User talk:Mangoe

Welcome

Hello, Mangoe, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Emmett5 04:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baker valve gear

(replied on my own talk page, but repeated here just in case)

Yes, there are a few - both photos and drawings. I'll see what I can do to get you a clean scan or two perhaps tonight, time permitting. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe,

Sorry for the harsh words. It would be helpful to hear what you want added rather than just condemning what is there. Tell us what you think is missing. Is it Igantius of Antioch? Irreneus? Scripture quotes?

Defining exactly how Epicopal government works is difficult because it differs so broadly among churches, especially with the Protestants in the article who often have really alien ideas of church government from a Catholic/Orthodox point of view. That is why I think it should be directly under the various churches. --Vaquero100 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we could use your help standing up to ...

... User:Exploding Boy at the homophobia article. i tried to insert the word "pejoratively" in a sentence that says that homophobia may be referred to "opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds". he won't have it. i already reported him as a WP:3RR violator. r b-j 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some citation finding and updated the article appropriately. See what you think. Mangoe 11:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mangoe/timetable

Great article. I enjoyed reading it. I may add to it. I think you make some valid points. SilkTork 21:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's developing. Good to see a healthy and even tempered debate arising. SilkTork 10:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but at some point after sufficient discussion, we should pull together all the comments and ideas and see what form of consensus we have for saying that the proposal has the agreement of enough editors for it to be a proposed policy. I've just found this, which may be of help: Wikipedia:How to create policy. SilkTork 08:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines SilkTork 08:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on your railway stations article. I'd class myself as a railway enthusiast, but I think individual station articles is pushing it. I've (hopefully) sparked debate on the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations. We'll see how that goes. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude seems to be "every other city's Wikipedian railfans are doing it, so why can't we?" Joestella 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example that might amuse you: Allandale railway station, New South Wales Joestella 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I don't want to sound rude or anything. Is it me or are what you are basing yours on what seems to apply to the US. What i am trying to say is that i think it is best if you use more worldwide examples. Just a suggestion. Simply south 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rail stub

Hey Mangoe, I'll keep the rail stubs on stub pages. I do think they're largely superflous, however, once the page has been rated. MrHudson 00:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image use

I noticed your edit. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. The use of fair use images in templates is proscribed by that policy. The images I removed may only be used in the main article namespace. The logos can be used on articles about the company, but may not be used in the Wikipedia space or template space even if it is on a template intended for use only on article pertaining to the company. Please do not reinsert the images again. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is great. Good job! --Durin 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid transit

Hi Mangoe,

I see your point about Rapid transit. It's one of those difficult situations where lots of related but slightly different concepts exist and there's a question over whether to have separate articles or not. And apologies about the locomotive thing - I didn't realise the distinction was needed there and was merely trying to worldwide-ize the article at the same time as removing the erroneous link to the Subway dab page. Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer

The correct term form someone who designs locomotives is an engineer. — Dunc|☺ 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duncharris can be a bit heavy-handed at times. You should know that he's reverted all of your edits, and has been reported several times for incivility. I could revert all back using VP if you want, but maybe it'd be better if you tried to reach a concensus with him, or more ideally a vote on the matter - the vote would probably be more productive IMO. HawkerTyphoon

My advice to you. We can always fix it later. HawkerTyphoon 12:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...

What exactly happened in the end on the railway ailroad guidelines issues and discussions? Simply south 10:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures

Hash it out with Haiduc on the talk page, not by edit warring. And keep in mind WP:3RR. -Smahoney 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Well done for the recent merger into Ecclesiastical polity. I just did a similar merger for Episcopal polity, so I know that it can be time-consuming and a little tedious. Thanks. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious project

I've asked you a question about your initiated project, here. Terryeo 19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tom Thumb (locomotive)

Good point on WP:OR; I hadn't thought of that possibility. I'm hoping to get to checking my references tonight, but my son's Boy Scout meeting might get in the way. Slambo (Speak) 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The various proposals

Hello,

Some questions and comments concerning Wikipedia:Tendentious editors and it's alternates. Of the 3 proposals pushed so far (the original, your alternate, and the attempt to reunify them that I put up), I'd be willing to support any of them.

