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

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I feel like I need to defend myself from what you're saying, in which case I'll reply here. Thanks!

arbitration

Two users who are suspiciously singling me and my pages out, claim that by posting any links to commercial sources we are violating Wikipedia policies. This has the interesting altrusitic aim that anything outside wiki must be bad. While I agree random links and blatent advertising are wrong, links are intended to show people where to find more information, not to assume WIKIPEDIA has an infinite amount of space for all information, which is edited forever. Please take a look at motion captureTmcsheery 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

{{prod}} and {{AfD}}

Thank you for informing of the policies regarding prod tags and AfD procedure. I've been replacing them because editors arbitarily remove them without discussion, and I had thought the proper procedure was to invoke discussion before allowing the tag to be delted. Thanks again. - CobaltBlueTony 14:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

{{speedy}} or {{db|reason}} tags

Would you say, then, that Rotteneggs' first speedy sould have been CSD A3, {{db-nocontent}} ("no content other than external links of whatever kind...")? I really do disagree with obvious advertising not being able to be speedied. Every second they're listed, they run the chance of being mirrored, and/or used for advertising or promotion of legitimacy for commercial endeavors who think having an article gives them a momentary notability boost. - CobaltBlueTony 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:Permission from license selector

OK. I would (and will) argue aginst this, but if there has been previous discussion, I should read it first. ;-) Can you help me find the discussion? Where is "meta or media"? We don't put any other image categories directly into CSD, why this one? But in any case, thanks for letting me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any discussion on suddenly doubling CSD's size with non-urgent images linked from the page... There were three pages linked there, and none of them seemed to discuss the insertion of the material into CSD. What am I missing? JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- can you point me to where the debate about this template was taking place? Was it on mediawiki? I remember seeing it at one point and you were involved. Mangojuice^talk 20:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was primarily at MediaWiki talk:Licenses, although it came up on WP:AN at some stage also. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As for {{no license}}, it's divided by date, and I at least, do use a semi-bot to go through the categories after the five days and get rid of stuff. I don't object to deleting these images before 5 days, I just object to broadening CSD with things that are more chronic (and repetitive) than the normal CSD-worthy articles that are in there ususally. Maybe we could make (yet) another category, and put them there... in any case, a WP:AN post seems useful. Feel free to copy whatever of this seems good. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is where Wikipedia is fun and not completely frustrating.

Since you seem interested in keeping Justin Bonomo, I just wanted to inform you that it's up for deletion yet again. Grindingteeth 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: CSD

Thanks for the reminder! At the time I initially tagged it, the article did not state the significance of the artist. The author kept removing the speedy tag and must have added more content simultaneously, which I should have paid more attention to. Thanks! -- Merope 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Toeic bridge history undelete

I left a message on Xoloz's talk page about this: I have a hard time believing that [[1]] is not a massive copyvio. Since you cast the sole overturn vote, you might want to chime in if it is worth keeping. ~ trialsanderrors 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanyou for your help. Peace be with you--HarmonyWorld 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Werrington Lakes

Since you think that the {{prod}} on Werrington Lakes was vandalism, perhaps you would care to tell us a bit more about these lakes. Like giving us a grid reference or indeed any external link. I expect you are going to tell us that the Car Dyke has been renamed Werrington Creek. -- 62.253.45.38 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I better come clean: see this history. The original author gave absolutely no context but from whatlinkshere and the content, it was obvious that the article was about NSW. Out of mischief, I added a link to the Peterborough, Werrington. Elonka then came along and blindly "improved" it, blithely ignoring the fact that there is no railway station and no Werrington Creek. Continuing the mischief, as an anon, I added the prod. No comment on your removing the prod and leaving inaccurate text in place. After adding a second anon to the article and the comment above, I decided I had better check and found to my horror that lake/s of this name exist in Peterborough as well! -- RHaworth 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My block.

I've been unblocked. Thanks for your help anyway. Norman. --The Blaque 11:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking my account. --Kidiawipe

38acres

Has toured entire midwest (IL, IN, WI, MI, IA, MN) and has done as much, if not more, as other acts listed on your web site such as Insyderz, W's, etc. I dont get the purpose of the site and how to function. I am not "marketing" the band just describing who they are. Their upcoming album is being mixxed by 8 time Grammy winner, Paul Salvo, at SalvoMixx in Nashville. Not sure what your "guidelines" are and how to meet them?

Radwell International Deletion Review

Thank you for offering to help me open the deletion review process. I have been very careful not to be "spammy". I continue adding material to this article and to others where I feel I can provide value. Greg.

Scientific notability guideline

Hey, I noticed that we have notability guidelines on everything from hotels to porn actors, but none on scientific concepts, theories, and terms. I started putting some intitial ideas together at User:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE and am looking for contributions and feedback now. If this essay can gather some steam we could move it into the WP space and make it an active proposal. There are lots of particulars in debates about scientific topics such as peer-review, citations, impact factor, etc., that editors should be made aware of before they offer an opinion based on the "Google test", and I think it would be a good way to collect all of this in one spot. Let me know if you're interested. Cheers, trialsanderrors 10:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate the effort, but I think it might be damaging to Wikipedia, actually. Notability (otherwise known as "importance") is something that should REALLY only be applied to types of topics that have an endless quantity of subjects within them. It makes sense for people, since we can't cover everyone. It makes sense for companies, so that we can filter out promotional articles. It makes sense for bands, since again, self-promotion is a problem, and there's no need to have articles on bands that aren't established. I don't think it makes sense at all for internet memes, since WP:V is the true test there, and "notability" adds nothing. I think it's even worse for scientific concepts and theories: see this comment from Jimbo, in which an obscure scientific topic is held out as an example of why we *shouldn't* require notability for everything. The only real reason to have a notability guide for science is if we're bowing to the fact that "notability" and "includability" are the same thing and apply across the board. WP:N is not an official guideline, and in fact has been rejected several times; it's an essay. Notability is something that screws up deletion big time: I saw someone PROD a Celtic deity once, saying it was "not notable" -- since when do Gods have to be notable? WP:V and WP:NPOV tell us everything we need to know about the inclusion of most articles; we only need notability when we need to interpret "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and I don't see how someone can claim that covering too many scientific theories makes Wikipedia indiscriminate. Mangojuice^talk 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, when I say "damaging," what I mean is that having such a guideline perpetuates the notability misconception. I would support having Wikipedia:Notability (science) say simply "Notability does not apply to science. The criteria for inclusion are WP:V and WP:NPOV."  :) Mangojuice^talk 13:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. It's not a view I share since I believe "notability" is a corollary of WP:NOT indiscriminate information, but I accept your view. I'm not a big fan of the notability guidelines myself, but I've seen science AfD's gone horribly wrong because editors thought Google search (or even Google scholar search) were indicative of a subject's importance. ~ trialsanderrors 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That would be wrong. Wikipedia:No original research is a criterion as well. Uncle G 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is not fame nor importance. The reason that notability is not such a concern in the field of science is in fact that notability's primary purpose is to make sure that Wikipedia does not turn into a directory, in accordance with what Wikipedia is not. There are directories in the fields of people, businesses, products, services, and web sites. There are no such equivalent science directories for an encyclopaedia to avoid being. Sciences don't have dates of birth, addresses, sale prices, or telephone numbers. ☺ Uncle G 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing references

