Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 275: Line 275:


:Busy. I hope you had fun. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
:Busy. I hope you had fun. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am fucked in the head if I think that I can keep trying to hide the truth.

Revision as of 12:35, 15 November 2007

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.

Moseley

Ongoing notability concerns of Moseley Iron Bridge and Roof Company

Please place the full text that was deleted again in my sandbox. I'm not sure why this is such a huge deal regarding a company that did exist and no longer does exist. The link and page are to show locations (city, state) of where the company held business to show during the 1855 and 1875 time period and where it was located. The company was located in Philly, Boston, and NY, NY. The founder traveled where there was business for bridge building of his design type. I'm no sure why this article is not notable, please explain or edit accordingly but why am I not even given 24 hr time frame to correct. I'm still gathering details but this page is all I have found in researching the company and its "note-ablity". Isn't that why the wiki pages give anyone the ability to edit pages that someone created first. To add more "note-ability" I corresponding with the great great grandson of the founder of the company and he has provided notable references, sketches, professional drawings, and documents that the company is note-able of that time period. Not sure why if your read Thomas William Moseley or Hares Hill Road Bridge this page is re-deleted for speedy deletion. Please explain what exactly needs corrected. Thanks.

page I created was deleted "Moseley Iron Bridge and Roof Company" was deleted can you provide me with the text so I may edit to wiki standards

please refere to Thomas William Moseley and Hares Hill Road Bridge pages and I'll be cleaning them up!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguinter (talkcontribs) 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, I was not advertizing the Company in any way its an old company from the late 1800s that is not being promoted since it no longer exists but I was trying to incorporated it into the other links as a good way to find company related details and historical drawings & "artifacts"

Thanks for getting the page into my "sandbox" not sure what that is all about but shall get this all cleaned up soon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguinter (talkcontribs) 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Vandal

You'll be pleased to know that User:211.29.188.33 has been banned for a week. StephenBuxton 13:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) This is an ongoing situation, involving the same editor described in User_talk:Moonriddengirl#58.104.138.184 above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 9 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]
You're welcome. Any time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:06, 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]

My page

Please go here. Laleena 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you go. :( I hope you will return. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Matters

Thank you for taking an interest in this article, and thank you also for policing its precise deletion status. As a beginner on Wikipedia I have noted the concern with the article's notability and attempted to address it - I hope successfully. If you feel it needs more work to merit its inclusion, please let me know via my talk page and I will respond accordingly. I'd like to note that my stimulus to write the article and my model in drafting it came from a refererence to the magazine in an article on Cantab, which appears very similar in content and justification and has raised no notability problems. If Cantab is ok, should not the newly redrafted Energy Matters now be too? --Andrew Bud 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB)

I'm trying to find my page. I saw you that you deleted while another moderator stated he didn't see any problem with the page. As for why the tag was changed, the instructions clearly stated that if I was contesting the deletion, to post a new tag. I followed instructions.

My question now is, how is is that another game of the same genre is allowed to stay in wikipedia while mine is not? I've listed on the talk page the links and wikipedia pages I'm refering to but no answer was given. Zodiac01 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB)

I just read the guidelines on reliable source. "1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting)."

The references listed all the sites related to the work:

I'd like to have the page accessible so that I can modify it to reflect the style of the [Star Trek Simulation Forum|Star Trek Simulation Forum] since they've somehow convince you to allow their page to stay even though they are the same thing. Zodiac01 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB)

If I deleted the rules for gameplay, would that help. I'm still trying to understand why this article is not notable in comparison to the other one I noted. I don't know if you are aware but STSF is no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiac01 (talkcontribs) 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of userfying the material and will attempt to further explain policies to you in the hopes that you can create an article that is compliant. This will take another couple of minutes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope to make this an actual article and expand wikipedia viewers knowledge of PbBB gaming. USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB) alone is the only PbBB sample here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiac01 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material has been userfied and further information on policies left at your talk page. Please feel free to let me know if I can clarify any of that further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think i understand the "why" portion. Now I have to figure out how to get this into an actual article. But I'm lost as to what I need to add or delete. Zodiac01 17:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I have addressed the situation below, I'll see if I can offer some advice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard time tagging articles