I am concerned, however, that disputes over minutiae might hurt things. Discussion of the differences between the three has stalled (perhaps for the weekend; I'm switching internet services so am currently without Internet access from home--I'm writing this at work)--one of the deficiencies of the Wikipedia policy proposal mechanism is that it's too easy for opponents to a proposal to sandbag it with debates over minutiae and such, keep a consensus from forming, and then slap {{rejected}} on it claiming "lack of consensus". This proposal isn't old enough yet to do that, and other than User:Electrawn (whose objection seems to be "this won't succeed if put up for a vote", which is a non-objection in my book), there isn't any significant opposition.

The biggest threat is lack of progress; also a common justification for {{rejected}}.

So... in the interest of keeping things moving:

Can you support Wikipedia:Tendentious editors as it currently stands?
- If no, what changes need to be made in order to for you to support it?
Can you support Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Burden of proof is it currently stands?
- If no, what changes need to be made in order to for you to support it?
Can you support Wikipedia:Tendentious editors/Merger proposal is it currently stands?
- If no, what changes need to be made in order to for you to support it?
Of the above three, which do you like best? Any changes to that policy which would make it better?
What should the policy be called?

Please, when you get the chance, answer on Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editors (we've too many talk pages going).

I posted a similar set of questions at User:Durova's home page. I'll post my own thoughts at the talk page as indicated above.

Thanks, and I look forward to your continued participation!

--EngineerScotty 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

I wanted to apologize for my last comment on the Apple article - it was done in a moment of "passion." Why are you so adamant about blocking information on this painting? Haiduc 11:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a reasonable compromise. While I can hardly blame you for suggesting the museum was taken in by a fake - having posted an alternative interpretation to theirs - I am not qualified to pass judgement on its authenticity. But I would not dub the Wells/Androphile/Kojmasky interpretation as homosexualist, since the Fitzwilliam one could as easily be branded heterosexualist. And the homoerotic view has the advantage of explaining a great many details which the "death" hypothesis does not. Plus, there is something utterly incredible and stretched to the breaking point about interpreting a picture of two youths expressing affection, shyness, warmth, humor and friendship, beamed upon by playful putti, as being a metaphor for death. Strikes me as a kind of rape-by-jargon. Also, I remember when looking into this acquisition that it was purchased for the museum by a curator known for his homoerotic leanings (though I did not keep a record of that reference). I think it is only a matter of time before the Fitz recants. Haiduc 21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DE

I thought I had written this to you on Saturday, but the logs here reveal otherwise. Must have clicked preview but forgotten to click save.

At any rate, I'm just curious as to why you dislike the changes to what is now called WP:DE. Here's a diff between how TE looked on Friday, and how it looks as of this morning (Monday): [1]

Differences that I can see:

The name. While I didn't like the unilateral nature of the name change; given that it came from User:Fred Bauder (a longtime arbcom member) and that he provided a reasonable justification, I'm OK with it. At any rate, the name of the policy doesn't change what it does.
Mark as guideline rather than proposed. Not relevant to my questions.
The nutshell. I'm a bit surprised at the inclusion of the work "crank", but other than that, no real issues. Are you perhaps concerned that the class of "obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors" is smaller than the class of "editors whose contributions fall outside the realm of normal scholarship... (whose) edits constitute persistent violation of content policies and guidelines"
Someone put back the Larry Sanger quote. As this was removed mainly due to policial reasons (it's a good quote, regardless of the source), I've no issue here; this doesn't affect the substance of the proposal anyway.
Replacement of shortcuts with long forms in policy links--this is a style issue only and has no substantive effect.
Per name change, replacement of "tendentious" with "disruptive" in policy text. If the name is to change...
Addition of the following paragraph:
This policy concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

To me, that language is consistent with the intent of the policy.
The "Wikilove" paragraph (which was added after you voiced your dissatisfaction).
Typo fixes

Given the above... I'm not entirely sure what change you object to. The main change of a somewhat substantial nature is the name... and the name doesn't affect the substance of the policy. We could call this proposal Wikipedia:Fred Flintstone and it would still be useful. :)

At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens... are you aware of any active cranks against whom this might be deployed?