When you merged Orgle to Llama, why did you remove all of the references? References are good things. References are what enable readers of Llama to know that the paragraph on orgling therein, which they may not have even heard of before, is actually correct and not some fabrication. If you are going to talk about verifiability, as you do above, then please help to ensure that articles are verifiable. Removing references is the opposite of doing that, and actually makes the encyclopaedia worse, not better. Uncle G 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Speedy of 38 Acres

Ok, sorry about that - I'd seen bands of very similar importance speedied before. Also, I have seen many, many AfD nominations that were tagged for speedy half-way through the discuaion, and ended as "the result was speedy Delete, so I had no idea that neither of these was an apropriate procedure since they were being used by experienced editors, and because no-one seemed to be complaining. Blood red sandman 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"not even all the admins understand it" - I feel better for that! :) Kudos for you for informing people! - Blood red sandman 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

alright

thanks for informing me. my bad. cya around and happy editing! Wikipediarul|es2221^Holla 04:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nutjobs and specials

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Mangojuice for commonsense; and for being open to review but being right and thus not needing it; and for being good for Wikipedia in every edit.

Heh heh! You gave him enough rope. And he then handed the rope to me and asked me to beat him with it. I declined and showed him the door.

Everyone was happy with the result. Well, maybe he wasn't. But the rest of us can live with it :o)

Oh, and have one of these. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hunter91 and co.

I suspect actual sockpuppetry. Review Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hunter91 for yourself and notice the distinct pattern of coordinated vandalism to articles such as Unterseeboot 973 and userpages such as User:Hut 8.5 and User:DarthBinky. The "meatpuppetry" voting for Hunter91 was just the last straw that linked them altogether. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Polls:

Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Wikipedia & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... -- Spawn Man 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

futureobservatory (David Mercer) copyright

I have left an email for your 'permissions' which simply explains: "As a best-selling author, over several decades and several dozen books, many of my submissions come from my books; especially from "A Dance Through the Fires of Time", "IBM: How the World's Most Successful Coropration is Managed", "Marketing" and "Future Revolutions". However, I hold the copyright for all of these - and assign any relevant aspects of this to Wikipedia."

Dr David Mercer

A thumbs up...

...to your AfD closure for 65 episode policy. While I did think it should be kept, that was possibly the most perfect closing explanation I've seen at AfD in a while. Since I'm perfectly willing to go after people for poor closes, it seems only fair to give kudos to the good ones, so *thumbsup*. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Siberian

Look, Mangojuice, before you are going to make a huge mistake by deleting this article, let me show you my analysis of the vote thus far. I sent this earlier to User:A Man In Black.

First of all, let me say that I completely agree that it this AfD was a hell of a mess. Yet, your answer don't convince me at all. You say that you discounted "pretty much anyone who didn't bother to make an argument". Look, I want to keep this whole discussion as civilised as possible, but in this case I really think you made a wrong decision. Indeed, it was a hell of a mess and sorting out the votes and arguments wasn't an easy task. I don't even expect you, as a admin, to read every single sentence that was written. So I took the liberty of doing it for you. It took me quite a few hours, but I think it was worth the effort. Here is the result. Let's first count the votes.

If we merely look at the votes for keep (including strong keep, mild keep etc.) and the votes for delete, we get: 31 keep, 32 delete, 2 abstain. That is, completely disregarding any arguments used or any number of edits made.

Of course, we don't want to include the votes of those who merely joined in order to vote here. If we discount anonymous voters and people who made no edits before this AfD was started, we discard:

• 11 for keep: Ottorahn, 62.33.22.253 (Rutopist), Roman Baiduk, be:User:Booxter, Kojpiš Anton, 212.40.42.166, 1 Anonymous, User:195.5.46.19, 85.202.213.101, Bluz, pbato, and
• 2 for delete: 213.171.61.131, Andrey Fedichkin.

Which still gives us the result of 20 keep, 30 delete. This would still classify as no consensus, methinks.

If we discount the votes not only of those who had no edits, but also of those who had few edits (less than 50), we additionally discard:

• 6 for keep: Steel archer, 82.209.xx.xx, Yaroslav Zolotaryov, Gwarnik, 85.141.215.53 (Дмитрий Никитин), Alexander Gouk (be:User:Alexander Gouk), and
• 5 for delete: Ochkarik, Vladimir Volokhonsky, Serebr, Boleslav1, ShurShur.

Thus, we end up with the following list of people who had a lot of edits before this AfD started:

• 14 for keep: Nat Krause, IJzeren Jan, Yury Tarasievich, Nlsanand, Yakudza, Timichal, Jim Henry, Amir E. Aharoni,  Grue , Shao, Flying Jazz, Sandstein, Oleh Petriv, Maksym Ye., and
• 25 for delete: abakharev, Just zis Guy you know?, mikka, Grafikm, MartinRe, bogdan, Edward Chernenko, Elk Salmon, FrancisTyers, User:MaxSem, MaxiMaxiMax, Ezeu, Kneiphof, Kaganer, Guinness man, Vlad2000Plus, Angr, Pan Gerwazy, BlueValour, Nikolay Kolpakov, Angus McLellan, CodeMonk, Mukadderat, Morpheios Melas, Khoikhoi, and
• 2 abstained: Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko), Pavel Vozenilek.

