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

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!

U2 FAC...

Hey – thanks for your comments at the FAC. To be honest, a suggestion to make a lead shorter surprised me. Hmmm. I’ve generally gone along with the principal that a lead can be up to three or four paragraphs long (see WP:LEAD) – a one-sentence lead for such a long article just seems, well, odd. Ie, the lead is intended to be summary of the article.

However, if you feel the lead could be re-written, including trimming the “boring” bits (ie, that list of charities), that certainly sounds fair enough. If that means shortening it, well, all the better. How about a two-paragraph lead that has some fat trimmed? U2’s history has broadly gone through 3 or 4 very distinct phases that are outlined in 3 or 4 sentences, and much of the band’s character and music comes out in this. I’d suggest this is fundamental info.

Also, consider that the only other substantial oppose vote (so far) has made essentially conflicting suggestions on the lead (albeit some that I am not yet convinced about either). They suggest trimming the list of charities (fine) but then want *more* detail on the history – I thought we struck a succinct but informative compromise with the history side of it.

Anyway, I’m at work now and shouldn’t be on WP – hopefully I can change it tonight. Thanks for your review. Please let me or the FAC page know your thoughts on my comment. --Merbabu (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration requested on WP:DEMAND

I envision this project namespace essay someday becoming a guideline. To that end I am requesting collaboration from some respected members who have demonstrated some enthusiasm for the subject. Your essay User:Mangojuice/Slave is remarkably similar, as was pointed-out to me recently by another editor. Would you be willing to merge/copy the content of your essay there and to help expand and refine WP:DEMAND as necessary to be suitable to propose it for guideline status? JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: www.sikhiwiki.com

Hi Mango, but I see links to this site on a lot of Sikh (and non-sikh) articles). When you check the link it is either irrelevant or the artcile at sikhiwiki is copied and pasted from other "first hand " links. So far I have changed about 10 and removed erroneous links to sikhiwiki, but it seems we have a habitual linkers to sikhiwiki. Is sikhiwiki a sister site to wikipedia btw? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects with quotes

Hi. I want to comment that quotes should not be used for emphasis. Moreover searching for an article with or without quotes makes no difference. All other administrators have deleted these redirects. Some really old redirection had to be nominated but then we still were deleted. Check the discussion. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see they got deleted anyway. I was about to go delete them. I didn't realize that without the quotes one would still be redirected: that does make those redirects entirely superfluous... but then, they still don't hurt anything. Mangojuice^talk 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:LaruaWA11 - suggestion

I saw your recent request for checkuser regarding this user, and have had a suggestion regarding it.

From the old community sanction noticeboard:

Right. If he wants to come back as a totally new user, with no reference whatsoever to Willy, and behaves well, we won't even notice.

— User:Jpgordon

I suppose the same could apply to LaruaWA11. They should create a totally new account, with no reference whatsoever to LaruaW11, and behave well, along with editing constructively.

I'll adopt the user if they wish to do so. Next time if they make an unblock request, please can you ask them if they would like to be adopted by me??

Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please do reply on my talk page!

For what purpose? To get the person to stop bothering us with sockpuppets? We don't allow people back just because they annoy us enough and make threats to continue doing so until we allow them back. This person has furthermore shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that no matter what, s/he just won't "get it". Solumeiras, if you want to contact me please do so using my talk page. Email wasn't necessary for this. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:29, 23 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't unblock this user even if there was an adoption offer out there. I think I'd have to see a real change in attitude first, or the best solution is to simply block them and hope they get bored. Mangojuice^talk 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was suggesting the next time a sockpuppet of the user makes an unblock request, you could decline it on the following grounds - that their attitude is not in line with WP:CIVIL, and that if they want to edit productively, they should do so. Anyway, thanks for replying to the thread. If it didn't work, well, at least I tried... --Solumeiras (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If s/he wanted to do that (edit productively), s/he has had the opportunity with every sock s/he came back with. The only reason s/he kept getting blocked again was because s/he kept making a ruckus each time, vandalizing and making demands. We could try letting her know that next time, but it also might be safe bet by now that this isn't the kind of person we want on Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:04, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I actually tried taking a different approach in declining one of those unblocks: my understanding was that the person wanted to appeal their original block, and I made sure to explain the proper way to go about that, and explain that this behavior wouldn't result in an unblock. But LaruaWA11 is not interested in that, s/he is interested in trolling us. Mangojuice^talk 14:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Martin Ingram

Your unilateral deletion of Eugene Martin Ingram was contrary to the outcome of the AFD discussion whose result was speedy keep. In fact, the AFD comments were unanimous for keep. Please undo your unilateral out-of-process deletion of Eugene Martin Ingram. Jwray (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Eugene_Martin_Ingram

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eugene_Martin_Ingram. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jwray (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me. The administrators have been really helpful throughout the process, and I'm appreciative. I hope to become an admin myself one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtKotzur (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis?

