User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I attempt to keep conversations in one location—so much easier to follow them in archives down the road!—), so I will likely respond to you here (if I've already been talking to you at your page I may continue to place my comments there, if it seems necessary for context). Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available. If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here. thank spam Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky Muktadhara and more The Barnstar of Recovery I award you for that amazing application of The Heymann Standard and saving the article from people who didn't know better. And, also for showing how well this collaborative-anarchist community functions. Sorry that I wasn't looking this way when it happened and missed the action. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you! :D That's a nice thing to return to. :D I'm happy to help an article when I can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks for fixing the layout on Disappointment --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Sure thing. And thanks for adding the picture! I think it's a fabulous representation. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Question Hi, there! On your user page you claim that you: "typically do not work on articles in which I have a strong personal interest. I work on a "catch and release" philosophy, and after my involvement with an article and a brief period of nurturing will usually let it go. I have not yet encountered any kind of ownership issues, and I don't want to. :)" But have you ever, say, posted a person's unpublished CV and arranged for it to be cited on the web, in order to shoehorn unverified information into a biography article? Have you ever edited biography articles of persons who are known to you? Have you ever edited biography articles at the behest of the subject of the article?Irvine22 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Irvine22, please be civil. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Three questions. I'll respond first to the last. Yes; occasionally in the context of responding to requests to edit articles by persons with announced COI and more commonly in monitoring against harassment or what seems to be biased editing in response to requests at WP:BLPN. There are several articles I monitor and/or have monitored for such reasons; in addition to the one where we've interacted, they include Tom Barker and Susan Polk. I would much rather not have to. I monitor Don Black (white nationalist) for vandalism following a request at BLPN, even though I personally find the subject of white nationalism distasteful, to say the least. :P I don't know David Eppstein (talk · contribs) and don't believe there's very much overlap in our contributions to Wikipedia, but we did intersect here, at which point I added that article to my watchlist as one to keep an eye on. As far as posting unpublished CVs, nope. I have, however, provided references to material challenged in articles where I find them; when it doesn't concern notability, the subject's own webspace is a fine source for biographical information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC) You've inspired me to add some info on my userpage about this aspect of my work. :) While I haven't been that active at BLPN lately, I've accumulated enough of this to merit more explanation...particularly as one of the articles I monitor for problems has become my "most frequently contributed to" article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC) copyrighted material?? I think not. The stuff I posted was a copy from a website. but it was in no way copyrighted..... there was no (c) symbol and i'm sure he didn't do a poor man's copyright or sum such. I know saying this will do nothing. but Fight the Fight is all it's good for. Wikipedia Ustu be good. it's the internet. one big grey area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexgo (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC) As the copyright policy on Wikipedia indicates, "All works are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." In this case, that does not seem to apply. Lack of a "c" symbol doesn't constitute explicit disclaimer of copyright. You are welcome, however, to post an article in your own words, though in this case you might wish to first review the notability guidelines on films so you can be sure that your article demonstrates that it meets those guidelines. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC) New fan? Hi Moonriddengirl. I happened to see this edit showing up at hideliu. He he, that guy/girl must really love you! Apparently a few anons are targeting Talk:University of Western Sydney. I will put that page in my watchlist for the time being. Cheers, Face 10:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Such comments are extremely disgusting. I think such IPs should be blocked from editing. Moonriddengirl will be back on May 6. I will put this page in my watchlist. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC) No matter how much I like to agree with you, the IP might be dynamic, or used by a public computer, so blocking is not a good option. Giving warnings might be useless too, because the person might never see them, and someone else gets to read them. According to this whois, the address is used by Optus in Australia. I wish I knew how... - Face 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Hi! It is a dynamic IP. Based on a pattern of grammar and spelling, it's likely the same anon editor who has been vandalizing the article for some time, since last August or so. (see the history of it.) Warnings seem pointless at this juncture. The individual received proper warnings early on (here and here). For the past six months or so, it's been handled differently. :) University of Western Sydney has been long-term semi-protected, so at this point keeping vandalism off the talk page is the main objective here. More eyes on the article and its related vandalism target, Dapto High School (an example of the vandalism of which you can see here), are good and would be welcome. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Welcome back! And thanks for your advice. I keep an eye on Dapto too. Talking about that page, what are those names doing there at the See also section? Cheers, Face 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) One more thing: how do you know that IP is dynamic? It most likely is, but if you found out, I would like to know how. Cheers, Face 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC) ←Thanks. :) I'm glad to be back, but pretty out of it still! I'm not one of those people who can stroll off of 25 hours worth of airplane/airport time unphased. I'll probably be recovering for half the year. :P As for its being dynamic, I'm really taking somebody's word for it. The pattern of vandalism came up at ANI a while back--November, maybe?--and one of the contributors who weighed in there said that the whole range of IPs was dynamic. Whois does indicate that they are "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" (I'm not shouting; I'm copy-pasting :D), but whether it is true that these are typically dynamic (as suggested here) I don't know. Those names I would imagine are misplaced "notable alumni". I'd imagine they should be moved. I'm surprised they've been sitting there so long! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) AmiDaniel said some interesting things there. Thanks for the link. As for those names, I removed them, because the only person on it who had an article was some footballer called Steve Morris. I did a quick search, but I don't think there is a source available which confirms that he's an alumnis of that school. Cheers, Face 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Welcome back! Hello Moonriddengirl. How are you? Welcome back! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you! :D I'm recovering, I believe. As I indicated above, I do not cross timezones very well. I hope that things are going well with you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Can you take a look at this? == Brian Sherwin == Hi. I'm new to contributing articles on wikipedia. I'd like some opinions about this article/bio I contributed. My plan is to contribute bios for other art bloggers/writers of note like Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene once I finish with the Sherwin bio. Do you have any suggestions? For example, should I mentioned the Alexa ranking of the Myartspace Blog? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)) Hi, and thanks for taking on the challenging task of adding content. :) I will gladly take a look at the article this evening. I see that it's up for AfD, but it should have days before that closes. There's time to address the concerns. I'm not that familiar with blogging as a profession, so I'll probably need to poke about a bit to see what kinds of information might be best to include. I don't even know at this point what an Alexa ranking is, I'm afraid. :/ Before looking, I'll just note that my general approach is to be sure to incorporate lots of references from reliable sources, like news media or magazines. In fact, I probably go a little overboard in including such things myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC) ←*Response Hi. I'm sorry it took me longer to get back to you than I had believed it would. I'm afraid that I haven't been able to come up with anything specifically helpful. :/ I've done some searching on google, but didn't disclose any sourcing of the sort that I would usually include. Because of that, my suggestions remain very general. Authors fall under the specific section of the notability guidelines for "creative professionals". There are some specific benchmarks that other contributors to Wikipedia look for here. First, if the gentleman has been the subject of discussion of multiple unrelated reliable sources, he passes by the general criteria. Those would be news media or magazines, as I said, or could also include unrelated, reputable websites. Other possible points include the following, each of which require specific verification through reliable sources. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. Things I would be looking for in your position would be: widespread coverage in reliable sources, first and primarily. If you can find that, none of the rest of this is really required. alternatively, evidence of wide citation by peers, as in other journalists saying things like "In the Sherwin interview, Blahdeblah said this...." The challenge here is that those peers should themselves be notable. I wouldn't feel at all confident relying on that criterion myself, if they were not. evidence of critical attention, as opposed to popular attention (or # of hits). Has this writer received any notable awards? Has he placed well in any notable competitions? finally, evidence of intense if not widespread coverage. Has this individual been heavily or deeply examined by at least a couple of reliable sources? If the references are not trivial, the depth of coverage may be sufficient to overcome lack of breadth of coverage. A dream scenario "for instance": a profile in The New York Times. This may not in itself be enough to establish that the individual is notable, but depending on the content and the quality of the few sources, it may. Good luck, and I do hope that some of this helps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC) As I think I mentioned I'm new. I don't think that matters but I do think things here are a bit unfair. For example, the Brian Sherwin bio was deleted within minutes the first few times I tried working on it. No debate, no talks. Just deleted as if for personal reasons. So I think it is unfair for it to be marked as repeatedly deleted when it was deleted without cause the prior times. I don't really agree with the voting on here because some people end up going along with past vote statements that have nothing to do with the status of the bio at present meaning they did not even bother to read what they are voting on. Not to mention that several votes for delete contain wild assumptions and false information that had nothing to do with the bio at hand. I've seen bios about sports figures on here and the only thing notable about them is the team they played for but an interviewer and writer documenting contemporary art culture through over 400 interviews with artists like Michael Craig-Martin and James Rosenquist is not? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)) I'm sorry that this experience has been so frustrating for you. I can well imagine it would be. :/ I didn't even dare attempt writing a new article until I had been active for some time because as a new user I also found some of the requirements confusing. There are different standards for different types of articles; there is also more variation than there probably should be in how different administrators apply those standards when considering speedy deletions. Articles for Deletion debates are shaped by the contributors to them. The administrator who closes it will assess how the contributors evaluated the article according to policy, but it's undeniable that individual interpretation shapes the outcome. I myself once took part in two almost identical AfDs, one on the list of Indian women and another on the list of Iranian women. The list of Indian women ended in delete. The list of Iranian women is still here. So, yes, I would agree with you that things here are not always fair. In defense of the system, though, I'll note that I believe it is intended to be and is probably about as fair as an open contributor system can be, but there is undoubtedly a lot of "left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing". There are checks and balances. If an article is speedily deleted that should not have been or if an AfD is closed with improper interpretation, after approaching the administrator, you do have the option of deletion review. This is not necessarily a cure-all in itself since it is also open contributor and some contributors may bring their own biases, but it's a start. The other option is to pitch in and work from the policy level. The policies and guidelines that govern what articles may be kept and what may not are also created by the contributors here. If you see a flaw in those guidelines, you can propose a change at the talk page of the guideline and perhaps you will persuade others to your perspective. Not every good contributor has the time and energy to take this on, I know, but not long ago I ran into another in a similar situation to yours—a brand new contributor creating an article on a school—who wound up actively involved in the school guidelines project (which is still not finished). Just to let you know, I've considered it best that I stay away from the AfD of this article, since there is a policy against soliciting support in AfDs and I worry that my participation could taint your case, since I was not familiar with the article prior to your arriving on my talk page. I have looked at it, though, and I see that you've received a couple of supports. If you continue to defend your article calmly and succinctly there, it's possible that you may persuade the other contributors. Meanwhile, if you locate additional sourcing, please include a brief note to that effect in the discussion so that the administrator who closes it may consider whether the new material invalidates earlier opinions. I hope however this comes down, you won't let it discourage you from contributing. There are a maze of policies and guidelines that can seem very daunting to new contributors. (There's a valuable sort of compendium of them at WP:5P.) There are things that you can do when establishing a new article to help ensure that it isn't deleted before you've at least had a chance to finish writing it. Many experienced contributors choose to create articles in "sandboxes" in their user spaces. I do that myself when I have an article that I think may appear borderline with regards to notability. Even if I'm sure that my subject would be universally regarded as notable, I still put {{inuse}} at the top of every new article I create. This lets reviewers know that it's under construction. (There is a tag called {{underconstruction}}, but I prefer inuse because it specifies that I will be finished within hours, not days.) Finally, I took the liberty of peaking at your contributions, and I see that you've left a note for BWH76 in his archive, [1]. Archives are records of old discussions, and he may not see your note there. I know his talk page looks unusual, but you may wish to contribute your note to it instead. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I moved the note so hopefully he will obtain it. Is there any form of check and balance system for admins? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)) Yes, absolutely. It would generally depend on the situation in which an admin is involved. You can read more about what is expected of administrators. We aren't required to be perfect (thank heavens! we wouldn't have any left :D), but admins are expected to work with a good faith effort to conform to community standards and practices. The first "check & balance" is the adminship system itself. Admins are created after a fairly grueling process of community scrutiny similar to AfD (if you're curious, you can take a look at it here). Once established, admins who misuse (intentionally or otherwise) "the tools" may be dealt with through one of the processes here. There are also checks & balances on admin behavior in some of the other "checks & balance" systems. :) An admin whose deletions wind up successfully challenged at WP:DRV will probably get a better idea of what community standards are. (Soon after becoming an admin, an article I had deleted was taken to DRV and restored. There are certain exceptions to A7, some of which I've since worked on the guidelines with others to make more explicit.) One important policy when dealing with other editors or admins, is "assume good faith". We do start with the presumption that the other party means well, and we deal with them from that basis. That's why dispute resolution with anyone should always begin with talking to that person. Not all of them are open to conversation, but many of them are. If an admin has made a mistake or has misunderstood something, they often learn from such conversations. If they don't, the other processes can help bring the point home. In rare cases of egregious or persistent misuse, administrator status may be revoked. One final point in this regard—it may not always be easy to determine when you are dealing with an administrator and when you are not. Most of the people you encounter on Wikipedia likely aren't. I've taken care to identify my role clearly on my userpage, but not everyone does. Many administrators will simply have a note at the bottom of their pages. Some might have no note at all. If you aren't sure and want to know, check out the list of administrators. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Arbitrary section break Hi. That did not go over well. I guess I did not understand.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)) Hmm. I had not read the content of your note, but simply seen that it was misplaced. For what it's worth, I disagree with the editor in question that requesting a second look on his talk page is inappropriate. Many editors comment on AfDs and do not watchlist them. I have seen requests for second looks done many times; as long as they are neutral and polite, I have never seen one objected to. References to "bad faith" should not be made lightly, however. Even if you believe an editor is misguided in his judgment, "bad faith" has a specific connotation on Wikipedia that an editor is actively trying to undermine Wikipedia. These are likely to be "fighting words" and should definitely be avoided. It's much better to focus on the weight of the argument and leave motivation (or judgments about the arguer) out of it unless you have strong evidence otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Strong evidence? I think when someone votes delete per someone else's opinion when that opinion is proven wrong by the current state of the bio there is a problem. He obviously based his opinion on the opinion of the other voter instead of reading the current bio. This can lead one to assume many things. Did someone send him there for the delete vote? Did he do it for brownie points? I'll assume all I want when assumptions and false information is deciding votes on an article I've taken time to write. The bio never said anything about Sherwin being the creator of the Myartspace site and I don't think the notability (or lack thereof) of myartspace should have anything to do with a bio about a writer, interviewer, and art critic that has been published both online and offline. Interviewing 400 artists in just a couple of years is worthy of note when you consider that most of the major art publications interview two or three artists per month. I asked the other guy to look at the bio again as well and in his eyes a person is not notable unless they have been in the New York Times. Which I think is a great error and I believe putting those obstacles before bios goes against what wikipedia is about or what I thought it was about. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)) That may be strong evidence of a flawed assumption, if you're correct in your reading of the situation. But it is not evidence of bad faith. It is also extremely common in evaluating deletion debates to incorporate by reference another person's words. This saves considerable redundancy. Your article was one of 109 nominated for deletion through deletion debate on that day; you can see the list of them here. Many contributors visit those lists to choose the debates in which they will participate. Regardless, whatever assumptions you may choose to make, accusations of bad faith deviate from the guideline set out at Wikipedia:Etiquette and are only likely to obscure any good points you may be making in your argument. If your wish is to make a place for this and similar articles on Wikipedia, it will serve you much better to focus merely on what makes the subject notable or on why the obstacles to such articles are unfair (at the guideline itself). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) "Delete as NN; the website he's notable for (myartspace) wouldn't even meet notability; even if it did, there have been a great many AfDs for a NN creator of a notable website. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)" "Delete per JeremyMcCracken. BWH76 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)" So in your eyes this is balanced voting? This is acceptable? As I mentioned on the debate page after JeremyMcCracken's statement, Sherwin is NOT the creator of Myartspace and the notability (or lack of notability) of Myartspace is not on trial here. So it would appear that BWH76 did not even bother to read the bio or the statements I made after JeremyMcCracken's vote on the debate page. Have I violated Wikipedia etiquette? I don't think I'm the only one. I'm going to walk away for a day or so because I don't want this turning into a flame war. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)) Walking away may be a good idea if you feel that you're too emotionally invested to avoid flaming. As for the above, I didn't indicate whether I felt it was balanced !voting or not. I didn't mean to imply a conclusion either way. My point was that, if you are correct in your reading of the situation, it may be strong evidence that the assumptions of the editor in question are flawed. I am not evaluating the argument or the deletion debate for the reason I expressed above. It would be inappropriate for me to do so. I did indicate that it isn't evidence of bad faith, which, as I explained above, has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Bad faith is a deliberate effort to undermine the project. Speaking in generalities, even if we feel another editor on Wikipedia has badly misjudged something, we still start from the assumption that his misjudgment was well-intentioned. Even if we feel another editor on Wikipedia has the critical evaluation skills of a 5 year old (I've known Wikipedians as young as 10; I've never that I know of encountered a 5-year-old), we still start from the assumption that his efforts are well-intentioned. Assuming good faith does not mean that we must agree with another editor's conclusions or opinions or that we are not permitted to debate the argument. By all means, refute it if it is flawed. But I will reiterate that without strong evidence of malice (as opposed to error or even incompetence) on the part of any editor on Wikipedia, an accusation of bad faith is only likely to obscure your valid argument. I'd also like to point out that with regards to etiquette, even if somebody has already violated it, we must remain with the boundaries of WP:CIVIL ourselves. If you feel another editor has been egregiously uncivil to you, you can take it up at WP:WQA, which is a board where civility issues are examined and opinions offered by uninvolved parties. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Hi. I appreciate your time and concern. So it is OK to vote without looking at the bio or article? Because if he had he would not have agreed with the other person because the other person's statements had nothing to do with the bio at that time (or ever). I call it as I see it. We will just see how this turns out. But I have learned a few things and I'm looking forward to debating about other bios in the future. :)(Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)) Motocade Hi Moonriddengirl. Thank you for your helpful comments regarding the Motocade article. As a somewhat disinterested person just looking for information of a mildly famous band from New Zealand I was surprised that no Wikipedia article existed. I see someone did a very poor start that was marked as vandalism and I was hoping to create something that at least could be built upon by actual fans. I guess there must be hundreds of garage bands nobody has heard of trying to create their own article so admins must keep an eye out. Anyhow I have decided to forget about it but I do appreciate your input. Forgive me if I have placed this in the wrong place I cannot see any plus sign at the top of the page just the "new section" having a alt-shift-+ shortcut. I am somewhat of a Wikipedia newbie but I try to do my best. Cheers. Kelpi (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Hi, Kelpi. Thanks for your note. You've hit the nail on the head with the problem with garage bands. It's because of this that bands are subject to speedy deletion at all. Given what you say about rotation, it seems the band should probably meet the notability guidelines. If you change your mind about establishing the article and would like feedback, please feel free to let me know. Music-related articles are of particular interest to me. Although I typically work on album articles, I'm very familiar with the notability guidelines on music. And if you decide quite certainly that you will not develop the article further, please consider tagging it with {{db-u1}}. This will notify admins that you no longer require it in your userspace so they can tidy up. Oh, and you've placed this note in precisely the right place. I'm not sure what happened to the little plus at the top of the page. I came back from a trip abroad to find that "new section" tab. Guess the developers have been tweaking. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Hi Kelpi and MRG - sorry to snoop. If you go to your preferences tab, then "Gadgets", then "interface gadgets", you can change the "new section" tab back to the "+" tab if you preferred it that way. Wikipedia is all about choices! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Feel free to snoop on my talk page any time, o knowledgeable one. :D Thanks! I do prefer the +, as it's easier to see at a glance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Gasp!* You can add an "edit" tab to the lead? :O I'm so glad you chimed in! Not being very techie, I tend to avoid things that can be personalized in the interest of not breaking the magic box. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Isn't that wonderful? I noticed that a while back when copyediting A GA nominee. The lead needed *lots* of help, and with my slow browser, I surely appreciated the "edit section" for the top paragraph. I'll never go back! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Absolutely! I've also added a UTC clock to the browser (I suppose; I haven't looked to see if it worked yet :D). I'm enough of a Wikiholic that I have a clock on my desk set to UTC. Maybe I can hide my addiction better. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) We are two peas in the same wiki-addicted pod, my friend. I added the clock myself not too long ago. I also added WP:HOTCAT. Very cool. Look into it, especially as someone that "rescues" newly created articles from deletion and needs to quick add cats to make a n00b's article look more rescuable.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC) ←Ah! Thanks so much. I will most definitely add it. It can save me some time hunting around for stuff to put on. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC) The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan Hi Moonriddengirl - thanks for your assessment and response :) I'm very busy with work right now; as soon as I get a moment I'll think about the personnel issue that you raise and respond to it. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) No problem. :) Please just let me (or the more general us at the project if you prefer) know if and when you'd like a re-assessment. It's a good-looking article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Hi there. Another editor has just filled in a Personnel listing for Freewheelin'. Is this listing adequate? Mick gold (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Absolutely! Re-assessed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks! That is gratifying :) Should I propose it for GA assessment, or is that over-ambitious? Mick gold (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Is your ego up for it? ;D I've only been involved in one GA review (and that as an article contributor), so I'm not that familiar with the process, though I know it can take a while. But I'd say sure, why not? If nothing else, you should get some good feedback for improvement! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Arise (Sepultura album) Hi, thank you for your accessment of the Arise (album) page. Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC) My pleasure. Always nice to see a complete article. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Happy Sad Thanks for the advice, i've added the personnel from AMG now. Actually i've used that quite a lot but never noticed the credits section before! Do you rate song articles as well? If so i'd appreciate some input on Song to the Siren too. It's like working in a dark hole with Tim Buckley articles! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC) When I first started working on album articles, I had no idea there were all those little tabs in AMG. I once asked somebody how they knew about song charting, not knowing that AMG has that information as well. :) They didn't answer, but I eventually figured it out on my own. I have no experience with song articles, but I'll be happy to take a look at the criteria & at the article to see if I can offer some suggestions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Not being familiar with song articles, it looks to me like at least a B. It's a fine looking article. What I would do in your position is head over to the project page and ask on the talk page for somebody to rate it. You may or may not get any takers, but it would be a start. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:User access levels/archivelist Hi Moonriddengirl, I requested a deletion of Wikipedia:User access levels/archivelist earlier today, which you deleted, you also deleted Wikipedia talk:User access levels/archivelist, which is used in the archive box of Wikipedia talk:User access levels, could you undelete it? --Snigbrook (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, certainly! It's done. Sorry about that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Barnstar The Minor Barnstar I've been lucky to work with you over the past few weeks, and I've had the opportunity to truly harness your attitude, which is relentingly positive. Thank you. Rudget (Help?) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Wow! How nice. :D Thank you so much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Waltham Town Lock I am sorry. The article had just one edit and I presumed Waltham Town Lock to be a lock manufacturing company.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC) LOL! I can totally see how that might have happened. :) I paused over that one a long time, trying to figure out if it needed additional action. Had it not been a geographical article and had I not found so many on locks, I might well have at least tagged it for notability concerns. As I said at your talk page, though, I thought it best to tag the wikiproject and let its participants sort it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English#الجودر Please see my comment there. PS: the first line on your talk page refers to a "plus sign" - it seems the interface has been changed. Cbdorsett (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Ah! Good find. In all cases. Somebody mentioned the "plus sign" earlier on the page, but it didn't occur to me that this was mentioned on my own talk page. :) I appreciate your looking into the history for me. Obviously, I wasn't confident in that decision, and I was right not to be. :) In the matter of the copyright violation, I see that you've marked them with "possible copyright infringement". Are you certain to the point that these should be speedily deleted as blatant copyright infringements? My uneducated glance would suggest so, but I'm extremely unfamiliar with the Arabic alphabet and am not comfortable making that assessment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC) The copy-paste was imperfect (roughly ten words were left out) but otherwise, the whole thing comes from the cited page. Let me suggest that, if you feel uncomfortable with evaluating the copyvio tag issue yourself, you let another admin do it. Asking me whether I think I'm right, and basing your own action on my answer, basically gives me admin rights. I thought the idea of tagging a copyvio was to let another editor independently judge the claim. I'm flattered that you think well enough of my judgment to ask, but I think we should stick to process. I am always careful to verify the copying when I tag an article for deletion, which unfortunatly you can't really verify, since deleted pages disappear