In other words, among the people with 50+ edits the final result would be 14 keep, 25 delete. Although a clear majority of the voters voted for deletion, this is by no means what one would call "rough consensus". Please note that none of these 14 keep voters can be counted as "part of Zolotaryev's flashmob".

But you are right, it's the arguments that should decide. So let's evaluate them a little.

• in favour of "keep":
  • Several people pointed out that the language got "serious media coverage" (Grue) or that it "look like a sufficiently notable conlang in that it has generated substantial press attention (Sandstein).
  • "Article (...) seems to adequately describe the cultural phenomenon (initiative on codification of dialects). It isn't OR, it's an article about OR" (Yury Tarasievich).
  • "request for a wikipedia in Siberian has been approved lately." (IJzeren Jan). The Siberian test wiki has over 1,500 articles.
  • "This is as valid as High Icelandic and Anglish. Few people use them, but they are clever people and their work has scientific value. It's more than original research and it's more than a stupid game - its creator acutally shows knowledge of Northern Russian dialectology (Amir E. Aharoni, who also added that the language is very complete).
  • Several of the "keep" voters agreed that the article should be reclassified, either as a dialect or as a conlang. Some of them also made suggestions for improvement.
• in favour of "delete":
  • "Original research, not outside the internet" (abakharev).
  • "A false presentation of an original development of Zolotaryov as a "standard dialect". You simply cannot make a "strandard" in 1-2 years" (mikka).
  • "shameless self-promotion" (bogdan).
  • Several people argued that the language is not real, fake. For example: "There are no such language, it's artificial creation of a small group of people" (Vladimir Volokhonsky).

Let me just point out that the argument that the language is artificial should not be a reason in itself to delete it. There are over 200 articles about constructed languages in Wikipedia.en, a lot of them are far lesser-known than Siberian. If the article contains factual inaccuracies, that should be solved by improving it, not by deleting it.

Let's also have a look at a few non-arguments used in the discussion. Disregarding comments of the type "Russian Nazis against development of Siberian culture" or "The 'language' is a creation of some separatist aggressive lunatics", we still have:

• in favour of "keep":
  • "This phenomena EXISTS. So the article on it has all right to exist too" (Oleh Petriv). Sure. My shoes exist as well.
  • "This language really needs to be noticeable by article, if such discussions are called by it" (pBato). That's autoreferencing.
• in favour of "delete":
  • "it's a constructed language, and one which is of no verifiable signifciance to an English-speaking audience" (JzG). It is explicitly stated that Wikipedia is a world-encompassing project, so wp.en is not exclusively targeting the Anglosaxon world.
  • "This article was already deleted once and rightly so. Nothing changed since" (Grafikm). This is not true. The original article was a stub with a merely a link to a LifeJournal. This was a decent article with plenty of references to the language itself and its press coverage.
  • "the article includes no references or sources, only including external links, which fails WP:V" (MartinRe). Not true, most of those links are actually references. As somebody pointed out, that was merely a formatting problem.
  • "nonnotable conlang without ISO 639 code" (Angr). This wikipedia features at least 200 conlangs without an ISO 630 code (very few actually have one). Several of them have passed AfD's with a broad consensus for "keep" nonetheless.
  • "with all the sources in Russian, this simply cannot be verified" (BlueValour). There is no policy that says references must be in English, just that they are in English whenever possible.
  • "A set of words is not a language" (CodeMonk). Perhaps the most ridicilous argument used in the whole AfD. Apart from the fact that it is not true, it wouldn't apply to Siberian even if it were.
  • "Was deleted in russian wikipedia too" (Morpheios Melas). Yes. So?

I did another count: how many people used reasonable arguments in their vote (not counting the "per" votes and the most obvious nonsense, but counting opinions I disagree with)? My conclusion: 16 keep, 14 delete.

Last but not least, I would like to note that during the AfD several improvements have been made to the article. I can't check it anymore, but Irpen renamed the article, and DrBug modified it to make it acceptable also to many of the delete voters. Unfortunately, both efforts have gone virtually unnoticed, but in fact they invalidate several of the previously made delete votes. Also, someone made the suggestion to substitute the article with a translation of the Dutch version (written by me), which many considered adequate and NPOV. The thought hadn't occurred to me, and unfortunately I hadn't seen that part.

Let's not even discuss the vote-stacking here. As you know, Andy Volokhov approached everybody who previously voted "delete", and calls to come here and vote for deletion were placed both in the Russian wikipedia and on the Russian messageboard here. But in all honesty, I suspect other people might have been doing something similar to gather keep voters, although I haven't seen it.

Yet, Man in Black, I don't really know how you got the idea that hardly anybody bothered to make an argument. In fact, I believe the "keep" arguments in general are much stronger than the "delete" arguments (mostly the usual non-notable/vanity kind of stuff). I guess the whole point of all this is the following: no matter how you count the votes, and no matter which arguments you decide to discount, the conclusion would always be: no consensus. I'm not going to attack you, nor am I questioning your good faith. But I really believe you should revisit your decision, in either of two ways:

• you restore the article and reopen the discussion, to see what new opinions can be gathered;
• you restore the article and close the discussion, with "no consensus" as its conclusion.

I really don't want to turn this into a personal attack on you. I don't want to make this incident more important than it is. And frankly, I don't want to start a Deletion Review either, because that would mean starting over the whole discussion all over again, which I believe nobody is waiting for.

That was what I sent to A Man In Black. Since he reopened the vote, one additional delete vote and one additional keep vote have been issued. So believe me, there is really no other conclusion possible than "no consensus".