Should I tag articles like Nathan Southern for sd? I found similar articles Gyorgy Kiss, Paul Donnelly (defender) created by same user. Wondering what to do with them. And this article Emily's Pub also confused me. Which one to tag for sd and which one to tag for unreferenced? How much time we should give for article like A&W Root Beer which was created on 25 sept 2004 to provide reliable references? Thanks. 19 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Let me take a look at the logs on that article and see what was up with it. I'll get right back to you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I've had a look, and I'll tell you first that I am completely uninformed about sports topics and so make it a practice never to tag those for speedy or to delete them when I encounter them. Obviously, the admin who deleted Nathan Southern agreed with your tag. The general rule of thumb set out at WP:BIO on athletes is that notability is met by:
  • Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis
  • Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).
If the article does not even suggest that the individual meets those criteria (and it doesn't meet the WP:BIO guidelines otherwise, such as with substantial, reliable third-party sourcing) then it can properly be tagged for WP:CSD. If it does suggest that the individual meets those criteria but otherwise fails (like if the information is unverifiable or it may be a hoax), then it's best to proceed through other steps of the [WP:DP|deletion process]], WP:PROD or WP:AfD. As far as waiting for sourcing, articles that are unsourced can be nominated for deletion, but it's generally a good idea to run a search yourself first. With 93,600 hits on Google, it's very likely that reliable sourcing can be produced for A&W, even if the article's contributors are very slow to do so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By this rational I got more hits than you for 'Nathan Southern'. It is horrifying to search how many results pertains to this 'Nathan Southern'. You may suggest to use different keywords. I did it today with Nelson (singer) and it wasted my one hour. Keywords like 'singer nelson bronx new york' were leading me to some insurance broker.

If burden of reliable sources is diverted to new page patrollers and admin, then... what can I say. Thanks. 19 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, checking sources is quite the game of hide and seek. :) You may wish to tag the article for reference improvement. The three tags I use most often are {{unsourced}} (if there's nothing), {{primarysources}} (if everything goes to the company's website or some such) or {{refimprove}}, if what's there is insufficient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flubber (character)

Hey whats up Moonriddengirl, its PaidInFull1987. You recently deleted my flubber page and im not here to scold you, you were right for deleting it, it was silly vandalism, I was just being silly. I was just wondering if you could send me the paragraph that I wrote because it does hold some personal value to me. Don't worry, im not going to attempt to put the Flubber page back up and vandalize again, I just got a kick out of it and I want to get that paragraph back so I can e-mail it to my friend, who would definately get a laugh out of it. Im hoping you can have a sense of humor about all this and grant my request, I would highly appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaidInFull1987 (talkcontribs) 17:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, how are you? Would just like to ask quickly where the source is to say that that band is signed to InsideOut Music? Thanks in advance, friend. ScarianTalk 19:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discography at AMG shows three (I think three) of their albums on that label, including their two most recent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just saw one their website that they're signed to it. Nevermind. Thanks anyway :-) ScarianTalk 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks so much for deleting a few of the pages in my user space:) Cheers!--SJP 20:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for the smile. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#1000

He Moonriddengirl! The words you are reading now are a bit special, because they form my 1000th edit (see here and check the <count> tags). Not much compared to your amount. But still, I've been browsing through Wikipedia for quiet a while now, and ever since, not a day has passed in which I did not thought about this project.
But anyway, ehm... I was wondering, could you give me an apprentice badge? That would be great! I ask you because, as you can see on my talk page, you are not only the last person who left me a message, but also the only person I ever had a nice conversation with.
I've seen you've done a lot of good things for WP lately, even became an admin! Keep up the good work, but don't get bonked you know... Cheers, Face 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Congratulations. :D I have so bestowed the tag upon you. Feel free to move it if you don't like where I put it. I have been pretty busy on Wikipedia since we first encountered each other. Comes of having No Life. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for (fairly recently) adding a mini discography to Big Joe's page. He, amongst others, is a passion of mine. Is your work now done, or are you still working on this? Can I help (really not sure how)? Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am done. :) If you can find sources, his discography could use more individual article creation. Also, the article I created for The Boss of the Blues could use considerable expansion. I am slowly building a print library, but, alas, haven't much, and the internet doesn't care so much about the jazz guys. (At least, not "reliable sources" internet. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE: USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB)

Would changing the opening to the following help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiac01 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the central issue, which is reliable sourcing to verify that this forum is noteworthy has still not been addressed. This seems to be relying for notability on the assertion that the webhost is "a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators"—this may not be sufficient if the webhost is judged to be "hosting content on entertainment-like sites" (which is excluded by policy). Also, Horizon Fleet does not have an article, so it's not clear-cut that the host is respected. Have you tried asking assistance at the Wikiproject I recommended? They may be able to help you with specifics as regards hosting notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Kamperos

Thanks. Cbdorsett 08:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R&I at MRG

Hi. I think that we are ready to publish the text from the MRG sandbox to the R&I article, overwriting the existing text for the section with the same name. I think that to keep up some momentum on our exercise we need to get a fresh section posted for discussion. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys quite sure you have consensus on this version? I notice things picked up a bit on Friday. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recent discussion seems to be totally off point, regarding the validity of the article's title and whether there should be an article on a parallel topic, and whether this article should be renamed or supplanted by the other topic. It has nothing to do with this section. I am afraid that if we don't make some progress we will lose any momentum toward cooperation. We can always revisit this section later. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic Tricks