--EngineerScotty 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After your comment on my talk page, I'm still--a bit--puzzled. Perhaps it was the comment from one admin that this proposal reflected existing practice, which I didn't think was the case. It may reflect a legitimate interpretation of existing policy, but in practice, admins have been reluctant to intervene in situations where abusive behavior (personal attacks, incivility) or violations of "tripwire" policies like WP:3RR are not present. Admins occasionally get in trouble for inappropriate blocks; some are a bit gunshy unless there is clear behavior involved which is blockable.

It is my hope (and we shall see), that having this written down in one place that we can point a crank at (and also make sure admins are aware of), that more admins will intervene earlier in disruptive editing. (It is also my hope that Wikipedia:Community probation will be used in such cases).

Are there any current pages that you know of, which are under attack by a reasonably polite editor pushing nonsense, and which don't already have the attention of the ArbCom and or administrators? --EngineerScotty 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with deletions of my addings

I'm frankly tired that you delete all my addings. They intend to clarify and offer a less US-biased perspective, while what you do is simply remove them abruptly without giving any new info. By they way, I don't absolutely like the "verbal" beginning of an articles as "Diesel locomotive became the dominant etc.". According to WP:Style, a more correct beginning should be something more descriptive, such as

Diesel locomotive is a type of locomotive using... etc.

Let me know and please reconsider you policy against my addings. Otherwise I will add the Template:US/Globalize to all locomotive articles. --Attilios 17:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American thigns

I revert details about American stuff because they create what is described here as Systemic bias. Check in particular point 2 of the Bias section, where it speaks of articles that are universal in aspect. Do you think that cite local New Haven-railroad episodes can in some way clarify or make informed a Burkina Faso or Indonesian user here? Would you be interested if I had put this phrase somewhere in a locomotive article "FS users arriving in Gaeta should have seen train changing towards Sparanise". How much do you understand of it? Does it add something to the article? What if users of every nation put there local episodes like these? I have nothing against America in itself. I cannot stand to read informations which gave a deformed view of the suject due to local point of view. The New Haven episode is absolutely undeserving to stay in any respectable encyclopedia, so plese stop to reveert it back. Anyway, I'm open to further discussion. --Attilios 20:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotable comment

Thanks for the pithy comment, which I put near the top of my userpage. --SteveMcCluskey 15:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. I think I must do the same! And if you are a glutton for punishment, you can check out the wiki-wide battle between User:Bobblewik and user:Rebecca. Mangoe 11:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in locomotive articles

Locomotive, Electric locomotive and diesel locomotive are now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks. Ciao! --Attilios 17:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BFC Citations

Since you don't seem to be following the talk page or the mediation page, I thought I might post here. We can agree that the Bushell quote must go, but we feel that we are going to hold the same standard for Pro-gun criticism as that is applied to the anti-gun criticism.

Would you agree to the pro-gun sections to be re-added if they are based on Hardy's book which is from a major publishing house (which every one that I have talked to except Schrodinger seems to think is acceptable), and Kopel's peice from National Review and but nothing that is mentioned on the website (except where visuals that are in the book that are also on the website, which we will cite as a source to view it, but as the source itself). Both the other criticism sections follow this standard currently.

All additions would confirm to the policies of WP:V, and WP:NPOV we will make it clear that both are pro-gun advocates and are members of the NRA, and what is stated is their opinion.