Best regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However, although I basically didn't count votes (it was clear this debate attracted so much attention on BOTH sides that numbers would mean very little), I did examine all the arguments. I think the best thing from AMIB's talk page that backs up my decision (btw, I didn't read that until after my explanation & decision) was when he said that the sources detail the movement/project, but nothing seems to talk about the language at all. As I pointed out, a "no consensus" would be, pure and simple, BAD for Wikipedia. In big debates like this, we need a decision, so we can move on. Mangojuice^talk 15:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is precisely the problem. These sources actually dó discuss the language. I don't know why some of them have been removed. As one of wikipedia's self-proclaimed experts on constructed languages I can only say: if this language doesn't meet the notability requirement, then no more than ca. 20 of the current 250 or so do. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say, I fully understand your reasoning, but I disagree with it for two reasons:

• you say "no consensus" is not a decision. I don't agree with that. It ís a decision. Once an article is AfD'ed, it can go two ways: it is deleted when there is rough consensus for deletion, it stays when there isn't.
• you introduce several new arguments for deletion, which haven't been discussed at all. Instead of introducing them now, you should have introduced them in the discussion itself, so that we can talk about it.

For the record, I agree that the article in its current state is not a great example of NPOV. However, there are other ways of fixing that than deleting it.

Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A cappella redirects

Please check for double redirects while you're redirecting articles on collegiate a cappella groups to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Thanks. --SparqMan 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD of Free Range Studios

I question your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios as delete. Discouting IP's and sockpuppets, there were 3 votes to delete and 2 to keep. That looks like no consensus to me. After being "relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached" there were 2 (valid votes) for keep and 2 for delete. I don't know how you could make the determination that consensus was reached after that and close it as delete (only 6 hours after being relisted). Furthermore, while Wikipedia is not a vote, I think that further defends my position. The arguments for deletion were weak at best. "If the article could be rewritten in a more neutral, less commercial tone, I would vote to keep it". - If an article could be improved, then vote keep and rewrite, not delete. "Notability not shown" - If it passes WP:CORP (which it does) it doesn't need to be notable to have an article (even though I feel the company is notable). I would suggest undeleting and re-opening (and re-listing) the AfD to truly get a better consensus. VegaDark 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote, but a debate. One side can win out even with equal, or even minority, representation if that argument is sufficently persuasive or otherwise weighted. Sorry to butt in, the sig intrigued me and I clicked the talk button. It may be an unwelcome intrusion, and for that I apologize. -M^ask 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my comments noting that very point. "While Wikipedia is not a vote, I think that further defends my position. The arguments for deletion were weak at best." Thanks for backing up my statement though. VegaDark 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Free Range Studios on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Free Range Studios. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. VegaDark 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

help with Eric Lerner page

Can you help out on my page again? I feel that the protected version is now extremely unbalanced and , in contradicting that I was a Visiting Astronomer at ESO, libelous.

Request for Review of AfD

Hello. Could you please take another look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League fixtures and results? While your decision to keep two of the articles was correct in terms of consensus, it seemed there was clear consensus to delete the third, FA Premier League Results - August 2001. You may not have looked closely at the comments, but most people that voted "keep" also agreed that this one out-of-place month should go. It can always be put through AfD again, but I think it's kind of unnecessary given the sentiment expressed on the aforementioned page. Thanks. - Pal 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering this closure. BlueValour 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A poem

I have left you a personal poem on your user page. There is no need to pay me for this service. The Mekon 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian language (2 nomination)

Wow, I have to say: Great close and excellent closing statement. I've seen this one bouncing around the AfD lists, and I was scared to wade into it. Tough call, but the right call, and your closing arguments were extremely compelling. --- Deville (Talk) 04:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Leonard H. Tower Jr.

Hi Magojuice. This is the comment I left in response to User:MCB about this:

In response to your query, I did take a look at the votes in the AfD. However, I speedied the article not as a result of how the AFD was going, but because I would have speedied it if I had happened upon it and there had been no tags. In its current form, the article was a vanity page created by the subject that did very little to establish the notability of the subject. However, since there was almost nothing in the article anyway, it should be a trivial matter to recreate it with content that conforms to the Wikipedia manual of style and other relevant guidelines.

If you would like, I can look at the deleted content and reproduce it here for you, if you intend to recreate a suitable article and need any lost information.

Regards, Ryan

M:TG player AFDs

These are good faith nominations. I am satisfied that there is consensus not to include non-notable collecitble card players. If we are to delete an article about a CCG player on the basis that it fails the criteria of WP:BIO, then M:TG players should not be given special consideration. The articles I'm nominating do not include sources and do not substantiate notability beyond the realm of M:TG. Note that I am not going to nominate David Williams (card player) because it does meet the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:BLP. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please re-open the closed nominations. This deserves discussion as to whether or not ccg players are notable. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I and User:Malber

Hey, I just wanted to drop you a quick note. Kudos for admitting your perception of bad faith—too many people confuse "assume good faith" with "don't admit you assumed bad faith" which are two different things. For that, I appluad your honesty and also your moderation in requesting another administrator to become involved rather than exacerbating things through a potential conflict of interest. Of course, when you do the noble thing the outcome isn't always as you like and it seems your slant may not be that of other admins viewing the issue, so I just wanted to reaffirm your actions in what I saw at WP:AN/I#Malber (talk • contribs) and WP:POINT. BigNate37_(T) 00:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification on AfD closing

Hi, MJ. I was wondering if you could clarify your closing decision on Ferdinand Mülhens/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Mülhens so I can understand how WP:V should be interpreted. In this case, how can we tell that it meets or doesn't meet WP:V if no references or citations are provided? I assume that this information is (potentially) verifiable based on the comments of the other editors, so I really don't have a problem with the decision. Thanks! -AED 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Keep up the good work! -AED 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

I would like to thank you for removing the autoblock. I am also trying to find the username change page. Can you help? Oh and the IP being blocked may be a future problem due to the fact this is a school IP. My username is FallenBoy897.

Wicked595 - thanks

I got all my stuff sorted out and my new username setup. Thanks for your help.

