User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage 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. Merge question Since you seem to know what you're doing with merging/AfD's/all that stuff, I thought I'd ask you a question: if an article has been merged into another article (which saves its history, talk page, etc), should all of the WikiProject banners and what not be taken off the old article's talk page since it's basically a glorified redirect at this point? Thanks for any help you might be able to give me. Drewcifer (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) It depends on the reason for the merge, generally, and what the article is. I'd probably remove the WikiProject banners--or at least remove the article grading, since they'll no longer apply. If there's a chance that the article may be later split, I wouldn't remove the WikiProject banners. If you'd like me to get more specific, just point me to the article and I'll give you my opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I've got more to add to this. I've done a couple of mergers yesterday where I decided to neutralize the banner until and unless the article is split out again. I just put "tl|" inside the template, like so: {{album}}. This might not be a bad idea in general to keep an article from showing up as needing to be reviewed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Ok, thanks so much for the advice. Drewcifer (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) CSD templates Here's something where I could use some help from you, Moonriddengirl, if you're interested. I just noticed a comment from Ozzieboy at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (general), with a suggested change (inserting something along the lines of "or duplicate pages" or "a page which is an exact duplicate of another page" (latter is my version)) which seems reasonable to me. However, it also seems reasonable to me that if such a change is to be done, the policy (CSD) should be modified first, then the template, and I just replied so. Anyway, if you'd like to help, you can assist in reaching consensus on this, for example perhaps by proposing the suggested change at CSD yourself if you agree with it, or by replying to Ozzieboy with a reason why it wouldn't be a good idea, or some other action. I don't have strong feelings about including the suggestion or not; I just want to make sure that all concerns have been addressed reasonably. (Perhaps just doing nothing is OK too now that I've replied to Ozzieboy's message, anyway.) Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC) DONE: all the draft templates have been created. See my message at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Suggested new wordings for CSD templates. It would be helpful if you would look them over -- perhaps just checking that the wording is reasonable and/or is what was agreed on; I haven't checked them against any changes that have happened meanwhile in the CSD's, for example. I may have made mistakes copying the wording, too. I may be checking some of the programming-type details and hope that Happy-melon will check them over too. Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Yay! Go you! :D It's shut off time for me for tonight, but I will get on them tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your support. :-) Another thing to check: suggested deletion log summary wordings, which I've just written. These will automatically go in the deletion logs. See WT:CSD#Section break 2 and the tables in the subpages (this time it's the tables to be proofread/edited, not the templates yet). --Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC) They look good to me (I tweaked some of the article ones), but I have to say that I use ^demon's script for deletion logs, so I'm not familiar with what stuff says *now*. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Happy-melon has written deletion summaries into the templates which don't necessarily correspond with what's in the tables. Thanks for your tweaks, but I think I'll leave things as they are: that is, if you want your tweaks to go into the templates you may have to do that yourself and/or discuss it with Happy-melon. It doesn't matter much to me exactly what the deletion logs say; that is, either your versions or Happy-melon's are fine. Happy-melon seems to lean towards very short deletion log summaries. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Feedback Hello, Moonriddengirl. In one occasion there I participated you provided an outside opinion. Now, I would like to ask similar thing. Initially I filled 3rd party request, however it was unlisted, because at the end were involved more party editors (currently inactive again). Later, I added RfC, but for some reason it is not working (as I understand due to bot problems). In other words, I desperately need outside opinion, in regards about one specific sentence, which is may contradict to WP:NOR and WP:V. If you can help, please see here for further details. I would be much obliged, M.K. (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the comment. I hope that you will monitor (if possible) further developments about specific issue.Thanks again, M.K. (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I am keeping an eye on it and will certainly contribute further to the conversation if I'm able. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Sportin' Life I'm not clear on why adding a link to a site with lyrics is a copyright violation. The lyrics aren't on a Wikipedia page. SpanishStroll (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Whoops. My bad. I see how this could violate a copyright. Sorry. SpanishStroll (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC) List of Devil May Cry Demons ...nowhere in the arguments for deletion was the claim that notability was inherited - that was a strawman that those pushing deletion came up with. Those urging for keeping the article came up with direct quotes for both creation and reception. All of the reasons that led to the article's deletion were strawmen, and I provided direct examples as to why they were untrue (while those pushing deletion just kept saying that it violated GUIDE, without ever giving an example). Could you please tell me where to find information on getting a deletion re-looked at? I also asked for some time to be allowed to address the problems, as we were given no prior notice, and it was the middle of exam week. As also explained in the AfD, the article is completely redundant on the DMC wiki - we already have all that information, and more. As such, I am deleting it on the DMC wiki, as it is completely redundant and useless there.