I hate to bring this issue back up, but I was wondering if you could notify User:FCYTravis, that the issue was been resolved. I believe the issue has been resolved. I have a feeling that when FCYTravis returns to WIKI and see's KellyAna's comments on his page, his first action is going to block me without reading the agruements because I disagreed with his actions. I don't want to respond to his page because of the situation, but the comments KellyAna put on his site aren't completely true. I don't want to get block because of spite. So I was hoping you could fill him in on the situation, as your admin. and responded to the issue. Regards DJS--DJS24 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whyareyoualive and {{2nd chance}}

I have written a lengthy response to the user's unblock request. As for the {{2nd chance}} instructions, from the few cases I have seen, I have reached the conclusion that they don't work at all; I even saw an administrator summarily reject a user's subsequent unblock request, even though he has followed them. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

DJS24

Since he has such a problem with me, but none with you, maybe you should advise him that leaving all that personal information on his user page, including email address, is probably not such a good idea. I actually thought you weren't supposed to put email addresses out for all to see, but that's from reading other thing elsewhere. Just a thought. IrishLass (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK there's no rule against it. People are expected to take charge of protecting their own privacy on Wikipedia. The software prevents people from using an email address as their username, but that's as far as we go. Mangojuice^talk 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Good to know for future reference. Just thought it was a risky thing to put out there for all to see. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Poker Hall of Fame

Try Hall of Fame (nobody uses the term "famer") and you will get over 85,200 hits on altavista and 13,000 on Google.Balloonman (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded to your response on the DVR.Balloonman (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Crips r us

Hey Mangojuice, just thought I'd let you about Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crips r us. I think it might be smarter to let that play out before we decide whether or not to unblock this user. Thanks! GlassCobra 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

krauthammer to user subpage

Dear Mangojuice, can you switch 'Krauthammer' to a User:Gaborhor/Krauthammer user subpage. I will work on it there. Thank you. Gaborhor (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Dcssupport

Stupid me, I didn't notice. I was too caught up on how he had filled out an accepted unblock request himself. I assumed he didnt understand the system... my bad! Cheers SGGH ^speak! 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

enquiry

Hi, not sure what you want. I put the deletion down to misjudgement. Victuallers (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yoshi525 (talk · contribs)

Hello, Mangojuice. You have new messages at Yoshi525's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion review

Hey there. I'm wondering where I can discuss the deletion of the DJ River article. Both AfD/DJ River and Deletion review/DJ River say that the content must not be edited since it's there for archival purposes only. Fire (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi mangojuice Can you please remove my block ? I have asked AndronicO but he has been less then helpful ? I have emailed the abatration comit. to look at it but the have emailed me to say they have a back log ? thanks Kate 100%freehuman : ) I have asked them both to say sorry and put and end to it but it seems ahh less than likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mangojuice : ) 100%freehuman (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

how to put back article "Krauthammer" on encyclopadia from user subpage

Dear mangojuice, You helped me to put this article on a user subpage for further devt and now I would like to know how I can put it back on the encyclopedia. Thanks Gaborhor (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for seeing my appeal and unblocking me, i am working towards being a contributor to the community. i owe you!