Jordan Waring

Hello. I see that you recently deleted the "autobiography" tag on Jordan Waring's article. A number of people, including me, have tried to help Mr. Waring with citation format and internet searches, etc., and I did not vote to delete his autobiography in the recent AfD, but I was wrong. Waring continually comments on his own article (and was the main commenter on the AfD), and he argues with anyone who tries to improve it. The "substantive" material on the article was added by Waring (from his publisher's liner notes, mostly), or from Amazon.com., and much of it is not verifiable from reliable sources. Anyone who has received reivews on their work will, of course, cite only the favorable ones. Now he has threatened another editor on the talk page of the article, and he continues to remove the "autobiography" tag, even though Mr. Shepherd explained why it is necessary (see the talk page). Can you help? -- Ssilvers 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I am going to back out of this dispute. Waring only contributes to his own article, his father's (who appears not to be notable), and his grandfather's, and I think if you investigate the edit history on the article, only Waring has added substantive info to the article -- the other editors have merely copy-edited and checked what can be checked on *biased* sources, such as Amazon.com that are trying to sell Waring's album. The fact is, that he reverts any edit that he doesn't like and today threatened another editor. But, it's not worth my losing sleep over it, I guess. Best wishes, -- Ssilvers 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sig

Hi. I got the sig from User:Darklinkskywalker? Can I have several colors in my sig? Sugarpine t/c 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Oh, thanks! I was unsure at the time on whether to give world of purgatory a speedy delete or an afd.--Janarius 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

GreekEconomist

Fair enough. I wasn't completely convinced myself, but since I had been fooled by a previous Cretanpride sockpuppet (subsequently confirmed by Mackensen), I didn't trust my judgment. (I put the tags on GreekEconomist's page because I figured he had the right to know what was going on, and for administrative purposes.) I don't have any problem with the unblock. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mangojuice--before you felt that GreekEconomist's contributions were different enough from Cretanpride's that they might be different people. Would you mind looking at this diff and this diff, and the activity of User:Yannis234? To me, these look like sockpuppets, but I'm hardly a disinterested party. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you do look at my edit you will see that I merely suggested more info on his relationships with women and more info on his military campaigns. Apro made a post and I responded. I did not support Cretanpride's argument. If you are thinking its suspicious because I have an interest in Alexander the Great, then you have forgotten that I originally named myself after him. Akhilleus seems paranoid and combative of anything I do. I didn't even support anything Cretanpride has argued for. All I did was respond to a post and then make a suggestion. GreekEconomist 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and regarding my edit to Akhilleus, please see what I just posted on his talk page, unless he deleted it. Thanks. GreekEconomist 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Please disregard my request, as another admin looked into this. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

re: CGS

Hello again! I thank you for your comments and i hope i have extended the wikipedia community the respect they deserve when it comes to content on their sites. CommuniGate Systems is the creator of a very widely used email/voip communications client, used by companies such as T-Mobile, British Airways, to your every day small to medium business. I have tried my hardest to not make this a commercial page, and have only included information that can be found in press releases by our company, articles by independent technical magazines, such as (von magazine, eweek magazine, linux server, mac world, etc). I appreciate your assistence when it comes to developing a page, and i believe i have re-submitted the graphics in a professional manner ( i will do much more editing hopefully in the upcoming days ). I appreciate all concerns you have for the content that is displayed on this page, and i would love to hear any more comments you might have, in how i can improve this page, or if i have done anything that is contradictory to the rules of wikipedia, please advise me if you can. I understand that it is my job as a contributor to acknowledge and understand these rules and regulations before any content is submitted, but after comparing to similar minded, corporate pages, i am simply trying to follow the templates they have set forth, to have an acceptable page, while sticking to the written rules...

Cheers,

Eric Lerner unprotection

How long is long enough? It's been three days since anyone has even discussed this page. What if people just lose interest in this so-fascinating subject? Or, just as likely, what if no concensus is ever reached? Surely it would be better to arbitrate disputes than just to leave it in the state that it is in. Compare it in this state with almost any other entry on a controversial scientist. It is way outside any other norms.

Restoration of Become.com Entry

Dear Sir of Madam,

Please restore the Wikipedia entry for Become.com. This site meets the inclusion criteria

specified at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB specifically, we have received numerous media

awards and wide ranging coverage. Examples:

• PCMag: Top 101 Websites Fall 2005
• BusinessWeek: Best of the Web 2005 (nominated 2006...awards yet TBA)
• Forbes: Best of the Web

We have also had articles written about us in numerous publications, including:

• Wall Street Journal
• CBS MarketWatch
• MIT Technology Review

Just to name a few..full listings are available at: http://www.become.com/press_center.html

If you have any questions, or if I can supply additional data, please contact me at jglick at become.com.

Thanks,

Jon

I'm not sure what article you're referring to. Become.com has never existed. If you want a deleted article restored, or to allow recreation of one, you should list your request at WP:DRV but be sure to include what the title of the article was, or no one will be able to restore it in the first place. Mangojuice^talk 16:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

Thanks for taking the measure necessary for the unblock. I appreciate it. GreekEconomist 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving the now deleted Auctioning4u entry to WP Corp

Can you let me know how I can move the deleted enty (i.e. copy and paste it) to WP Corp. I cannot find the article anymore. Also, while not wanting to reopen the discussion I am curious why the decision has been different than for the ISold It articl?

Thanks Joschik 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Len Tower again

The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of Len H. Tower Jr. has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr. (second nomination). Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now expanded the stub a bit from the cited sources. I don't have the technical competence, nor the patience, to wade through the thousands of list mailings and usenet postings to see exactly what his programming contributions to the FSF, GNU, and modern Linux distributions are. I know from what I did find that he was one of the core programmers for the GNU project for a long time. Could you reevaluate whether this is keep worthy. I'm asking you in particular as I found your argument for deletion to be strongest last time around. GRBerry 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RE The daily aztec

I get what you're saying, but I thought it could possibly qualify as a small group. Digging into their website a bit more they seem to have a lot of job positions (I was envisaging a small office of maybe half a dozen people) so you're right, they probably don't qualify. The main problem is now if its doesn't get speedied it gets Prodded. The trouble with PROD is that the article creator can remove it without censure which means an article which is most likely going to get deleted then has to go through the tiresome and bureaucratic AFD procedure, stay on the site for 5 days and consume lots of people's time and effort. So I do tend to "stretch" speedy a little on occasion if I feel the article in question has no real notability, and leave it up to the admins discretion to see if I've overstepped the mark. exolon 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please. Really, I need help!

