User talk:Mangojuice

Archives
15,000,000,000 BC – 17 Feb 2006 17 Feb 2006 – 17 Apr 2006 17 Apr 2006 – 10 May 2006 10 May 2006 – 9 Jun 2006

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

Hey MangoJuice!

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. Just got your message.

I'll understand if you feel the text on the "Harmonic Run" is necessary to delete.

However, I would be interested in what specific element of this rather short piece made it unsuitable for publishing on wikipedia?

That would give me an understanding, of what changes (if any) would make it more suitable?

Thankyou! Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream explora (talk • contribs)

Bouncing

I was wondering why there isn't a board here showing bad admins. Geo.plrd 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Need a level head...

I saw your comments over at Bonnie Bracey's deletion page, and it so happens that the entry on me is up for deletion as well. There's a history there. Please take a look here, and weigh in if you can. I personally don't care whether the page exists or not, but I personally believe that the deletionist involved has an axe to grind and is also, consistently, taking too much for granted in his notes for deletion.

The article Taran Rampersad has already passed a vote against Speedy Deletion. There's plenty of information on the Talk Page, and I'm certainly here to discuss things with should there be questions. I didn't make the page. But I am getting really tired of people arbitrarily going around and posting pages for deletion and removing content instead of adding value.

Thus, you may consider this a request for informal mediation (WP:Mediation) --TaranRampersad 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

Hi Mango, I'd like to thank you for noting that the AfD was not simply placed "arbitrarily" but was due to the article's lack of citation and encyclopedic nature. I would, however, like to point out that I directed the user to WP:NPA due to the fact that his AfD comments violated the spirit and word of that policy in that he was commenting on editors and not edits. I also never accused him of making that article and noticed from his talk page that he has had little to no involvement with the article. Thanks for looking into the matter. I've actually already asked another admin to relist the AfD so that it can be discussed further but I don't know if they'll see fit to do that. I actually don't think it should be discussed more and that it should be deleted due to obvious reasons, but I still want to be fair to this user since he has such complaints. --Strothra 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey.. thanks for the message regarding the prodguess i was unaware of the that. ;) will keep that in mind next time. And thanks for the friendly welcome, lol, that's rather unexpected and kinda thoughtful. I'll see what else i can contribute in the future! :p Nerdook 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why..

..do you assume that I would re-add a prod tag? youngamerican (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PS...there was supposed to be a smiley after that message that I accidently deleted when fixing a typo before hitting "save page." That would have changed the entire tone of my last message. Here is is now: :) Sorry 'bout that. youngamerican (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

An oft-vandalized article you might want to watch

The Robert Byrd article is a regular target of people that either think his politics are too leftist or too rightist that seek to vandalize. Since you are one of our best vandalwhackers, it might be worht putting on your watchlist. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of it is none-too subtle, trust me. youngamerican (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA

You up for a nom? I've been looking for someone to nominate for a while and I would like for you to be that person. I feel you have the perfect balance of civility and backbone for the job. So are you up for it? youngamerican (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just drop me a message when you get back and are ready. youngamerican (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I got dibs on co-nom. You're not a reflexive deletionist, which is a trait I really like. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike Norris

But who's the actor? Does he exist? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You there? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So I will make a radical change of course - instead of deleting something, I will actually CREATE A STUB FOR MIKE NORRIS. *Pats self on the back, cringes from arm pain.* - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of inactive WikiProjects

Hey -- I deprodded this because WP:PROD is only supposed to be used for articles. If you actually want it deleted, you can list it at WP:MFD. I changed the article to a redirect to Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects which should accomplish what you were trying to do. Mangojuicetalk 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should trivia (by anyone's judgement) be deleted?

Hi... I posted the Sarah Rutledge Birnbaum article. I can see that you or others would view this as trivia, but I don't see it as trivia, and triviality does not seem to be one of the listed criteria for deletion, in any case: lack of verifiability, original research, lack of a neutral point of view, and copyright seem to be the criteria for deletion. The Birnbaum article does not violate any of those... one person's trivia is anothers golden nugget, so why delete it? User:Snugspout 22:55 14 June 2006 (UTC).