I am attempting to bring together a concensus to bring this to a close, I have pretty much given up on Schrodinger. PPGMD 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcoming Congregation" restructuring

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 07:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling for Columbine Arbitration

I am escalating the case with Bowling for Columbine to arbitration, please give your statments if any here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bowling_for_Columbine PPGMD 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Anglican Council

Well-judged edit explaining the Naughton article. Objective and fair whichever side you find yourself on. Good work! Bpmullins 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia

Thanks for the revert: re-reading the sections I'd archived, I think you're right that they're relevant to the current discussion. Yonmei 12:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC) PS: Although I posted my mediation statement to the Talk: Homophobia page, I discovered when I re-read the Mediation page that the mediator had requested we all post our mediation statements to the mediation page. Just fyi. Yonmei 13:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Locomotive article

I like most of you edits and corrections :-), but there is a couple I don't understand: Why you want to spell "labor" as "labour" when the rest of the article is using American spelling. Are you happy if I convert all the article to British spelling (I don't mind either way, but it should be consistant).

I had edited "The typical steam locomotive employs a horizontal water tube boiler with the firebox at the rear, partly inside the cab, which shields the locomotive operators from the weather" to say "The typical steam locomotive employs a horizontal water tube boiler with the firebox at the rear, partly inside the cab that shields the locomotive operators from the weather." Because the ",which ..." clause makes it read as though having the firebox extending into the cab partly shields the operators from the weather. Do you see what I mean?

Could you clarify "The driving axles are mounted in bearings which can move up and down in the frame." by what means can the bearings (and hence axles) move up and down within the frame? Is this not simply because the bearings are mounted on springs etc? Perhaps I need to look at a diagram.

Could "The use of live steam and exhaust steam injectors also assists in the pre-heating of boiler feed water, though there is no efficiency advantage to live steam injectors. Such pre-heating also reduces the thermic shock that a boiler might experience when cold water is introduced directly." be changed to: "The use of live steam and exhaust steam injectors also assists in the pre-heating of boiler feed water. There is no efficiency advantage to live steam injectors, but pre-heating reduces the thermic shock that a boiler might experience when cold water is introduced directly." ? Or am I mis-understanding this paragraph?

I often don't understand the sense/meaning of "apply" and "applied" as used in the article, eg "Stephenson valve gear was applied to allow the driver to control cutoff". Maybe the principles of Stephenson's valve gear design were applied to the design of the controls, but surely this gear was either "added to" or "installed upon" or "built into" actual engines? I'll await your response before changing any of those bits again. --AGoon 22:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grande baroque

Hi mangoe:

Please engage me in the discussion on the talk page of Grande baroque!

Bloger 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dealing with Episcopal polity

I want to send you rather belated but hearty thanks for dealing with the Episcopal polity merge. I don't think I could ever have managed it. Mangoe 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you to say so. Sadly, the article still needs a lot of work. As a few people pointed out on the talk page, it discusses in great detail the polity issues in the schisms between the episcopal churches, but it only briefly describes episcopal polity, rather than explain comprehensively what it is and how it works. I don't know enough about the topic to write such a contribution, though I do think the short paragraph at Ecclesiastical polity#Episcopal Polity does it better, even though it too is unreferenced. Are you up to it? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that I already stole the section from Ecclesiastical polity#Episcopal Polity diff—grin. Still, plenty of work there to do. At least half of the people and concepts in See also deserve discussion in the body of the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this same culture battle at Marriage.

i just yesterday stumbled over the the Marriage article and i noticed that it was carefully worded to leave no hint of the common assumption of the spouses in a marriage being a man and a woman. clearly this is the same sculpting of the article to reflect what some POV thinks should be reality, but being that the laws of governments representing the vast majority of the world's population assume heterosexual marriage, or that the religious traditions of the large majority of the world's population also apply the term "marriage" to heterosexual, usually monogamous and hopefully life-long relationships, the article should reflect that fact. do you know of an online reference that lists the nations/states that recognize same-sex marriage (or prohibit the converse) and religious traditions that recognize same-sex marriage (or reject the converse)? a list like that, possibly with the populations of the jurisdictions or the claimed membership of the religious traditions, would be helpful for a verifiable source. just FYI. r b-j 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, would you be interested in asserting your presence at Marriage? without help, the status-quo of removing all references of "husband and wife" (which is the principal definition in every dictionary cited so far) is removed even though there are clear references to same-sex marriage. the article needs to have the NPOV definition (out of the dictionary, what the same-sex advocates don't like and are trying to keep out) with other variants of marriage (such as same-sex, polygamy, whatever) discussed as content. but the same-sex marriage advocates are pushing to have the clear inter-gender definition of the term removed from the article. r b-j 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric locomotive