Hey again. Fortunatly, I was able to figure out how to perfect my sig. I still need help with my user page. Please help! It's been several weeks now! --RedPooka 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythic Russia

You kindly closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythic Russia some hours ago but the article is yet to be deleted. Sorry if you have this in hand but it might just have been forgotten :-) BlueValour 23:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Why do you want to delete the article I began, "The Daily Aztec" from Wikipedia? Is it unacceptible to post articles piecemeal - must the article be completed before it can be posted? I had planned on adding additional information in installments. If it is simply because the article is in regrard to a student newspaper, please consider that other such articles exist, for example UCLA's "Daily Bruin."

Please advise.

Thanks,

Ben Tambaschi 05:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

RFCU on Zephram Stark

Might I suggest some evidence to add to the page requesting checkuser? Given the latest activity, would be best to provide some evidence for the tie and abuse. UninvitedCompany has been declining several based upon the fact that no evidence of abuse has been presented, so I can only image that since nothing other than being a possible sockpuppet of a stark has been stated, it'll get declined. Kevin_b_er 05:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts

You are listed as a participant in this Wikiproject, which appears to have ground to a halt - I'm contacting all participants to try to get things rolling again... hope you can help! -- Medains 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Len Tower article, sources

Greetings. I read your comment on the second AfD for Leonard H. Tower Jr. expressing a potential interest for the article, should there be sources showing notability. I have found and cited some sources which I believe you might find relevant; they are cited in the second AfD, in this comment by myself. Capi 13:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This Catastrophe

Why does this article keep coming up for deletion? We do have an album out and a record deal with Flat 42 records, but because wikipedia has never heard of it, it needs to be deleted? the article was created to spread information about an up and coming band, but that cannot be done because one album is not recognised by some code thing i dont even understand? Im not trying to be funny here or anything, but i dont think the articlee needs to be deleted. But if our discography is the only problem, ill delete that bit. please dont delete our article :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.69.94.242 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry dude, i understand now. Thing is, seeing as the band have an album and gig regularly, making quite a name for themselves on the underground scene, i thought that they deserved a place on wikipedia just as much as say, metallica or any other band. I wasn't trying to promote anything, jusst to provide information on a subject that interests me and wasn't covered by wikipedia. Please don't delete :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.69.94.242 (talk • contribs) .

I mean, it says youre not a paper encyclopedia so there isnt any limit on what you can cover, so i don't understand why everything cant have an article. I was trying to remain neutral and just provide info, not say "This Catastrophe are awesome- see them now! or anything. I genuinely didnt realise small bands werent allowed to have wiki features :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.69.94.242 (talk • contribs) .

ok, but at the end of the debate what happens? if there are more positive then negative comments, it stays? or what? sorry, im new to this place

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.69.94.242 (talk • contribs) .

Ok! Still need help though.

Thanks. I've already read over those things. :-)

I kinda wanted for my user page to look like Butchanan Hermit's old User page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABuchanan-Hermit&diff=61625289&oldid=61504127

That's WAY too much code for me to adjust though... :-S --RedPooka 17:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. I'll ask you Q's if I need certain help.

In the meantime, I'll ask Butchanan Hermit if he's willing to let me have his old Userpage code. :-) --RedPooka 19:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him if I could, now to wait and see. --RedPooka 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of anywhere I can find a picture of a Pooka? With a white background? I was going to put it in my signature, you know, for that personal touch. :-)

(PS, it'll be small) --RedPooka 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No picture then. --RedPooka 20:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I keep asking questions... but do you know where I can find a reference chart of all internet colors? I want to change the colors on my page. :-) --RedPooka 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times

Hi,

I just checked the deletion page for the episode and it was said that the result was delete. However, I counted and I got 7-5 in favour of keep. I was told that it was majority rules in deletion votes and I was curious as to why the page was deleted. -- Scorpion0422 03:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Cassieiswatching

Hi. What percentage of keep/delete votes did you come up with when deciding Cassieiswatching should be deleted? I haven't counted them myself, but it looks fairly balanced between the two. Everyking 03:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just look at the case Scorpion pointed to and I am now alarmed. That was a majority keep vote, and you deleted it? Everyking 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The notability issue was for the voters to decide, not you. In my opinion 14-19 is a "keep" outcome; it's significantly less than the generally accepted two-thirds minimum. Everyking 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were including three IP votes, which makes the issue less clear. I still don't like the decision (or the reasons you are using, concentrating on the article and not the vote), but in that case I suppose it's not necessarily procedurally wrong. Everyking 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It used to be the case that a 65-75% range was necessary for deletion, to ensure extra weight for keep votes and err on the side of caution, but obviously some admins are slipping towards using simple majorities. Everyking 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

It has now been two weeks since my Eric Lerner page has been protected and over a week since discussion of it has ceased. Can you now please unprotect it? Thanks, Eric

• I'm having problems with JBKramer over edits on Eric's article page. After extensive discussion on the introduction, JBKramer is ignoring the agreed introduction, and making edits that discredit the subject, which appears contrary to policy. Please see the section "Lawrenceville plasma physics"

Thanks for your note. I don't want to start an edit war. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons tells us the sensitivities, and Wiki policy on the matter. I've highlighted the points to the other editor who has effectively ignored them. What more can I do? Have I read policy incorrectly, is policy incorrect, or what? --Iantresman 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel that I have misunderstood policy? --Iantresman 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sources are not necessarily unambiguous fact, but recall that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".WP:V And WP:BLP tells us to (a) Assume good faith (b) that we can us the subject as a source (b) And as I have shown, there are third party sources too? --Iantresman 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Nellis article