Haelsturm (talk)Haelsturm —Preceding comment was added at 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about RfC procedure

Hi Mangojuice. How ya doing? I'm trying to open an RfC at Palestinian archaeology. I placed the tag as instructued on the page, but the automated listing at the main RfC page (in this history and geography) is just not happening. Could you take a look and let me know what (if anything) I've done wrong and how I can fix it? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't done anything wrong. That list is updated by a bot, which may not be working for a while; it seems to have run . I recommend that you just add the summary to the list yourself directly. If you want to try to help get the bot working again, the bot is User:RFC bot; you can leave a message for the bot's operator here. Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mangojuice. I left Messedrocker a message to spur the bot to action. If nothing happens soon, I'll add the listing manually myself. I wouldn't have done it earlier, but I thought if I did, I might screw something up. Technology, sheesh! Thanks again. Tiamut^talk 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru

I saw your comments on QuackGuru's page; just FYI, I did respond briefly to his accusations, but he replaced my response with more accusations, so I'll leave things there. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had seen that message from you, I didn't realize it had been deleted. Mangojuice^talk 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

Hello now that the 12 hours have passes will this thing on my page remove itself or will admin do it?block at the bottomMegistias (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your brilliant idea that each row in the proxy table should be a transclusion of a user-space page on which a user keeps track of their proxy choice. Ron Duvall (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Stone put to sky

Just to let you know: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Attack_accounts. I don't think Slakr had this information when he blocked, but I went ahead and declined the unblock :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:AntiHomophobe/sig

Can you deleted User:AntiHomophobe/sig for me? --AntiHomophobe (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BOLEK

Hi Mangojuice...

My actual name is Boleslav Polívka - Bolek is a nickname derived from Boleslav. This is a very common name is the Czech Republic (so, I am told). My parents immigrated from that place to the US and I grew up here. Because Boleslav can be difficult to pronounce, everyone calls me BOLEK. Unfortunately for me there is some actor with the same name... This is not the first time that people on Wiki told me that I can’t use my name and honestly it is getting a bit silly... I feel that I do not need to explain myself over and over again!! It's MY name!!

Regards,

Bolek Bolekpolivka (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RPA on User talk:Justjihad

Yep, I shouldn't have removed the user's comment from his talk page – but something may still need to be done about the username. Cheers —αlεx•mullεr 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wesker220

Hi Mangojuice, Wesker220 is the account that created the following sockpuppets User:TheBillyIsGay, User:NossyVG and User:GwernolFag. NossyVG is the parent account of User:TheBillyFag and User:TheBillyFagReturns. See [1] and [2]. I should tag them al to make sure this is more obvious in the future. Best, Gwernol 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for protection

Please protect Talk:Gothic_chess/Archive_4 just like you protected Talk:Ed_Trice/Archive_1 (and for the same reasons). Just to clarify (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing but since there's been no disruption there yet, I am going to add that to my watchlist and hold off on protection until it happens there. (Hopefully, whoever this is will give up.) Mangojuice^talk 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

It's my talk page, I'll keep what comments I like on it. If you've got a problem with that, just don't visit it again. ViperNerd (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine; I'll just post my response here then. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Absurd. Way to overstep your bounds. You have no business being an admin with lousy decision making like this. I bring a violation to attention and somehow I get punished along with the disruptive user who started an edit war in the first place and demonstrated no respect for Wiki rules. Nice job. ViperNerd (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What I saw was the person you reported reverting 4 times, and you reverting about 7 or 8 times. The other editor would never have reverted 4 times if you hadn't kept reverting back. That kind of goading doesn't sit well with me when we're talking about an edit that isn't blatant vandalism. Even if there was a clearly established consensus on the issue, your action was inappropriate, but from the talk page I didn't see one. In any case, consensus can change and no one owns the article. Next time, engage the other user in discussion. Your reverts were straight undos with NO explanation, you didn't even use an edit summary to point the other user to a discussion that already took place! Do not think you weren't causing a problem here. Mangojuice^talk 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm restoring my comment that you removed. If you don't want this to remain on your talk page, blank your comment as well. If you accuse me of "lousy decision making" and "overstepping my bounds" it is only appropriate that I be allowed to respond. Mangojuice^talk 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

userpage!

Hi there,

On your userpage there is a sentence I am not a Rouge admin. However, I am just Rouge enough to have falsely added myself to the Rouge admin category for no good reason. However, the rouge admin category has been deleted... so should you not update this?

