:Hi, Kevin. I'm glad to hear that you're making progress. :) I would not personally be comfortable indefinitely extending full protection to the article. As I read [[WP:PP]], I don't think it's meant to be utilized often. Even an article as contentious, say, as "abortion" seems to receive incremental protection rather than long-term full protection (just glancing at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Abortion log]). As it stands now, the protection is set to expire on November 11th. When it does, if edit warring resumes, the article may be protected again. However, it is highly preferable, I would think, to encourage the editors involved to simply make a habit of discussing major changes to the article on the talk page before implementing them. I have not been extensively involved with page protections, though, and I would certainly understand if you want to bring the matter up with an admin who is over at [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]]. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:Hi, Kevin. I'm glad to hear that you're making progress. :) I would not personally be comfortable indefinitely extending full protection to the article. As I read [[WP:PP]], I don't think it's meant to be utilized often. Even an article as contentious, say, as "abortion" seems to receive incremental protection rather than long-term full protection (just glancing at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Abortion log]). As it stands now, the protection is set to expire on November 11th. When it does, if edit warring resumes, the article may be protected again. However, it is highly preferable, I would think, to encourage the editors involved to simply make a habit of discussing major changes to the article on the talk page before implementing them. I have not been extensively involved with page protections, though, and I would certainly understand if you want to bring the matter up with an admin who is over at [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]]. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
== My page ==
Please go [[User:Laleena|here]]. <font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="blue">[[User:Laleena|Laleena]]</font></font> 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the plus sign at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil comments here, unless you specify that you would rather I respond at your talk page. If I've left a note for you to which I think you may respond, I'm watching your page. Typically, I do not watch pages where I've left simple policy clarifications. If you want to discuss a note with me further and aren't sure if I'm watching your page, please feel free to open a new discussion with me here.
If you have a question about an album assessment I have made, please look first at the album assessment guidelines. It may answer your question. If it doesn't or if you'd like me to reassess, please let me know.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template warning I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked.
This user is back and up to his same tricks again. I have just reported him to AiV. Seems like a vandalism-only account to me, and should be treated as such. I thought you might like to know, considering his vandalism to your user page. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. :) This time it's already been taken care of. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, of course. Actually, after seeing the message above from Moongirl enemy, I decided to do some checking, and found a pattern of behaviour from multiple IP addresses, in 4 different ranges, all of which relate to Dapto High School, University of Western Sydney, and to you (either your user page, talk page, and/or your edits). I assembled this list by going back through 3 months of edits on the U. of W. Sydney article history and looking for patterns. I will forward this to you at your request, but would not assume to take up space on your talk page with it without your approval. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These days, he/she/they seem primarily to focus on those two articles and taking ineffective potshots at me or (occasionally) one of the other editors monitoring those articles. Given that the behavior has diminished tremendously, I suspect that eventually he/she/they will tire of this and move on. I'm not sure what to do with it other than address it as it appears. I haven't reported it ANI because it seems to involve shared or dynamic IPs. Do you have experience that suggests a different approach? :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, no, I have very little experience with this sort of thing, and have never made a report to ANI. Given that most of the IPs have not been active in quite awhile (late September for most of them), and only two are currently active, I doubt much would come of an ANI report. It's fairly clear by looking at the editing patterns that this is the same person, or, at most, a couple of people sharing the same demented viewpoint. But, that and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee 'round these parts. The best option at this point, we can agree, is to watch the articles he/she/they like to edit and hope they tire of this game. All the best. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All righty. I appreciate your scrutiny and your input. As you've no doubt noticed, there have really been a couple of us watching these articles, and more eyes are better. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GlassCobra's RfA
My RFA
Hey Moonriddengirl! Thank you so much for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I also wanted to thank you profusely for helping me deal with the last minute troubles, and also for adding the admin tag to my user page. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any help or opinions! GlassCobra 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not too bad, I think. I've blocked a few IPs, made my way through part of the CSD backlogs, and even got to indef block a sockpuppet. Not first for the first day, eh? Haha. I do always imagine that I'm going to get something really wrong and get in a lot of trouble, though. I guess that sort of comes with the territory... GlassCobra 14:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate you saying that. :D I've only closed one AfD thus far, and it was pretty uncontroversial. I think it might be a bit before I get onto anything that might lead to conflict. Anyway, thanks again for everything! GlassCobra 15:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the WP:Speedy tag from the above-named article, I haven't done this kind of thing (requesting deletion of articles) before, so it was done in good faith. I've now added a WP:Prod template instead. --The.Q(t)(c) 15:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Thanks for keeping an eye on article quality. :) (Oh, and I haven't got a doubt it was done in good faith.)--Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV
He Moonriddengirl. In view of your post here, I that that you might like reviewing this discussion. Best.-- Jreferee t/c 13:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. It seems like I'm a little too late for that party. Everybody has been indefinitely blocked for legal threats. It's too bad that the creator didn't read the response at the Drawing Board after asking for input there. If she had followed the suggestions, the revised article might have been acceptable. I'll keep an eye on the discussion in case the users are unblocked and it does resume. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page edits
Hi - I saw the edits you made to the Thornton Tomasetti page and wanted to know if how it's worded now meets your criteria. I don't want the page deleted and I'm not sure who has been posting the more fluffy descriptions which you edited. Regardless, I am fine with your edits and understand why you did them, I just wanted to be sure the page is ok now and not queued up to be deleted.