from my own edit history. Am I sure it's a copyvio? Yeah. Should you simply take my word for it? That's up to you. Maybe you could locate an Arabic-speaking admin to take on this one? Thanks. Cbdorsett (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC) This does not mean that you should not tag them for speedy deletion as a copyvio if you are certain. After all, that Arabic speaking administrator has to discover them somehow. :) If I was certain, I could tag them myself or simply delete them. (A second reviewer is not necessary when copyright violation is clear-cut.) If you'd prefer to let the slower process play out, though, with the tag you've currently placed, that's fine, but you should probably list the articles at the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_May_10/Articles. (Currently it seems they'd be the first, so the bottom is obviously the top. :) The template you would use to list them is located on the tags you put on the articles.) The tag you chose puts the article automatically into a category of copyright violations, but I'm not sure how long it will be before an admin trawls that category, since it is considerably easier to see the listings in order at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. :) Like the {{notenglish}} tag, it needs a finishing step. As a couple of side notes, though, I can actually see the deleted pages in your own history...one of the admin tools. And administrators do routinely rely on the judgment of volunteers in the translation project to help determine what is and is not appropriate. I see that you listed Deebabukatish as an A7, and it was accordingly deleted untranslated. Persica digital went as spam. Dorregeest was deleted as an attack page. It's always possible that some of those administrators read the languages involved, but I'm pretty sure in some cases that they did not. The latter, for instance, was in Dutch. The administrator who deleted it lists his languages, and Dutch is not among them. This does not mean that they didn't use some auto-translator, of course, or that they don't have some smattering of language skills not listed. But relying on the advice of experienced participants in the translation project seems reasonable, particularly given that if the articles are not translated in two weeks they are subject to deletion anyway. You guys have undertaken a very important job! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Once again, thanks. I have noticed that the articles I tag for speedy delete usually disappear quite quickly, even without being listed on any special pages. But I'll follow up on your tip later, when my little one's nap time rolls around again. Cbdorsett (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC) "DJ Sassy" Page Hi, I'm contacting you about the Wikipedia page for DJ Sassy, which has undergone a number of edits over the last few months and has also been the subject of a discussion about possible deletion of the page. My name is James McLeod and am Sassy's website administrator and DJ booking manager and have carried out a number of the recent edits at her request, including the addition of her current website biography information. If you wish to confirm my identity, please feel free to email me at administrator@djsassy.com or bookings@djsassy.com I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but having read the comments about the edits and possible deletion of the DJ Sassy page, I am starting to understand the kind of editorial policies that are applied, and I appreciate that the style of some of the material that we submitted earlier this year may have been overly-subjective. We are quite prepared to limit the information that we put on the page to that which is more objective and more readily verifiable, and over the last five years or so I have accumulated an archive of press articles, internet pages, and other information that could be used on Sassy's page. However, Sassy and I do have concerns about some of the information which was added by you to the page, and which I have therefore tried to remove. The first is the inclusion of Sassy's full name and the town in which she lives at the start of the article. I appreciate that this information can be found on the internet if you look for it, but we have strong reservations about making this so highly visible : a Google search for DJ Sassy lists the Wikipedia page right near the top, with her name and town clearly displayed in the search results. Sassy is in reality quite a private person, which is why there are relatively few press articles about her, and she has in the past been the victim of stalkers : this has been very distressing for her and is something that we are keen to avoid in the future. If you could agree to not include Sassy's full name in the Wikipedia page that would be a big help, and if we could also just say that she is from London that would be quite acceptable : Bromley is a London Borough after all, and she spent much of her childhood in South London. We also have an issue with the Sol Campbell story. Although it is widely known that Sassy and Sol dated, the story presented in the newspaper was not accurate and so we do not believe that it should be included on the page. Indeed, the paper did subsequently print an apology over some of the points made. I would be grateful for your feedback on the above. Our biggest concern is the identity issue, which Sassy is very concerned about, to the extent that she would consider asking for the DJ Sassy page to be deleted from Wikipedia. I very much hope that this will not be necessary and that we can work out a mutually acceptable way forward. I look forward to hearing from you soon, and would appreciate it if you could not modify the page again until we have been able to discuss these issues further. Thanks. AquilaUK (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)