--The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Yeah I guess.  :) Mangojuice^talk 13:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain

Well, for awhile there I kept thinking to myself, "Ah, I totally messed up now, I better start over under another account," but then people started saying that it was making it look like I was support-stacking or whatever, so I had to quit doing that, but unfortunately I had already scrambled the password for the Ron Duvall account, so after the cache cleared, I had to start this new one, and that's where I'm at now, although the switch to Ron Duvall was also partially because it was non-gender-specific name which was causing some problems with people thinking I was a girl, although now with this account, I have the same problem, so maybe I will have to switch again, which I'm not looking forward to, because it is just going to make people ask anew what is going on with all these account changes, so maybe I'll hold off on that for awhile, but fortunately it doesn't matter that much because I'm not trying to accumulate edits toward becoming an admin or something, although I can understand people's annoyance or suspicion at this behavior because it does make it hard to figure out who's saying what, and to get in touch regarding edits made with other accounts, and it is also unusual behavior, and the kind of stuff that people do when they're trying to pull off something underhanded, which I'm not trying to do, but which I should probably be more careful to avoid making people think that I'm doing, because one of the rules governing such matters is, Don't do that then. Absidy (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Untrustworthy Admin Nandesuka

So, if Betacommand actually does email you explaining the Super Secret Reasons that I'm Untrustworthy, I'd sure like to know what it was that I'm alleged to have done. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He emailed me but didn't say anything about you, so I'm still in the dark about that. Mangojuice^talk 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Continue to Keep Raphael1 Blocked

Thanks for declining the unblock request from Raphael1. For your future reference (if necessary) there is more information about him here. In particular, admin Cyde Weys has expressed an interest in possibly invoking Raphael1's ArbCom "general probation clause", if two other admins concur. Thanks again. Art Smart (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Colleenthegreat

thanks for confirming my block, I have added a far more detailed explanation, I hope it is constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

block of User:UB65

I've overturned this. I hope you don't mind; given that it's a short-term block and you had already expressed some hesitation, and I got a quite complete picture from WP:AN3 and the edit history, I didn't consult with you first. I felt, in viewing the situation as a whole, that the block was unnecessary as all the issues have been resolved through discussion. And also, it's only the "in whole or in part" issue that makes this a 3RR violation, and I think there's good reason to think the user wasn't aware of that aspect of the rule. Mangojuice^talk 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, of course, that's fine. Yeah, I was pretty hesitant. Thanks for following it up! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:UB65

I'm sorry, but in this case I request a reblock. His behaviour both before and after the block has been inescusable, he's engaged in lots of personal attack against me, he spammed the 3RR page with a completely pointless 'report', he has flat out lied, repeatedly about all the facts in the case, and repeatedly whined to lots and lots of admins, and he is actually in violation of the 3RR rule, which he obviously knew about, he was actually at the 3RR report page before I was! (Although I don't know why he was, I hadn't done anything.)

We shouldn't have to put up with this kind of stuff at all, not in any way. Your argument that other editors adding a link (which is not in any way required by policy) somehow makes his 3RR and insults and lies OK, just floors me. In any case it doesn't really matter why he 3RRs, and it's totally clear he did (arguably he was already 3RR before the 4th edit- you don't even have to do 3 reverts).

Please restore the block on this guy.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to give one tiny example of how he's lying, even on the 3RR page it currently reads:

"Moving to: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts as this seems more appropriate. Please note that this was started because of a revert war though for my part I tried to talk it out to no avail. UB65 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)"

The thing is, if you check the edits, that just isn't true, he didn't try to talk it out at all, not till he got to 3 reverts in. And even then he only tried to talk then because he obviously knew about 3RR.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: This deletion debate

I know it is a moot point, and that your decision agreed with my vote and consensus, however I think your closure did violate the injunction as it was an article about a set of television characters. Nevertheless, I see an end in sight for the arb hearing and the injunction. I just wanted to express my opinion. Ursasapien (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Coleen

FYI [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bingo

Yep, same grammatical syntax, same topic area. But since the first time was more a civility issue than outright ban (if memory serves correct) and the WP:DUCK theory is under scrutiny by Arbcom, I think we need to find another way to do it. MBisanz ^talk 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Email sent, but don't let my gut change your course, its a good one. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Must learn to keep a cheat sheet of what I'm doing in different places. Check this [4] and this [5] MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And you were right. User_talk:Alison#Ron_Duvall_et_al. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we hose User:Sarsaparilla/shop or must we re-MFD it? And what of any other subspace pages I find tomorrow? MBisanz ^talk 06:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And please check Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly. I'm 95% certain Captain Zyrain = Sarsaparilla given that and scanning their topical edit histories. Do we need to tell Raul654 about this? And if anyone says he hasn't been deceptive, I'd say this is. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good on you