.......re: my Sponge Balls edit.....I see where you're coming from, HOWEVER.........I think the item should be moved (within the same article) to Utilities/Accessories. Your thoughts? Buddpaul 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you're proposing. Are you talking about an existing article or suggesting a new one? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry......go to WP: List of Magic Tricks and look for Sponge Balls there....I know that essentially your issue was with the article itself.....nothing else.......I think I'll beef up the article a little bit (so it's more encyclopedic) AND leave what you transwikied over to Wiktionary. Buddpaul 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my experience with magic topics is pretty limited. I came upon your article because somebody had tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1—essentially for lack of context. Otherwise, I doubt I'd have ever seen it. :) (I disagreed with the tag, by the way, which is I why I proposed it for transwiki instead. The article had context, but was a bit brief for an encyclopedia article.) If you can expand the article to encyclopedic details, that would be great. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted article: Wiki- Generations_of_mesh_networks

Dear Moonriddengirl,

You had written to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fdacosta) : Dear Fdacosta, regarding your contribution to History of wireless mesh networking, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites, or from printed material, without the express permission of the author or copyright holder. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from this URL: http://www.meshdynamics.com/third_generation.html. As a copyright violation, the article has been deleted under the speedy deletion criteria.

I am Francis daCosta, the founder and CTO of Meshdynamics. I am also the author of the deleted article on Wiki- Generations_of_mesh_networks. And I am also the author of what appears on [1].

And I am the author of both pictures, the one on my company website and the one I contributed to Wiki and released all ownership rights to.

I had contributed the article to Wiki because the generations of mesh networking products is a general topic and deserves a fair hearing. There is far too much hype around mesh networking and very little factual information on mesh networking architectures. The world needs to understand the evolution of mesh networks, else people have the wrong impression of mesh, perpetrated by the powers that control hype.

I will wait to hear from you before I consider re-posting the article.

Regardless of your decision, thank you for your efforts in keeping Wiki clean. I have tremendous respect for the neutral stand Wiki takes and am grateful for the contributions made by you and so many others like you to avoid it being overrun by commercial interests.

Regards,

Francis daCosta Founder and CTO www.meshdynamics.com fdacosta@meshdynamics.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdacosta (talkcontribs) 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. The rest of the letter that I left on your talk page sets forth the steps to follow if you have permission to use the material or are the copyright holder and choose to repost it. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission are specifically for the former case, but also demonstrate in the latter case how to leave a note on the talk page if you choose to send a permissions letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and what will happen then. (See specifically Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed.) If you are prepared to release the information to public use under GNU Free Documentation License, which doesn't impact your copyright of the material but does permit the text to be freely redistributed, to be modified and redistributed in modified form, and to be re-used commercially (in all cases with proper attribution of the author), then there's no reason that you cannot post material that you have copyrighted yourself. If the steps I left at your talk page are not clear, please let me know. I have had limited involvement in this stage of addressing copyright concerns, but will gladly assist you in pursuing this as I can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the PROD on the William Mcguinea article

Regarding the William Mcguinea article, try a search on the book titles or other things mentioned in the article, instead of the name and it will become clear most of the content of the article is accurate, but it is the name "William Mcguinea" that is the hoax. If a hoax article isn't a reason for speedy deletion there is probably some other criteria this could be speedy deleted under because the article has every indication that it was created with harassment of a Wikpedia user in mind. The person on Wikipedia who can probably best explain further is User:Will Beback. I'll let you and him take it from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.132.16 (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If the article was created to harrass someone, it might be speediable by G3 (vandalism) or G10 (attack), but some evidence would need to be offered to support it. From the perspective of an outsider, it is not obvious what the transgression is. I'll ask User:Will Beback if he has input. Otherwise, you might want to bring the matter to WP:AN/I, though (again) some greater degree of explanation will probably be necessary. And please remember to sign your post with ~~~~. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions?

As you've some experience with dealing with editors whose contributions are 95% valid, 5% flaming, have you any suggestions on what can be done with this sorry saga? (See User talk:Canterberry and this AN/I thread for the background to the whole sorry mess.) I'm looking for someone who's totally uninvolved, is used to dealing with flamewars and is willing to wade through content disputes on articles about railway lines, and am racking my brains trying to think of someone. The obvious candidate, Giano (don't laugh - this is the kind of situation he shines in) has rather a lot on his plate right now. Any ideas? Or any suggestions of anyone else who could sort it out?iridescent 00:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a complicated situation. Are you looking for somebody who can check in on his contributions periodically (or routinely) to ensure that he's operating on the up & up? If so, I might suggest that more than one person would be a good idea. I wouldn't mind helping in that capacity, but I would feel far more comfortable doing so if there were another editor to whom I could take concerns for a gutcheck. It's a fairly heavy responsibility. :) I wonder if User:ArielGold would be up for helping out. She seems able to remain level under attack. Alternatively, I'm also thinking that User:HelloAnnyong could be good. I worked with him or her on a 30 dispute on Ben & Jerry's flavors (oh, the drama), and s/he impressed me with the way s/he handled things. I guess I first need to know more specifically what you have in mind. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a weird one - he was blocked for issues that ultimately stemmed from technical arguments about the formatting of railroad templates, and virtually no-one is competent to actually judge these issues. I suspect by socking to evade the ban, he's possibly made it a moot point.iridescent 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't exactly encourage community trust, does it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R&I Progress