It is far clearer to simply describe an Electric Locomotive as something driven by electric motors, then to point out why diesel-electric types are excluded (though the public may reasonably expect them to be included). Rather than a strained description that tries to talk about 'external' power sources but includes things like galvanic cells which are producing electricity onboard (ie internally) (the reversable chemical reaction is used as 'storage' but a galvanic cell (or any battery) is in fact generating electricity). --AGoon 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Schrodinger82 is banned from Bowling for Columbine and related pages and talk pages for one year. This may be repealed if the Arbitration Committee feels that his editing of other topics demonstrates significantly improved understanding of Wikipedia's core principles. Violations of the article ban shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

Just wanted to let you know I removed one borderline POV sentence in an otherwise nicely balanced rewrite of the intro. CovenantD 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for being bold. i think it's good. r b-j 01:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting that paragraph that really didn't add anything of significance. Good edit! Can you think of any place in Wiki for us to write an "apologetic" article on either biblical evidence for the egalitarian model, or a side-by-side comparison of the entirely different ways Traditionalists and Egalitarians interpret the very same scriptures?

I added "Wikipedia should erase and lock the article for all time, and both sides will go their respective ways to their respective Articles." Nkras 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotive

Hi Mangoe, I noticed you reverted my edit to Locomotive, promoting the Guns N' Roses disambiguation to a toplink. I assure you, my change was not made because of a desire to promote the band, the album, or the song. If you'll notice, Locomotive (disambiguation) only lists two items: Locomotive itself and the song. Since it doesn't make much sense to have a disambiguation page when a toplink would do, I've proposed Locomotive (disambiguation) for deletion. Presuming that it does get deleted, a toplink to Use Your Illusion II would be appropriate to facilitate navigation.

If you prefer, I can wait until Locomotive (disambiguation) is deleted before changing the toplink, but I expect it will be deleted regardless. If you think there is a good reason to retain the disambiguation page, we can take it to AfD. – Anþony talk 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yancy quote

We may not be in agreement on the accuracy of the Yancy quote on homophobia. Would you like to discuss this? Kukini 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSX

Hi, you should not have moved MSX to MSX (computer architecture). It was a step in the wrong direction. MSX as a oyster disease simply does not have even a proper article! I decided to contact you just to let you know the reasoning behind that. You correctly started a disambig page, but typing MSX on search box and then clicking go should direct to MSX (the computer). In the top of the MSX article we should then put a link to the disambig page you just created. Since I can't move MSX (computer archtecture) back to MSX (its proper place) I will make MSX redirect to it and ask for administrator intervention to move the page back. If you have any concerns about that we can discuss it further. Regards. Loudenvier 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've reverted Loudenvier's change. Using your Google comparison on Loudenvier's talk page with "MSX computer -wikipedia" instead of z80 produces 1,410,000 results. That's a significant difference to the oyster disease Google results. I agree with Loudenvier, the MSX computer architecture is much more common, and MSX should be redirected to that. Assuming you're from the United States (MSX computer wasn't marketed well over there), and since you stated you're in the oyster industry, I don't blame you. But please try to be objective. --Apathor 13:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Mangoe I wasn't just talking about google results. In fact I never mentioned it! The problem lies within notability. MSX as a computer is too far more notable as an encyclopedia article than an Oyester disease by that name, and to corroborate my statement, there isn't a wikipedia article about it. If you take that 5 million MSX computers were sold, than at least 4 times this amount of people actually knew an MSX computer. How many people in the world knows about MSX as a Oyster disease? In Japan every-single person from 25 to 40 years old actually know MSX as a computer. That's what make it notable. I acknowledge the need for a disambig page now that more than one topic falls under the acronym MSX, but searching for MSX should still take you to the MSX article per wikipedia guidelines. If you still have comments to add, please do so! Regards Loudenvier 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I'm just talking to you because I like to let people know when I'm changing their contributions in a somewhat drastic manner. I really didn't want to hurt anybody feelings, after all this is a constructive, collaborative effort! Regards and thank you for your patience. :-) Loudenvier 14:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft

I think you can import several sections from WP:OCAT, in particular "Non-defining or trivial characteristic", "Opinion about a question or issue" and "Subjective inclusion criterion". On the contrary, "Arbitrary inclusion criterion" is precisely what lists are for (lists of <foo> by size). Oh, and you'll really need to change the name, people don't like the term "cruft" :) I'll look some more on monday. >Radiant< 13:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (Second nomination)

Unfortunately in this case I think we're just in the minority - I would have to have agreed with the closing admin that there was enough consensus to keep the article. It's rather unfortunate, usually these kinds of lists wind up getting deleted after the debate, so I'm not sure why this one survived. Perhaps just the luck of who came by to look at the AfD. I'm not sure taking it to DRV is appropriate at this point, probably the best thing to do is wait a while and see if some of the folks who !voted to keep it actually care enough to try and improve the article, otherwise you can probably renominate it after a little while. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your query, there seemed to be a clear consensus not to delete. And I think (many of) the keeps were justified; AfD isn't cleanup, and that some or much of it was unreferenced crap doesn't mean it all was. Personally I hate articles like that, they are unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. If I were to have voted, it would have been delete. But I closed by consensus, and there were twice as many "keeps" as "deletes".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list delete--thanks

Thank you for deleting the list at Typecasting (acting)

I have spent very little time at WP recently, so it's good to surf in and see that there are people still concerned with quality. Quill 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If you link to an attack site again, you may be blocked from editing. The Arbcom has ruled that "Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." I removed the link. No hard feelings, I made the same mistake, so I wanted to give you a heads-up. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me say that I didn't mean to "threaten" you, and I didn't feel "threatened" by SlimVirgin's fair warning. It was just a heads-up, nothing else. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reading this, linked to by arbitrator Kirill Lokshin in the Mongo request for carification, feel I owe you an apology. All of this gets more confusing by the hour. —Alde Baer ~~user:Kncyu38~~ 12:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't and there's no need to apologize. —Alde Baer ~~user:Kncyu38~~ 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If you continue to restore that link, you may be blocked from editing per the ArbCom ruling. If you wish to challenge that ruling, you're free to do so, but while it stands you should not link to these sites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING OH GOD DUCK AND COVER ITS THE BIG ONE

Hi Mangoe, I wanted to comment on something you said on the RfA:

I've been trying to work up a cautionary essay (tentatively to be titled Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world) but just haven't been able to devote the time necessary to do so.

I would be very interested in reading that. This is something I've been thinking about. Much of the back and forth on certain issues I do not understand. Your essay sounds like a good idea and I urge you to write it if you find the time.

I also wanted to compliment you on the logical way you've handled yourself through all of this Unmentionable Site businesses. I do not have many edits, neither have I been here long, so some would say my opinion doesn't matter much, but I decided to offer my support anyway.

Apologies for my ignorant flashing title, I'm just trying to fit in, feel free to remove it. ;) If you feel a reply is necessary (and it's really not) i'll look for it here. El hombre de haha 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I think such an essay is needed. There seems to be a pernicious belief that people on Wikipedia aren't accountable in the real world, which is just delusional. Thanks for the ecouragement.