Hi Mango, I see you are trying to work with Abuse Truth. I've mixed feelings about this - I've seen your patient work before with other problematic editors. Kudos to you, it's hard work that's often thankless and unrewarding. Regards AT in specific, here is where the feelings get mixed. AT is very polite, and promises endlessly to improve, change and be a good editor. There are the skills needed to do such - good grasp of spelling and grammar, understands the theory of referencing and definitely able to discuss on talk pages (note the absence of the word 'productively' though). AT does not seem to grok wikipedia though, there seems to be an almost organic inability to understand why others are objecting to his/her point of view and edits (I'm not saying AT has mental health issues, just that I'm flummoxed at how s/he fails to see where the problems are with his/her edits). AT misses the meat of people's objections and comments. Your reply to some of AT's comments shows you see this as well, so all I'm really doing here is saying I agree with your assessment. One thing I think would be helpful to AT would be editing pages completely outside of the abuse area. Template:Fractures has a bunch of red links, and it's virtually impossible to have a POV in this area. Perhaps AT could create some of those page using pubmed journals? This would show commitment to the project rather than to the idea of abuse. I created Jefferson fracture a while back, very therapeutic. I'm personally willing to continue working with AT, though not really in our previous areas of interest, but I would be willing to act as a resource on MOS, template and other rather banal issues if you or s/he thinks this would be useful. AT's redeeming characteristic is his/her ability to write and be polite in discussion, so s/he is definitely a potential asset to wikipedia. WLU (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin MangoJuice, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to work out the conditions on my block. I realize that you are very busy and I appreciate the evenhanded way you worked on this issue.

In reply to user WLU above, I wanted to thank you for mentioning my skills and the fact that I am definitely a potential asset to wikipedia. I do feel that I usually do understand the objections to my point of view, and perhaps I should state this more clearly in my talk page posts, but I may disagree with these objections from time to time and I have tried to state these clearly as well. But, there is always room for improvement for me and all of us around this. I am looking for other articles to edit at this time. I am working at holding the topics at arms' length and trying to look at them from a neutral perspective. abuse t (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hendrik Wade Bode

Hi Mangojuice,

Sorry for the disturbance but I have a technical problem. I made this edit but nothing appeared on the talk page. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was resolved. Don't worry about it. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hey Mango, Justanother here. I hope that you will forgive my posting here under block but I have a good reason. I would like you to please revisit my unblock request based on the evidence that I have placed on my page (Down the rabbit hole topic). I trust you as a fair admin and I think that if you will review the evidence I present that you will perhaps see things differently. You have not been very active on Wikipedia since reviewing my unblock request and I want to give you the chance to go over the full evidence before I post another unblock request. If you see this and are willing to take another look please let me know. No hurry as I am not actively editing. I just do not appreciate the unfairness and the black mark. Thanks. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from Colleen

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Can I ask your opinion on something? Should I create a new account and start over? As Slrubenstein made clear, the reason for my block wasn't my proposal to Talk:Jesus, but my edit history. I don't want this to be used against me again, or take away from people's respect for me as an editor. Now that I am more familiar with policy, would it be better to make a new account and start fresh? This way, other editors (and administrators who can block me) will look at me as I am now and not see the warnings I've gotten in the past. Is that the best thing to do? Thanks. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Afd goof

Yikes, how did that happen?! Sorry about that, thanks for cleaning up after me. GlassCobra 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Another kudo to you (Pro-pedophilia activism article)

Just a quick note to thank you for your patient reasonableness in that extensive discussion on the Talk page. Your voice stood out as one that fully recognized both the difficulties everyone was struggling with but also insisted that we have faith in basic Wikipedia principles of neutral language. Well done! I think the current introduction is enormously improved over what used to be there. Much of the credit for that should go to you. SocJan (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought Adjuster

Um, did you check to see that these books are not being referenced in the actual article? Simply listing books is not the same as writing specific content sourced to the books in question. Besides, you seem to not be paying attention to the discussion at WP:ANI. Are you? Why are you behaving so obtusely unilaterally? Wikipedia is about discussion which you are not doing. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In-line citations are not required for WP:N. Why are you behaving so obtusely and unilaterally? Please, let's just have this discussion on AfD where it belongs. Mangojuice^talk 18:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Foundation For Evangelism

Hello I wanted to follow up on a deletion for an entry noted as The Foundation For Evangelism. The reason for deletion is noted as A7 - "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant."

