliefs better for onlookers, and you are demonstrating that you are a person of superior honor. Please do not confuse civility with capitulation. While it can be a mask for retreat, when coupled with action it is a position of strength, requiring self-restraint, that does not in any way hamper a pursuit of justice or truth. I appreciate that you are determined in pursuing your goals. You were right in your suspicions about Griot, and it takes courages to pursue an investigation of that sort when faced with discouragement and disbelief. Every society (including Wikipedia) needs people with passion and courage in their convictions. I would not wish to diminish yours. I would encourage you to modulate your approach merely to help you achieve your goals and to make sure that you yourself remain within policy while attempting to address problems created by others who you believe have not. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, thanks, again. I appreciate your taking the time for a thoughtful response, and I will take it to heart. I am aware of the distinctions with respect to civility you've delineated; I just perhaps see the demarcations on different coordinates on the map. In my personal experience, perhaps differing demographically and experientially from yours and other Wikipedians', my responses have been the epitome of civility. That is because my "crowd" has zero tolerance for anti-Semitism and the various other isms. You might not want to be around us when we are "uncivil." :). Mind you, I am not in any way infringing upon anyone's 1st amendment or Wikipedia rights. I am challenging this slime strictly as a glaring violation of WP:TALK. Admins can feel free to warn me all they want, just in the end uphold the policy., anything short of that IS capitulation and coddling of vile hatemongers.
Thanks a lot for your helpful reply. A question I have now is this: If I rewrite the article (or write any other article for that matter), is there a way I can get it approved, so to speak, before actually posting it as an article, to ensure that the article is acceptable before posting and won't get deleted? If so, and if I could get feedback if my article isn't up to standard, then I could make a quality article, rather than simply having the article deleted like what happened to me, which really wasn't productive for anyone. I appreciate any information you have, and if you wouldn't mind posting your reply on my talk page again, that would be great. Thanks.
Ununtrium (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Excirial. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that I have removed the speedy deletion template that you placed on Prasadz Multiplex because the article does not seem to fit the speedy deletion criterion. WP:CSD#G11 is only for "unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content" and does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort. Please consider other means for addressing ongoing concerns. Feel free to let me know at my talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks. Moonriddengirl(talk)17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, i think you made a typo here. A G11 is blatant advertising. At this time the article seems purely promotional, and contains no references other then the companies own page. What you described is a CSD G1Excirial (Talk,Contribs)17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should seriously consider getting a good night of sleep tonight, as i keep making those small annoying errors today. Anyway, thanks for notifying me. I have simply Prodded this article, as i kind of doubt i could get this to qualify as a G11 on second thought (Not promotional enough). Excirial (Talk,Contribs)17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 25 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Disappointment, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. I don't see that it really fits in any of the speedy deletion criterion. It's not a speediable level of promotion, in my opinion, and it can't be deleted for notability concerns because it's a DVD. PROD may be your best way to go. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly question on the Mudos redirect you restored. It seems the IP user was looking for MudOS, and didn't realize the capitalization would make a difference. Should we think about changing Mudos to a disambiguation page? I could just put a disambig toplink on the Oddworld arrticle (which Mudos redirects to), but it might be confusing to people who went directly to Oddworld. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nice note. I thought that repost applied to the clear-cut speedies as well. Shows ya what the heck I know. :) Anyway, thanks again. It's nice to know I'm appreciated. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PMDrive1061 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Avanti Construction - Inquiry
Hi Moonriddengirl
Thank you very much for your comments in the Deletion Review on Avanti Construction. After five days in the deletion review and having read the above comments, what is then the final decision on this entry? Can I restore the content as it is written above? If any changes are needed, could any of the administrators kindly suggest them? Sincere thanks.
Hi. An administrator should close the entry at some point, and if the consensus is to overturn the deletion (it looks like it is to me), he or she will do so at that time. Changes will be needed,yes, in order to avoid other deletion processes. If it is restored, you will want to add additional secondary sources to help verify its notability. You'll also want to be sure that it is not overly promotional. This is supposed to be a 5 day process, but there are sometimes more processes to close than administrators can close them. I can't do it myself, because I participated in the conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your prompt response is greatly appreciated, Moonriddengirl. I will wait for it to be closed and will enhance the style and the content of the entry, to match the Wikipedia standards. Thank you very much for your assistance and advice.
Dear Moonriddengirl Thank you very much indeed for your kindness and for your advice. I am deeply enjoying being part of the Wikipedia community. I am really impressed by the accuracy of the procedures in order to match the Wikipedia standards and I fully support these policies. I will do as you advise and I will try to enhance and improve the article to avoid deletion. Once again, thank you very much and I will keep you posted! --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Working on the backlog at AfD, I noticed that the bots weren't properly cataloging this one as closed. I think on investigation that it may be because you put the closure template below the header, here. The template needs to go above the header, and I think now I know why. :) I've reformatted this one, and the bot seems to be handling it correctly now. I realize this could have been a one-off accident, but in case it was something you didn't know, I wanted to point it out to you. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'd stopped doing closures because I could see that one hanging, and I wasn't sure why. So I thought I'd wait to find out the problem before doing any more. I'm clear to go now! SilkTork *What's YOUR point?19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming here to see if your offer to merge/redirect still stood, and checking your contribs, it looks like you've made good on your offer!. While I'm here, do you have any problems/qualms/additions to my close? I was trying to articulate what you had basically said already in your !vote and I'm hoping I came across correctly. Any opinions? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed for your comments and suggestions in the Avanti Construction entry. I have now addressed all the concerns raised and I shall look forward to the outcome of the review.
Thanks for fixing my bad on the page that I merged. Next time I will read the instructions!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelmadatter (talk • contribs) 28 February 2008 (UTC)
what the fuck is your problem? you issue threats when there is no cause you stupid bitch, what gives you the right to do that?
You are a wikipedia editor, fuck you, you cunt.