The Andrew Nellis was unfairly deleted according to the rules of Wikipedia. The rules require consensus. There was a majority but no consensus. What gives? This page should be put back up immediately.--Fmaack 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much for the kind welcome, however I still would like to express my disapproval of you deletion of the Andrew Nellis article. I read your reply that you based the deletion on a 6-3 count after discounting "few edit" persons, (I don't know if I think that this practice is entirely fair, but I will defer to your administrator judgment). However if you could please explain how "count" as you calculated meets the requirements of consensus I would appreciate it. I think that over 30% dissent is significant enough to show there has NOT been a consensus. Ratherhaveaheart 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This page has been restored by the users who voted to keep it, in total contravention of the majority opinion. I'm not sure I know how to revert the talk page back to the deletion log, but I suppose just clearing out the article will do for now. 66.240.106.2 13:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who edited the Andrew Nellis article, I was quite surprised to see it deleted. In fact, I somehow missed the entire debate. What reasons were given for deletion? Is that archived somewhere? Who was the admin that deleted it? --Nik 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Having now read the exchange that resulted in deletion, I agree that the article for Andrew Nellis was extremely flippant. And that was probably in part because it was created by people who know him. (If it were a vanity page, would we have mentioned how fat he used to be?)

However, I think it's safe to say that Andrew is a "landmark" in Ottawa. He has organized several serious protests (including one that shut down the Ottawa police station) and is an outspoken activist and artist. I vow, here and now, that if the article is retored, I will gut it, rid it of the fluff, and make it more serious, to meet the high standards of a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry. --Nik 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation of the your deletion process, you have reinstilled me with some of the "ideals" that WP stands for. I also am now going to be able to participate in AfD debates much more effectively by looking at the point by point arguments and addressing all that need to be addressed, furthermore I think you alluded to an excellent point which I had previously been having difficulty with, which is the fact that THERE IS a hierarchy of deletion reasons. Thank you again for your excellent adminstrator attention. Ratherhaveaheart 23:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You get a...

Red Pooka awards this Barnstar to Mangojuice for being perfectly helpful in every way on getting myself set up on the English Wikipedia.

--RedPooka 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nude woman pic

I noticed you were concerned about this. I think it should be deleted, until proof is provided. While it is online, anyone can use it in any way they want. Tyrenius 02:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your observation about PGUK. I will leave the present case to your judgement. It might be an idea to put a note on the image page that it should not be used till clearance is given. I am still a little concerned that anyone can download it and potentially circulate it all round the web, even though we're not sure about its origin. Tyrenius 16:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is minimal. I'm just very cautious. Tyrenius 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Old images

Yes you may delete those images. Unisouth 07:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ip block

Thank you for your help resetting the block on my Ip. I can now edit fine on my account. Thanks! Think outside the box 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:B&W Anime Fan

Hey -- just to let you know, this user is requesting unblocking. I assume the edit was in response to that user's edit on Wikipedia:Vandalism, but personally, I don't see the edit in question as disruptive, just improperly performed: (added "[[France|Oral sex]]" when should have added "<nowiki>[[France|Oral sex]]</nowiki>".) Is there another reason I'm missing? Mangojuice^talk 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like three admins agree with my reasons for blocking; subtle vandalism is still vandalism. (aeropagitica) 00:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Cliff Bleszinski

The AfD on The Palace of Deceit: Dragon's Plight has been closed with a consensus to merge. I merged in some very basic details of the game into Cliff's article, but feel free to merge more if you can find a way to do it well. You volunteered to help, so I thought I'd encourage that. I do think it's probably a good idea to merge Dare to Dream there as well, but that's just my opinion. :) Mangojuice^talk 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tx for the note. In the context of a mini-bio, that probably is all that's worth mentioning. Kinda sad to see that article go from two pages to one sentence, but if I can think of a way to add more in there I will (might expand it to two sentences! :-) And about DtD, that game is part of Epic's release history, so it gets an article by that merit. DtD is a better game than Dragon's Plight anyway, so nothing was lost. Again, thanks for the update.--Tagenar 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Nellis article

Sorry, but you are abusing the condition of your admin status and the Andrew Nellis article has been recreated in accordance with conditions with Wikipedia rules. There was a 7-7 vote on the article being deleted and there was never any consenus to delete this article. There has been a proper deletion review post made on September 30th 2006. I have also contacted Wikipedia concerning this matter as I feel it is insulting for one admin to delete articles based soley on what he feels are "real" users on Wikipedia. The user asking for deletion claimed the article was a vanity page. In fact, there is ample evidence from the early history of the Andrew Nellis page that it was created by the same people who eventually asked for its deletion. At first the article made light of Nellis' weight, health problems and political ambitions. This was changed and so-called vanity portions of the article were removed. When the article took the shape of an actual Wikipedia article, the users on Dalnet IRC, primarily those from the #Atheism and #memes channels called for its deletion as it no longer mocked Nellis' weight and other health problems. I am going to recreate this article as long as there is no consensus and as long as wikipedia admins wrongfully delete the article.--Fmaack 01:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Counting all votes, including obvious SPAs and meat puppets, at the time I submitted my vote to delete this vanity page, the count was nine to delete and seven to keep. Of course, mangojuice, who I assume can view much more information about our accounts and editing practices than we can (such as IP addresses and the like) almost certainly has a better idea of which votes are legitimate and which aren't. Rmfii 01:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Something shiny...

➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Mangojuice for reasonableness coupled with quick thinking... if only I could manage it too!

Meh. I should have seen that option. Bah. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell was I blocked?

Hi, why the hell did you block me from editing on 28th Sept?