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC) On the contrary, the indication that notability is inherited is implicit in the argument advanced by Pixeface about spin-off articles. If you read the wikilink buried under WP:FICT (included in the close), the relevance of that comment may become more clear. Likewise, the relevance is perhaps demonstrated in the first link, relevant portion of which reads "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." You are welcome to take it to WP:DRV. Feel free to delete it from DMC wiki as you like. As regards your request for more time, this is certainly available to you if you choose to request that the material be userfied (which, also indicated in closure, I'd be happy to do.) If you wish the AfD closed against my reading of consensus, I'm afraid that I can't help you, and DRV may be your only recourse. If you're not familiar with it, please read over the procedure carefully before filing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC) As I said before, it was a strawman argument that those pushing for deletion initially came up with. Pixelface may have been wrong in his rebuttal, but notability was clearly shown in other parts of the debate - I could in seconds find almost a screen full of quotes regarding development and reception from reliable sources, exactly what those pushing for deletion kept claiming couldn't be found. Also, I'm having trouble finding the part of WP:FICT that you are talking about. Could you provide a quote or something to make it easier to find? Thank you for informing me about DRV. Also, I already had copied it to my userspace, though the history was not preserved.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict X2. I'm going to get this down before reading & addressing any additional entries.) As far as pointing out DRV is concerned, no problem. I understand that the deletion is likely to be upsetting, since you obviously feel strongly that the article conforms to policy and guideline, and my reading of the AfD debate is by no means personal. I believe that the editors arguing for deletion, which greatly outnumbered the editors arguing to keep, were within policy and guidelines in doing so. Anyway, I'm sure that you already know that if you do use the userfied material as the basis of a new article, its history will need to be restored for GFDL compliance. If you decide to pursue DRV and it is decided there that there was not consensus to delete, that won't be an issue. If, however, it remains deleted and you are able to address the concerns, the offer to userfy still stands. Articles that are recreated after deletion debates may be speedily deleted if they are substantially the same and changes do not address the reasons for deletion. If changes do address that, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Surely. I wasn't trying to be obscure by linking; sorry if that was the result. :) I see on closer reading that I actually already did provide the quote I intended in the AfD close "WP:FICT indicates that "editors should strive to establish notability by providing as much real-world content as possible for...spinout articles."" As I indicated above, that comment & the text surrounding was directly related to the argument by Pixelface about the lack of need to demonstrate notability in spinout articles. The question of the sufficiency of sourcing is a separate issue; I wanted to be sure to explain why I do not believe that spinout is a reasonable explanation to advance in arguing that no verification of notability is required. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, and P.S., I'm sorry that this came up during your exam week. It hasn't been so long since my last exams that I can't imagine how much that sucks. If it helps, just remember that the material is not permanently gone; it's just temporarily hidden and can be restored if you successfully appeal to DRV or if you create a "new, improved version of the article" (I'm quoting from WP:DRV there, under the section of History-only undeletion). It's not going anywhere in the meantime and should absolutely not be allowed to interfere with your exams. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry but where was any consesus reached and any real reason raised for the deletion of the article that you just went ahead and deleted it? We raised multiple examples and reasons for it to be allowed more time to evolve and improve and we're just ignored? What the hell?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I wonder if you have read the closure rationale or any of the above conversation gven your statement here that you weren't given a chance to salvage any of it. Not only did I transwiki it with its history (subsequently deleted by User:KrytenKoro who felt it redundant with information already there), but also offered to userfy the material, not only at the AfD but also above. That's about as much opportunity to salvage as I can offer. AfDs are routinely closed after 5 days. This one ran a little long because we have a backlog, but it is the job of an uninvolved administrator to read through the debate and determine rough consensus. Rough consensus, linked from the Deletion guidelines for administrators, indicates that "In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail." We keep this in mind, while discounting arguments that do not fall in line with policy or guidelines. I see 2.5 to 1 arguments for deletion. Some of the arguments for deletion are stronger within policy than others, just as some of the arguments for keep were more in line with policy than others, but there nevertheless seemed to be substantially more arguments for delete reliant on policy than arguments to keep. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Since you've read the comments then perhaps you can understand my comments where I linked to at least 3 separate articles that feature similarly to this one and yet remain unchanged nearly a year later while this one was put up for AfD after only a month during which time only two editors worked on it. We were never given a chance to bring it up but as it was it was still a fair article and as notable as anything like list of enemies in mario bros. I'm not trying to come off as agressive with you but it is frustrating that our arguements were ignored completely to arguements which did not prove lack of notability or lack of worthiness to exist on Wikipedia or simply those that said "Burn it in fire, its a game guide, die article die". Loosely translated. It was never a game guide and myself and Kryten never intended it to be anything of the sort. Its a brief article. Hell, theres a seperate list now JUST for Resident Evil 4 enemies. I feel that this article has been targeted and treated unfairly and given the stable and rational arguements given for saving it and giving it a chance to improve to some apparently high standards, its deletion was not warranted. Hell, Caribbean moved it from merge to AfD in like 2 days as if he had some personal grudge against it. As for earlier comments, I didn't know you'd moved the data, for that I thank you as some of it was definetly worthy of saving despite what others think. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry for the delay in responding to you. I had quite a long work call, and it's hard for me to concentrate too much on other things during those. I can understand that it's frustrating, particularly after you've put so much work into it, and I would feel pretty put out myself if somebody proposed to "burn" one of the articles I had written. I do take your point about the three similar articles that were not targeted. I'm sure it feels very unfair. The problem is that arguments about similar articles are generally not helpful in deletion debates, because each article is evaluated on individual merit. (Behind that link is explanation why.) Sometimes Wikipedia can seem very arbitrary, particularly in terms of consensus in AfDs. I always think of the example of List of Indian women and List of Iranian women, which were nominated for deletion within a day or two of one another. One was deleted; the other was not. The articles were, so far as I could tell, substantially the same. As I pointed out to KrytenKoro above, the information is not gone, although it is not accessible to most Wikipedians. I believe that I assessed consensus fairly—I certainly tried to. I read through the arguments several times before tagging it "close" and then again another time before actualling closing it—but it's possible that other contributors to WP:DRV would disagree. Even if that isn't an avenue you choose to pursue or if you pursue it and fail, that does not mean that you can't utilize that material in a new article. As long as your new article addresses the concerns that created consensus in the AfD, it shouldn't be an issue. I would, however, strongly recommend that you work on it in user space until you feel sure that other editors will agree that it meets notability to avoid going through the whole debate over again or having it speedily deleted by WP:CSD#G4. I am still happy to put the article and its history into your userspace, if you'd like. (For the sake of convenience, I'm linking to the AfD discussion here.)--Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC) If you could give me the data, that would be great, I can see no way to obtain it from the deleted article. As for the article, I don't take it personally but am still agrieved. While I know that pointing out other articles of the same status is not a valid arguement it is still ridiculous to so agressively target this particular one, declaring it all unnotable and not even trying to salvage the notable ones. As stated, the other articles are similar if not exactly the same and RE is no more notable than Devil May Cry, not in a quantifiable way anyway so, as you said, when people attack the work almost with venom and seemingly without having actually read it (Again pointing out the "game guide" comments), it is frustrating that they still succeeded in robbing us of the chance to develop the article. Anyway, thanks for being amiable about the situation, its CaribbeanHQ thats caused my issues not you so I apologise if I seemed agressive at all. Bye.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC) The article and its history are now at User:Darkwarriorblake/ List of Devil May Cry Demons (Hrmph. I put in an extra space. :/) I certainly understand why you'd be aggravated by having an article deleted. I hope that having the material userfied will give you what you need to continue your work in a way that won't encounter the same troubles. It's obvious that you put quite a lot of time and effort into it. I'm sure it's not much comfort, but please note that even some of the contributors who argued for deletion on notability cocnerns commented on how well done it was. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your help.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC) You're welcome. Good luck with it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks againDarkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Relisting afd's Hello, please comment-out the entry on the original day's log when you relist an afd. This removes it from WP:AFDO, and prevents another admin from closing it on accident. Every AFD should only ever exist on a single logpage. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Evidently, I missed that one. Turn about.:D (I was pretty sure we'd talked before!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC) OH hahahaha... I forgot about that. I knew your name was familiar, but I thought it was just from seeing you close things, or such.  :) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC) It's good that there are folks around to mop up after us sometimes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Re: Thanks Don't mention it. Can you chime in on the discussion here? Need some assistance. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Jon Courtney Moonriddengirl -- you elected to keep this page; You've been had, convinced by a weak argument for notability by two self-confessed camp followers of this person, who now use wikipedia as an advertising medium. Let me ask you, have you ever heard of Jon Courtney?. All you have done is started now is an editing war when, with a simple merge you could have avoided thisJustpassinby (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC). On the contrary, any editors who decide to edit war are doing so of their own volition and will be subject to the results of that. We don't side-step consensus just because of the fear of tendentious editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Unreleased albums I've been considering starting a WikiProject to clean up the Unreleased album category (I'm finding it's definitely going to take a group effort). If you might be interested, I've started trying to write it up here. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Sure, I'll pitch in some on the effort, though I'm not sure how much time. I seem to be on a one-woman album rating crusade (I say one-woman because as near as I can tell nobody else is really doing that) and deletions eat a lot of Wikipedia hours (CSD or AfD). But it's a good cause. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) That's cool. I'm not looking for blood oaths or fealty ; ) —like Mom says: many hands make light work. I know I would rather spend a little time on culling articles and more time on other stuff. If you're interested, watch this page to keep up with what's going on and you can participate as much or as little as you like. Thanks—Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I will indeed watch it. :D And I'll take a shot at the category some time today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Zedla RfA Sorry for the delay but just want to drop a quick note saying thank you for participating in my RfA which closed and passed earlier this week. I'm definetely keeping everyones points in mind about project space participation -- it's something I realize I will have to work on to round out my wiki experience. Like all my other reports I'm hoping to get better with the speedy critieria. If you have any comments I'm always open to the counsel of others. Sincerely – Zedla (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Congratulations on passing. :) If you run into a situation you're not familiar with, I'd suggest asking an admin you know. I've gotten better results that way than going to ANI. (I've even gotten good results asking admins I don't know. For instance, I needed help with a sockpuppet and looked at the history of the suspected sockpuppet page to find out who to go to.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC) History Merge I can't believe I'm in an argument about this. Non-notable article - deleted. End of story. Black Kite 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry - that was rather intemperate of me, and somewhat caused by IRL events. Though honestly, I don't see the necessity for GFDL compliance here - you basically have a NN artcle which is included (via a simple sentence) in another article - what is the necessity for GFDL? Frankly, I prefer to delete such articles, as such redlinks lying about are a magnet for recreation. LGRCitroilles would no doubt argue with me, but hey. Black Kite 01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC) And now I've just seen your reply to me. Tell you what; I'll recreate the article as a redirect, and look it over tomorrow. Fair?? Black Kite 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) No, you're right, I'm rubbish at history merges :) I think I got one right once, but it was a lot time ago... Black Kite 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Honorverse Hi Thanks again for your comments. I'm a bit confused now as to what to do. I've had this put on my talk page: Grayson Space Navy During the AfD of High Admiral (Honorverse), you offered (twice) to undo your merge of the material to Grayson Space Navy if the result of the AfD was delete — it was; please consider using this link to do so. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC) I'm happy to do it, but is that what I should do or?--Doug Weller (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC) FYI, User:Dougweller has undone his merge of material from High Admiral (Honorverse) to Grayson Space Navy. (We've met before, but I don't recall the circumstances; hi!) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Hi. :D Thanks for your assistance. The matter seems to be handled now, with everything where it ought to be and nothing where it oughtn't. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC) I'm still trying to figure out what happened. I saw you restored the tags I put there; was that due to my (now deleted) edit being in the middle of things? Also, what links to it is now showing tons of links, but I remove the link from {{Honorverse}} which is where most of them were coming from. What's with that? Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, your edit was to a page that had the GFDL violating material attached. To preclude the possibility of the material being later restored, given that I could easily replace your tags (no real fear of GFDL issue, but I credited you anyway :D), the best procedure seemed to be to delete the additions entirely. I don't know what's with the links. I'll go take a look and see if I can figure it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) I'm not going to be able to figure out much, I'm afraid. The links seem obviously related to the template from which you removed the page a few hours ago. I have been told in the past that transclusion can take a while to catch up. I do not know if this is true or, if true, why. :) I'd say check back tomorrow, and if the problem persists we can take it up at the help desk or village pump technical. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC) But, but, but… <joke>that cost me an edit-count!</joke> Yes, my real concern is stuff being stealthily resurrected down the road. The link thing is probably some sort of caching issue; see if it just goes away. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) above edit-conflicted with your reply; I've seen this sort of thing before but it didn't persist for long; database just got thrashed; check tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) LOL! :D Okay, tomorrow. I'm pretty useless with the technical side of things. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Well, you seem to have the history merge down. Ask if you ever think I might be of help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I surely will. Ditto. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC) An edit-war about music genres Hi Moonriddengirl. I would like the assistance of a cool-headed admin. As much as I swore that I would never get involved in edit wars about music genres, here I am at Glassjaw. I was drawn in (and requested page protection) when some anon IPs were warring back and forth and clogging the page history. Someone had gone to the effort of finding sources for genres but User:Mrbelial, who is likely also User:189.24.99.171 and User:189.24.85.13 (among others) keeps deleting sourced material. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. When we pointed out WP:V, the user expressed an opinion about music magazines, but since then has simply kept reverting without discussing. I have warned the user that one could be blocked for edit warring even without breaking 3RR, and have suggested dispute resolution repeatedly to no avail. If you have a moment to look at this, offer any advice, I would appreciate it very much. I had considered a 3RR report but I don't think the user technically went beyond 3RR. I considered RfC or 3rd-opinion, but that seems unnecessary because all other editors already at the page seem to disagree with Mrbelial. I considered a report to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but the user is not communicating at all at this point. Thanks for any suggestions, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)