First, I want to understand why it is noted as not significant..

Here is the reasoning for significance in the article as follows.

1. Is noted as Harry Denmans associated organization, and has significance to his description on Wiki

He founded The Foundation for Evangelism in 1949.

2. Notes that the Foundation is the organization that holds the "Harry Denman Award" which is in reference and as noted in Harry Denman's entry

have established evangelism awards in his honor, including the Harry Denman Evangelism Awards.

3. Also is a cross reference to certain other organizations made specifically for Methodism or Evangelism...two major references also on Wiki

A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Methodist_Council
B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_church

4. Is a beginning point for several new articles based on Technology and Evangelism...specifically organizations founded by The Foundation.

5. References in deleted article are exact date of The Foundations creation (not noted in original), and it's current location as well.

So, main significance is in reference to material already in existence on Wiki. If you still feel this article was in violation of Wiki rules, please forward the article to my email address for my account, with notations of why it is NOT significant.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openedge1 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that even Harry Denman is appropriate material for Wikipedia, but in any case notability is not inherited. I would suggest that any information on the Foundation be included in Harry Denman's article. The Foundation article made no claim that would seem to set it apart in the least way from any other minor or local charitable organization, which is why it was deleted. If you don't agree let me know. Mangojuice^talk 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As I would probably consider the Church of Scientology and specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Technology_Center as non-appropriate material here as well. I do believe controversy lends a hand in their notation on Wiki, and not "significance". But, I accept your decision. I will rewrite the article, with the reason for the significance of the Foundation, and then we shall try again. Thank you for your input.--Openedge1 (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That would probably pass the speedy deletion criteria. But I would strongly suggest you just merge this information onto Harry Denman's page -- it sounds like Harry Denman is the only claim to notability. I feel pretty confident that an WP:AFD debate would agree. Mangojuice^talk 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?

How could you delete my hangons? That is not fair. I am only trying to save my precious article from being deleted! Stop going through my personal pages, please! Kristy22 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen to me!

Listen, Mangojuice! First of all, I want to tell you a few rules I want you to follow!

First of all, NEVER go through my personal pages, no matter what!

Second, do not send me messages telling me you deleted any of my personal pages. It is so rude to me! I have enough things to be dealing with right now!

Last, never send me a message saying that I can't make articles about a person that is unacceptable to Wikipedia! I only made the Glenn Sharland article because I wanted to vent my feelings about this person on Wikipedia! Kristy22 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

These rules and more will help you learn how to get along with me on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristy22 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the removal of this, hope there are no ahrd feelings. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No of course not. Just, for me, if someone reverts a change to my talk page I see the "new messages" bar anyway, so I still see the message. So it might as well stay. Mangojuice^talk 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Harry Heard

One film is not a criteria for a biographical article. I should know, I founded WP:Actors and Filmmakers itself, so by now I have a pretty good idea of what is salvagable or not for a biographical article on an actor. He was a dwarf who was hired in the film because of his unusual condition. Googling him comes up with nothing ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've merged it with Funny Man (film) as it was a one off ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Mangojuice^talk 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was the content which nearly cause your PC to crash -I've archived it. You have an older computer? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I can load it no problem now but all the images are in the cache. But for anyone who has a slower connection, you've really got a lot of images there; the animated one is the largest. My connection isn't slow, but it has its moments. :) Mangojuice^talk 00:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Magic Bullet article

OK, added nine outside references to the company and its products to the article, expanding the article in the process. Reckon this is enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayofthetriffids (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfair?