Copyvio CSD

Note that the commercial-content-owner provision was changed; now all that is necessary is a clear notice of an incompatible copyright. —Centrx→talk • 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I don't use test4

Re: your recent non-action on 209.16.74.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is why I normally don't use test4. This guy has been getting more and more postal and has now started systematically to vandalize various pages. His vandalism after a test4, and your deciding to let it go will have an escalating effect. You will not have to deal with him, but the editors who work on the RNA interference page certainly will. I do not want an answer from you as I'm sure you are busy with other administrative tasks. I did want to you to know of the negative fallout when you encourage blatant vandalism. It will be a long time before I use test4 again, and is why I have given up on vandalism patrol in general. Cheers. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all vandalism is done by kiddies spending a few hours vandalizing Wikipedia until they are blocked. The user's IP is probably not dynamic. There are no obvious edits by anyone other than the vandal over a period of 2-1/2 months. I understand backlog. All I said was there are two very clear messages that were given today: The last warning is meaningless; and, for editors, there is little use in going to the trouble of giving warnings. The second was received loud and clear. If we are lucky, he will already have given up with the mistaken impression that he is blocked. Cheers. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Life is ironic. The real target of this vandal's ire is Fire and Mello and their claim to have discovered RNAi. Today's Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology went to Fire and Mello for that discovery (totally ignoring the plant work that preceeded that, but that's another story). With luck he will have given up now. Cheers. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A question

Hi Mangojuice, you blocked this AshyLarryMarcySon (talk · contribs) account yesterday for 24 hours, and another one appeared today, SonofAshyLarryMarcySon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What do you think about extending the block on the first to indefinite? Should we wait until after the 24 hours are up and see how they edit? DVD+ R/W 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

{{db-corp}}

Time to undelete! :) Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Gang Tian

Hi Mangojuice, sorry for potentially causing confusion with the order of the reversion. I added your pov tag, hopefully that was the only thing that had changed.

The reversion I was re-reverting [2] seems like a kneejerk reaction from 130.158.83.81. For example, they didn't even bother to keep the improved wikilinks I'd added, to Tian-Yau affair and Science (journal). Add to that that their reversion is poorly written and unsupported by evidence in a number of places....

If that user continues to revert, I'm afraid I don't have time to enter an edit war. Hopefully other people will notice and try to maintain some kind of quality. The whole thing could be a lot better, but I settled for trying to make it better than awful! All the best, --Jpod2 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing again

Able to edit again :) Will tell you if Forest returns under more socks....Aquafish talk 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Aquafish

It's actually quite obvious that Aquafish is ForestH2 (see his edits on WP:AIV, just 12 minutes after creating his account, where he outs his own sockpuppets). Would you please reconsider your unblock? Ral315 (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is standard ForestH2 behavior to claim it's his brother, that he's unrelated, whatever. Similar name- compound word (something that [[3]] of his sockpuppets share). He also noted on another clear sockpuppet that he was now able to create a new account. He makes a post] on Kpjas' talk page, having had no prior contact with Kpjas (yet his sockpuppets have dealt extensively with Kpjas) I would urge you again to please reconsider- ForestH2 and his sockpuppets have been a nuisance for myself and others, and in my opinion, AGF has a limit- that's way too many incidents to be a coincidence. Ral315 (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you to reconsider as well - He had several socks which he was using to set-up and manipulate a wikiproject, and was also was using socks to try and gain an admin position and also to vote on other RFA. That's pretty fundamentally "bent" behaviour - what you have actually just done is told him that's ok and if he tries again, well he can just pretend to be the uncle or the family dog next time. --Charlesknight 08:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions, thanks

Thanks for the welcome :) I have a few questions, now 3RR? What's this? What is a monobook.js? Also please explain all the featured/good/and peer review articles. Thanks. Aquafish talk 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. And how can I block vandalism users? There doesn't seem to be a button...Do you need some sort of status or something? About the 3RR, can you self-revert yourself more than 3 times? Why is the You have new messages (last change) bar coming up? I've already checked my talkpage.....Hopefully I am not asking to many questions. Wishes, Aquafish talk 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for the support on the Stress article. I'm still a bit of a newbie and have now learned how to add a signature to my statements. Powerofshark 15:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

CrzRussian DRV

I think this comment: it's just leaving some people the opportunity to further disrupt things. Several people voted "strong oppose" below: what's to stop them from recalling you immediately when this ends? is just a tad bit outside of WP:AGF. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete redirects?

Is it O.K to delete redirects? Aquafish talk 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RFD Nominations

You listed quite a few redirects at WP:RFD earlier today. However, you have not added the {{rfd}} tag to any of these. Could you please complete your nominations? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

An unblock request for you

User talk:Aquafish. Thanks, Guy 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And my apologies to you for not replying immediately; I had to attend to something before I was able to post this to your talk page. Ral315 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right on that. His problems are that in the face of any conflict, he switches accounts, and that he has a tendency to stalk certain areas. I'd be quite happy to let him continue editing in good faith with the assurance that he'd stick to one account, that he'd give the names of every account he's ever used, and that he'd preclude himself from ever seeking adminship. Anyway, thanks for reviewing the block. Ral315 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re. VKI Studios

Thanks for the tip. I'm only just becoming familiar with the new (and very welcome) changes to WP:CSD, and I wasn't aware that A7 had been expanded to include corporations and websites. Very glad to see that it does. But it was my honest opinion of the original article that it was intended to be promotional. The original author (User:Vkistudios) edited the article after I tagged it to be less blatantly spamalicious... I probably should've changed the tag at that time. VoiceOfReason 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Beefeaters

No, please restore it and prod it. I debated about that for a while, too, but then chalked that line up to self-promotion. (The bit about how the band apologizes for its hiatus made me question the veracity of the claim.) But it is an assertion of notability, and should probably be prodded. -- Merope ^Talk 19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

0.999...

So, 0.999... has been featured already, but I'll still try to clean up some of the prose, such as the leads for the second and third proof sections. Please drop by the talk page if you have any more advice! Melchoir 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING

I am fully aware of WP:LIVING, thanks. I believe you should review WP:NOR, specifically the genesis of the policy regarding "Physics Cranks." JBKramer 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Lerner's theories about the plasma focus are unpublished. JBKramer 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You are aware, I assume, that Mr. Lerner is soliciting donations from the public to his not-tax-exempt Focus Fusion Society, right? JBKramer 15:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-creation of Andrew Nellis article

You were the admin that deleted an article on Andrew Nellis a couple of weeks ago Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Nellis. You may remember becuase the author then re-created it twice and you had to SALT it. You may want to know that the author has re-created almost the exact same artice as Andrew_Bruce_Nellis. Thank you for your time. Vic sinclair 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)