Thanks,
Mpinzuti 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article is not currently under deletion review. I removed the speedy tag because I disagreed with the assessment, but did address (as you know) a few statements I felt were problematic in that regard. I see that the editor who tagged the article has returned to the page since my edits but did not pursue deletion, so it may be that his concerns were addressed. I don't believe the article is at this point overly promotional; other editors and administrators might feel differently. However, I imagine that at this point if the article were still perceived as problematic, deletion would probably be pursued through the articles for deletion debate process, in which case the page would be tagged so that all interested contributors could weigh in. These conversations typically last five or more days, though on rare occasion consensus might be established strongly enough for early closure. If you want to strengthen the article, it could do with more inline citations from reliable sources to verify its notability. I don't think it's dangerously lacking in this as it stands, but I tend to err on the side of caution in creating my own articles. :) I hope this helps. Please let me know if you'd like to me to expand on anything. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I appreciate the quick reply. I'll review the text with our communications folks and try and provide the line citations you suggested. I'm new to the world of Wikipedia (been doing intranets for years, just recently been given the keys to external sites) so I am teaching myself as quickly as I can. I do have a random question though: if you check the edit logs of the page, someone named CWJE went in there a few weeks ago and wrote a ton of the text that you've since edited. I wanted to know who that person was (suspecting it was someone in our firm) but couldn't see a way to track the IP at all. So my question is, outside of the talk page to resolve conflicts or ask questions, is there a way to see the IP's of individual edits to a page? That would at least tell me if the person is internal or not. Anyway, thanks for any help you can send my way. I'll work on getting some edits up there to strengthen the text and hopefully make everyone happy in the end :) -- Thanks, Mpinzuti 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Race and intellignece protection expired
Hi.
We are starting to make progress on Race and Intellegence but the protection expired this moring and already an IP has added significant undiscussed text to an article we are trying to drastically trim. Can you revert to the prior protected version and reinstate protection. Ironically I had just sent an email to Guy, but as he is in Britian it is not likely that he will be able to respond beofre all hell breaks loose here. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kevin. I've extended the protection on the article another 5 days, but since the material inserted does not appear to be a case of clear vandalism or to carry legal impact, I have to protect in its current version per policy. Whether you incorporate the new additions into the consensus version you're creating is, of course, up to you guys. I'm glad to hear that you guys are making progress. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you deleted my page could you please tell why this was??Johnterrylover 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire contents of the article Cally timmins when I deleted it were "woohoo!! to be continued...." This is an obviously unencyclopedic article and was deleted accordingly. Creating and recreating pages that are nonsensical or obviously unencyclopedic can, like attacking other editors, lead to a block. Wikipedia welcomes all constructive contributions. If you are unsure how best to contribute, you may wish to review our introduction page. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on picking up on a hoax and listing it for AfD (here). That's really the biggest hoax I've ever seen. jj137 (Talk) 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm afraid I don't get credit for spotting it. :) It was tagged by somebody else. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editor User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel did not follow proper procedure when nominating Nndb for deletion. He/She added the entry to the template but did not file an entry in the proper TfD page for discussion. This entry is now dated 29 October 2007 more than enough time to properly follow procedure per WP:TFD. Attempts have been made by other editors to remove the tag and it has been reverted, claiming it is 'inappropriate to remove a TfD while in discussion', yet there isn't an article for dicussion. In this case it appropriate to remove the tag from the template and consider it AGF or Vandalism? I ask because I noticed someone has their AWB set to delete entries from articles based on this bogus or improperly filed TfD tag.
Nevermind; I found it.. Followed wrong link.. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 06:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page deletion
Hi, I just created the page Tim Dunlap bio, and you deleted it due to a copyright violation. I had the author on the IMDb that wrote the article email wikipedia stating that it can be used. I wrote the work, and I was the one who wrote it for IMDb. Therefore it is not a violation of the copyright laws. Thank you for you time and support.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeguy3 (talk • contribs) 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If permission has been emailed to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, then the article can be restored with a note on the talk page indicating that permission has been sent to the OTRS system. Someone from within the system will tag it accordingly. However, I note that your new article Tim Dunlap (by contrast to Tim dunlap, which is the one that I deleted for copyright violation) has been deleted by another administrator as failing to satisfy notability guidelines. Before recreating the article, you may with to review WP:BIO, paying particular attention to the criteria for creative professionals, to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have done as you requested. The information is not formatted in the same manner as the other information you have on the page, but I guess you can do that if you wish. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I'll take care of formatting. :) I appreciate your assistance. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound
Hi. It looks like we have completed the first pahse of our editing process. Can you substitute the text at User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound into the Race and intelligence article later today? Futurebird has removed the editing notes etc. and is going to work on some flow issues. I'll be gone for the weekend, but have asked Futurebird to post the next section to User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound so that our experiment can continue. Thanks so much for your patient assistance in resolving this thorny issue. --Kevin Murray 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on it, and when the strikethroughs (or Futurebird lets me know it's ready) will put it up. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
R&I protection
HI.
We are making good progress at R&I but I would like to request that the protection be continued indefinitely while we work as we have been in consensus. I'm hoping that a culture of cooperation will develop. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kevin. I'm glad to hear that you're making progress. :) I would not personally be comfortable indefinitely extending full protection to the article. As I read WP:PP, I don't think it's meant to be utilized often. Even an article as contentious, say, as "abortion" seems to receive incremental protection rather than long-term full protection (just glancing at the log). As it stands now, the protection is set to expire on November 11th. When it does, if edit warring resumes, the article may be protected again. However, it is highly preferable, I would think, to encourage the editors involved to simply make a habit of discussing major changes to the article on the talk page before implementing them. I have not been extensively involved with page protections, though, and I would certainly understand if you want to bring the matter up with an admin who is over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