But BBV, the other independent spinoff audio company, has no references on its page at all, and all that page does is discuss its works-- why haven't you marked that one for deletion then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayofthetriffids (talk • contribs) 13:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversions

FYI, I reverted you the second time only because I assumed I had been unclear in my previous edit summary that I thought the page wasn't spam

But you reverted -- period/full-stop -- so that nonsense you wrote about my reverting until I "got what I wanted" applies equally as well to you, so bringing that up as some sort of argument against me is absurd. That you thought the page WASN'T spam and/or for a role account makes me question your judgment; that you'd bring it up on WP:AN/I to argument about, even more so. --Calton | Talk 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to revert beyond that point. But I can see now that you would intend on reverting until the cows came home. So no, the situations aren't equivalent. Mangojuice^talk 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia

When I made my first account on Wikipedia, I expected to have a good time here. I thought it was fun when I edited articles on Wikipedia. I had the best time ever when I made contributions to Wikipedia. Then people like you came along and left messages on my user talk page telling me that if I edit pages on Wikipedia I could be temporarily blocked. I don't understand why! I mean, isn't Wikipedia's slogan 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? I think you should go to the welcome page. Kristy22 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Umm--well I do have one question for you, Mangojuice. How do I get adminstrators and editors to accept me as someone who will contribute postively to Wikipedia? Kristy22 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP pop culture personal essay

I just wanted to point you to my own draft essay on the topic, after having seen yours: User:Mangojuice/PC. Mangojuice^talk 19:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mj. I have watchlisted it, but haven't given it a thorough read yet. User:edgarde/IPC is a basically unedited archive of an essay by Eyrian. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent changes are going against Wikipedia policies that require consensus. Consensus is not three people, especially when there are two more people. If you continue to persist in such changes, you will be reported for vandalism. The community has not spoke in favor of you, and such policy rewordings cannot be changed without appropriate discussion, especially at Village Pump. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And then, shall I cut down the largest tree in the forest with... a herring? You think this is controversial but none of the rest of us do, and I'm quite sure the rest of the community won't either. Your stake in the matter cannot be ignored. The text of policy pages, especially when they don't reflect common sense or actual practice, is not sacred. Mangojuice^talk 01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

By "none" you mean that two people blatantly stated that the change was wrong, and SwatJester stated before that the policy does not apply to anything beyond Wikipedia. It seems like the odds are against you. The fact that you refused to go to Villiage Pump is showing a lack of proper procedures, which I expect that you will fix immediately and that you just haven't gotten to that yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

SwatJester was pointing out that the rule is hard to enforce off-Wikipedia, not that it can't be enforced or that it doesn't apply. Mangojuice^talk 11:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Thank you for telling me how to get editors to accept me! Kristy22 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Powermaxed

My apologies ... I didn't realize you'd declined the speedy request seconds before I threw the block. I went ahead and lifted the block myself. Blueboy96 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Report

Im Sorry about that i will do.

Thanks Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting Usernames

I am taking everything you are saying in to considration and i do sometimes get con fused when trying to figure out what to report and what not to.

Thanks Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do but im sure that you understand were that i am comming from also.

Thanks Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Recreated Indiepix

I recreated the Indiepix article you just speedied because I was in the middle of a major rewrite of the original author's content while it was being deleted. It caused an editing conflict between us and I opted to recreate the article with the new text, which basically tossed out everything from the old article and added references.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Username block

OK, fine with me.   jj137 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

commitment schemes...

I recommend you read http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~crepeau/PDF/Commit.pdf for some reference to early work on Bit Commitment schemes (much prior to BCC88).

Regards

Claude Crépeau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.74.51 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! That's good stuff, it was tough trying to trace the origins of the notion. Mangojuice^talk 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for ur comments. Well, the user Grandia01 keeps re-editing information that was discuseed on the discussion page. in this case, it's the king Abdullah 2 page, I have sent them the reasons why, and my sources, they re-edited the page and wrote, i dont care about your sources or the research (with my professors).. any how, please help us put an end to such uncivil editing manner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RR block

I think PageantUploader's block should remain. He was warned and definitely made 3 reverts equal to edit warring. As for David, I don't know, I did warn him but I'd be okay with you (or any other admin) deciding that further action is necessary. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, I do appear to have made errors. If you wish to rectify anything then go ahead. I won't oppose any action on this case. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on dealing with an editor

Hi. As you were the person who dealt with my wikiquette alert against User:RobJ1981, I'd like to ask you some advice on what to do now.

Since then, RobJ1981's harassment of me has been unabated. He has templated my user page with the civil/bad faith stuff that I complained about in the wikiquette alert. He also filed a bogus ANI on me. But now, I have reason to believe he's engaged in wikistalking.