Hi. I replaced the section in the sandbox with the history section. Would you be so kind as to archive the discussion at the talk page, so that we can start fresh, only leaving the last section which I jsut added. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 02:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History_of_wireless_mesh_networking

I have done a first draft on History_of_wireless_mesh_networking and uploaded some new pictures that are also released under GFDL. I hope I have done everything correctly. I also noted (at the end of the content page that all the content is available for distribution. Also, there was some confusion between this content and the Generations_of_mesh_networks that should be redirected to History_of_wireless_mesh_networking, but I am not sure how to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdacosta (talkcontribs) 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The GFDL notice, if it's to be added, needs to be added to the other website, not to the Wikipedia article. That disclaimer is already present at the bottom of every Wikipedia page. What you need to do for the Wikipedia article is send an e-mail from an address associated with that website to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or send a postal message to Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL. Then you put a note on the article's talk page, Talk:History of wireless mesh networking, asserting that you have done so. After the letter has been received and reviewed, a Wikimedia staff member will come along and confirm permission. (Please remember to sign your message on the talk page with ~~~~, which will place your registered name and the timestamp on your note.)
As to the second part, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you asking how to make a redirect page? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankspam

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaidInFull1987 (talkcontribs) 04:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Generation of Mesh Networks to History of Mesh networking

1. Thank you, I have added the release notices to the discussion page of of History of mesh networking.

2. I was trying to redirect the Generation of mesh networks page to History of Mesh networking but not sure how to do this. I was putting in an note under Generation of mesh networks but it was deleted. So evidently that is not the way to be doing this. I am new at this so please forgive me.

3. On a separate topic, I am the Founder and CTO of Meshdynamics, a wireless mesh networking company. I have taken pains to respect and comply with all WIKI rules and guidelines. If we dont respect these rules where would WIKI be? I am offering my free time (not a lot of it) to help with mesh networking pages that frankly need much work. I attempted to fix one (Wireless_mesh_network) but someone decided it did not need fixing. It did. The information is currently either inaccurate or blatantly commercial and makes the mesh networking industry seem sleazy. I may be reached at 408-373-7700 if someone would like to chat with me about helping clean Wireless_mesh_network and other pages.

Francis daCosta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdacosta (talkcontribs) 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have you e-mailed or snail-mailed your release to the Wikimedia foundation? That step is crucial. The e-mail address is permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org; alternatively, the postal address can be found at Wikimedia Foundation. If you have e-mailed or mailed the foundation, your note at the article's talk page should indicate as much. When the e-mail or letter is received, the foundation will put a code providing clearance for the usage on the talk page. Without this step, other administrators may act from copyright concerns to delete or blank the article. We appreciate your contributions, and it's unfortunate that such elaborate steps are necessary, but we must protect the interests of creators to the best of our ability.
As far as the Generations of mesh networks is concerned, I'm not sure if a redirect is necessary, but if you believe that is a likely search term that Wikipedia users will enter, you can create a redirect page by following the steps described here.
I see from your edit summary at Wireless mesh network your offer to be a "subject expert" if Wikipedia would like. Please note that Wikipedia content is created by volunteers and that one of the core philosophies is that anyone may edit it. Each article is, in a sense, a mini-project, and contributors determine for themselves which articles to assist. If another editor disagreed with your changes to that article, you might want to discuss it at Talk:Wireless mesh network to see if you can reach consensus. Consensus building is a central part of Wikipedia development.
As you have interest and experience in the field, you might want to consider becoming involved in a Wikiproject, which coordinates efforts on certain types of articles. That one seems to be governed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer networking. If you choose to communicate with the other editors in that project on its discussion page, please remember to sign your notes with ~~~~ (you can also use the automatic signature by pressing on the ~~~~ just below the "Save page" buttons). This will sign your registered username and add a timestamp to help other editors in their communications with you.
Happy editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hows life

Hello there.

Recently i had a trip to Golden Temple, Amritsar. U can watch the pics at Here. Hows life these days? --Jayanta (Talk) 08:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busy. I hope you had fun. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fucked in the head if I think that I can keep trying to hide the truth.