P.S. Lose the flashing header. Mangoe 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, glad you wrote the essay. I have removed the link to the panda sandwich essay...if you would like to know why, you will have to email me. Risker 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I liked your essay although I thought it was thoroughly wrong. Most interwebnets things have spheres of importance -- or I mean you can visualise them that way, a bit like ripples. In the inner circle, the thing seems enormously important. In a slightly broader outer circle they have some importance. But in the widest circle, they have very little importance at all. Even the "web", broadly defined as the whole of the interwebnetsosphere, is not a particularly big circle. Most people have no idea what goes on on the web, does not know about its memes, what the big sites are and why, and so on. Most people who use it just use it for email and google up the odd thing. Most people, of course, do not have any access to it at all. Sometimes, something from the inner circle will bubble over into the outer circles, but still its importance lessens as it radiates. I am a veteran of the Uselessnet (I noticed you mentioned it) and it's very much like that. Inside, it all seems big but seen from a distance, it's a very small babbling pot of bullshit. By the time a Wikicrisis makes it to "the real world", it's become a snippet, something to laugh at, tut over.

Among other things, this means that who editors really are is not all that important to very many people, so long as they're not lying through their teeth to give their edits more backing. I doubt Wikipedia Review has more than a hundred readers, and none of them are outsiders, bar Brandt. It's important to the person concerned though, sometimes not because they have something to hide necessarily, but because they are private. The web has become a great means for private people to be able to be more public. The desire to out people is born out of a need to hurt those private people. I'm not sure that suggesting to them that they edit defensively is the right response to that, and I certainly don't think the nannyish call to watch out because the world is watching is either. "Be careful because some shithead might try to destroy your anonymity to spite you" is closer to the truth. The world doesn't care who SlimVirgin and Jayjg are, and never will, but people who have been hurt by them do. Grace Note 11:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace makes some good points above. I can understand how this would be considered a type of internet insider essay. But the loudest cries for anonymity seems to come from the "internet culture" who really do not understand what that means. Tips on "remaining anonymous" and "protecting yourself on the internet" usually include suggestions like don't give out your address, don't give out your social security number, and don't give out your bank account information. Anonymity as it relates to internet communities, where there is some degree of social interaction, does not seem to have entered the "public conscious." While myself, Mangoe, and Grace Note may have participated in internet communities for years and understand this, new internet users flocking to socially oriented websites have not considered it.

Some really don't care if anyone knows who they are and what they are and what they do. Those that do care go absolutely insane when someone uses the spy tool google.com to plug their username or email address in to find out where they have been and what they have said.

If we can find time to diseminate such common sense suggestions as "don't give out your social security number" we should also find time to warn people that a username can in fact lead directly to them; that may have real world consequences. And again, compliments on the essay Mangoe. Regards, El hombre de haha 22:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Hi Mangoe, as you can see, I reverted your edits on Wikipedia talk:Attack sites, as I believe that posting links to an attack site that attacks and harasses our editors is unacceptable, violating WP:NPA. If you can edit your post in such a way to make it more generic, without linking to any attack sites and without referring to specific editors, I would see no problem with it. Thanks for your understanding. Crum375 03:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mangoe,

I've looked over the mediation case, and I don't know if it is going to get picked up due to the lack on an initial RFC. I recommend removing your addition to that case and initiating an RFC purely on Crum375's action of reverting your posts. I recommend starting a WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. I've contacted Crum375 on his or her userpage, and have recieved the following: [2] I recommend contacting his or her user page to further attempt to resolve this issue between you. If that fails I will sign off as secondary support for an RFC. (I don't recommend starting another Arbitration case at this point.) Best, --Academy Leader 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RFC for policy pages. In this case it is purely user-conduct as opposed to "article" or "policy" content. Also, re: mediation, it will not get picked up if Denny and (now!) Crum375 don't sign off on it. I'll still sign off on a conduct RFC if you want to pursue it, this would bring in comments from the larger WP community to discuss the propriety of Crum375's actions (and your's) in this case.

But as discussion on that page has taken up your cause a bit it might pay also to wait around and see what happens. In any case I fully expect the Mediation request to get passed on. Whenever you want to go to RFC conduct let me know and I can sign off on it as I've previously engaged with Crumb375 on his or her userpage and on the "attack sites" discussion page. Due to the underlying policy issues I think more people should be made aware of the associated discussion on that page. Second person support is all you would need to initiate this.

Best Regards,

--Academy Leader 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: policy RFC, there is a page for initiating a policy RFC here Wp:rfc#Request_comment_on_policy_and_conventions. No need for a second signature on this. Surprised one wasn't implemented before. I'll post it.--Academy Leader 07:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Ms

In case your watchlist doesn't pick them up, these have now been moved from April 19 list to April 18.[3] here. Johnbod 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your personal attacks

No doubt, the level of incivility you have been displaying on Wikipedia talk:Attack sites is getting tiresome. You have repeatedly directed your attacks at individual editors and have attempted to undermine their stance by making attacks on their rationale for wanting to see the proposal promoted. You have been asked to cease making these attacks numerous times, yet have failed to do so. I urge you to argue about the merits of the case and cease making accusations about the contributors.--MONGO 13:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have rather a bit of nerve going on about attacks after your insinuation that I want to protect WR from censorship because I post there. As I said, the history is against you on this, and pointing that out is not a personal attack. You are far too trigger-happy about accusing others of attacking you, and you seem to think that your estimation in the eyes of others gives you license to pass comments on others which, if they were made against you, would bring forth the kind of remarks you have dropped here. Mangoe 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Attack Sites.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Lock on Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

I have no problem with locking per se, but you locked it in the objected-to form. Mangoe 14:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes. – Riana _ऋ 14:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree with that. "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version" :) However, it's only protected for 3 days. Hopefully this is not so long that people start taking the current version as gospel. – Riana _ऋ 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at the Village Pump

Hi, your comments at the Village pump [[4]] were referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grünfeld 4.Bf4. As I believe the editor who remarked on them is misinterpreting the substance of the discussion there, I'd like you to clarify your position so that a fuller understanding can be reached. If the AFD closes before you get a chance to respond, feel free to comment on my talk page and on that of the user. Thanks! Mister.Manticore 18:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

"you're trying to hide the rejection" is not something that belongs in an edit summary. It's better to just describe your edit, and leave discussion of others' motives for elsewhere (or nowhere). Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable

Hi Mangoe! I'm just getting back into railway editing, and I notice you've put a tag on the timetable essay saying it had been rejected. Who rejected it? I thought we had some consensus for not having a series of non-notable stations. SilkTork 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Research For You

I will assume good faith and that you are ignorant on the subject and not trying to troll on purpose.

Thus, I will link you to the pages about Admin:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_how-to_guide WP:ANI WP:AN3RR

Admin work for the Wiki company but are not paid. They are editors when they are on the Encyclopedia, but they have the ability to enter into pages in the same way a mechanic does. When they act in that function, they are representing the mechanics of the Encyclopedia and make statements/decisions based on that. Such things are not covered in the OR or any other rule, because it does not deal with content, but how people are using Wikipedia as a program. Now I ask you again to cease and desist on the NOR page, because this does not belong there. If you want to complain about Admin, take it to the appropriate page. SanchiTachi 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left

I left exactly because of the tactics as they display at the moment at that page. It is not worth your time. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave, either of you. I always considered both of you to be one of the good guys. — MichaelLinnear 02:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-storey car park

What is it that you're inclined not to believe in that article? Michael Hardy 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator?

Would you be interested in being an administrator? I'm not an admin myself but would be willing to nominate you if you're interested. CLA 01:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no! Don't drink the Koolaid! Save yourself before it's too late! ;-) Risker 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I wouldn't want to be put through the ~~wringer~~process anyway, but the truth is that I have neither inclination nor time to be an administrator. Mangoe 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 12:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please...

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take this as a last warning, Mangoe. You know that the arbitration committee ruled that a site that engages in the practice of outing editors may not be linked to, and that deliberate linking may be grounds for blocking. I will block you without hesitation next time you do that. Musical L inguist 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]