Despite our wikiquette discussion, and despite being told to stay away from me in the ANI he started on me, Rob continues to follow my actions like a hawk.

[6]

Rob has never before made an edit to a Dungeons & Dragons related article. His very first one was to undo something I did.

I tried to get a Request for Comment on User together, but none of the other people who've had problems with him have made the same effort to talk things out that I did, so that's a no go. What are my other options? McJeff (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see harassment. I saw you two got into it at Talk:List of characters in Bully but that started because you complained about Rob's behavior even when he had been leaving the article alone. Both of you should just drop it, like Stifle said in the ANI thread. If Rob does show up again, respond to him in good faith as if he were a complete stranger. As for the revert at Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons) Rob probably went there because it was mentioned on your talk page. And honestly, I agree that the tag should remain there. The article needs to be improved first. Mangojuice^talk 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Scratch that; the complaint was from someone else, not you. But my point remains: Rob probably commented there because he was specifically being talked about, not necessarily because he's stalking you. Mangojuice^talk 17:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

king abdullah page

i told Grandia01 i was given permission by sysop to edit page as long as it had discussion and source. he went ahead and re-edited any way, please help, i reported their 3 edits in 24 hour, but i read through their page and they have gone through edit wars before, that wont realy stop them. please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You just reverted for the fourth time yourself. So, I blocked both of you for 24 hours. "Permission from the admin" doesn't give you authority to edit war. Mangojuice^talk 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

i did not revert his edits that time, i left them as is before i repored them, any how, that passed, i need your help in resolving heir matter,

here is the situation. he is placing the edit about king abdullah on an editorial written by a journalist who quite frankly never lived in jordan and cites unnamed sources!!! what i provided was a report by the Department of Defence that talk about america in the middle east, and it explicitly cites that stability in jordan is due in the greatest part to the very popular king. i have also asked professors from my unversity and others (people well aquainted with the middle east political systems) and they have agreed with my source. further more i have lived in jordan and im very aware of the political system, and i have found that to be true from my experience. he says that administrator delldot left that part, well same administrator told me i coud change it if i found the sources, which i did. therefore please get involved and help us resolve this matter

User:Exiled Ambition‎ deleting comments

User:Exiled Ambition‎ has deleted comments made by myself and another user from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. I have asked him to restore them, but wondered if you could help if he does not. It appears that he has blanked comments made by the very person (the webmaster of Samurai Archives) that he has been in dispute with in the past, as apparently you know. John Smith's (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was taken care of by another user, but I was wondering if you could look into Exiled's behaviour more generally. John Smith's (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, might it be a good idea for this guy to have a header on his user and talk pages to show his previous accounts? Only an uninvolved admin might not know his record if he gets into trouble again. John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My username

My name has been discussed for deletion before, and they decided not to block it. Their are many more like mine, and just the opposite. I have made so many posts on talk pages and pages and Wikiprojects, I have many subpages, and userboxes that lead back to America Needs Jesus, so I don't really want to change. There is other users that have copied my America Needs ____, they are allowed, why me? The name is not against anyone, just shows my opinion. I saw where the change was asked, and you got the ball rolling? Cheers, AmericaNeedsJesus 17:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it, but I don't want to be made to change. If all hate it and want me to change it, then I'd want to do it myself with choosing a new one. I don't mind if we got other opinions, though I really don't want to change. Cheers, AmericaNeedsJesus 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is this going? AmericaNeedsJesus 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote down a long response and hit cancel, ;]! I don't want to make a scene, and I feel like I'm being a bother. I think it would be a good idea to see on what other editors on WP:RFCN think about my name. Sound OK? Blessings, AmericaNeedsJesus 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The war is on! LOL Mangojuice, AmericaNeedsJesus 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they don't like it, what is with that "However, I want to explicitly note that the user is on record that if consensus is against him here, he will willingly change his username." Stuff? Was I in a courtroom or something? Cheers, AmericaNeedsJesus 06:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I will have to change, but the only name I want has to be usurped. It has never been used, and the name doesn't even a userpage or talk. I don't know if you can, but it says you have to wait a week to see if the user will respond. How can I get it changed before than, can you or any of your friends? What about my subpages and userboxes? I could move them and then have the old ones deleted if that's OK. It's called American Eagle. Blessings, AmericaNeedsJesus 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)