Pardon me for dropping in uninvited, but I was just reviewing the article in question. I think that there is a very real question of notability here. The claim that SRB is the only person to have jumped twice seems to be unsubstantiated, and that claim is the only thing that would make her notable in terms of a WP article. Many people have jumped from the GGB and many people have committed suicide after a previous attempt failed. Still, having said that, I think that the info in the article is worth keeping if it could be condensed and merged, as was suggested in the Talkpage. I will probably vote to Merge, but I want to follow the chatter on this one for a bit first. Happy Editing! Doc Tropics 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking around, I don't really support the concept of notability... more likely that possible policy will lead to suppression of information useful to someone... I'm in the camp of Wikipedia is not paper. The claim of the second jump is not airtight, but there is very good evidence in its favor: a witness saw a young women of similar physical characteristics jump at the right time, her car was found in the nearby GGB parking lot, and as far as I can tell by searching the newspapers, she never resurfaced alive or dead. The second news article (the feature one in the Examiner) is 10 days after the apparent jump, and would not have been written if there was an obvious problem. It is common for GGB jumper's bodies not to be recovered. Snugspout 23:07 June 15, 2006 UTC

{{db-corp}}

I am flabbergasted: somebody used one of these babies on a substub (Tehnoton), which I was reviewing off of C:CSD. WTF?? Since when are corps within the meaning of CSD A7? Every now and again someone will try to stretch this {{db-group}} argument, but it's invariably rejected. Where did you get consensus to create this? - because this is not policy! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just agree, and I will zap it, G7. You don't want that thing around - trust me. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops - just went red. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO

Thanks for your comment... WP:BIO isn't something that I agree with. After perusing the arguments, I think the fact that Wikipedia is not paper should result in a very low threshold for inclusion. There will always be argument about exactly where the threshold should be, and my opinion will be for a near infinitesimal threshold, as long the point of view is neutral, the information is verifiable, and no copyright is broken. Snugspout 22:50 June 15 2006 (UTC)

Alofoque

Hello Mangojuice. I undeleted this article which I speedy deleted yesterday as Badlydrawnjeff told me that there was an assertion that I missed. Feel free to redebate it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm tryin to make it a point to protest out of process deletions such as Alofoque. I'm pretty sure they meet WP:MUSIC, but I won't protest this one much further if the full-term AfD shows that no one cares, as it is admittedly borderline. But as it wasn't a speedy, people weren't able to debate it properly, thus my protest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Shock Sites

Excuse me, Im really intent on knowing this. Why do you keep on removing the shock site porkhole.net? It's not spam, it has one small advertisment on the bottom for tshirthell. And one passion add on the links page. I am against spam. Plus, meatspin.com has more advertisment taking up the home page then the shock video. Porkhole on here is a referrence for people to stay off this site, or choose to go to it at there own will. Why do you take it off?

Ain't My Bitch

Yep, it was added after the prod notice. Thanks! NawlinWiki 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Donegal People

Strictly speaking, I reverted a speedy to a version of the article that had contents after the page was seemingly blanked...

Seems I forgot to remvoe the prod tag.

BTW I happen to think that page should stay!

ShakespeareFan00 15:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are You Lonesome Tonight? (album)

You were right to note that Are You Lonesome Tonight? (album) is a real album, but it isn't an Elvis album. Two reasons the article was proposed for deletion were

• it wasn't on the Elvis Presley discography and
• it was using an image from a single release as an album cover.

Your de-prodding and de-hoaxing left the article in its original but still misleading state. Although I have little interest in the topic, I went ahead and turned it into something that is as least more accurate than it was before. Check it out and do what you will to verify and improve it and the related articles I just finished editing. Thanks. 66.167.252.241 (talk · contribs) 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC).