| Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the plus sign at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil comments here, unless you specify that you would rather I respond at your talk page. If I've left a note for you to which I think you may respond, I'm watching your page. Typically, I do not watch pages where I've left simple policy clarifications. If you want to discuss a note with me further and aren't sure if I'm watching your page, please feel free to open a new discussion with me here.
|
| If you have a question about an album assessment I have made, please look first at the album assessment guidelines. It may answer your question. If it doesn't or if you'd like me to reassess, please let me know.
|
| If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template warning I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked.
|
I'm trying to find my page. I saw you that you deleted while another moderator stated he didn't see any problem with the page. As for why the tag was changed, the instructions clearly stated that if I was contesting the deletion, to post a new tag. I followed instructions.
My question now is, how is is that another game of the same genre is allowed to stay in wikipedia while mine is not? I've listed on the talk page the links and wikipedia pages I'm refering to but no answer was given.
Zodiac01 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete my page on atadrad.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pen lord2000 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He Moonriddengirl. In view of your post here, I that that you might like reviewing this discussion. Best.-- Jreferee t/c 13:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! I'll take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. It seems like I'm a little too late for that party. Everybody has been indefinitely blocked for legal threats. It's too bad that the creator didn't read the response at the Drawing Board after asking for input there. If she had followed the suggestions, the revised article might have been acceptable. I'll keep an eye on the discussion in case the users are unblocked and it does resume. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I saw the edits you made to the Thornton Tomasetti page and wanted to know if how it's worded now meets your criteria. I don't want the page deleted and I'm not sure who has been posting the more fluffy descriptions which you edited. Regardless, I am fine with your edits and understand why you did them, I just wanted to be sure the page is ok now and not queued up to be deleted.
Thanks,
Mpinzuti 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The article is not currently under deletion review. I removed the speedy tag because I disagreed with the assessment, but did address (as you know) a few statements I felt were problematic in that regard. I see that the editor who tagged the article has returned to the page since my edits but did not pursue deletion, so it may be that his concerns were addressed. I don't believe the article is at this point overly promotional; other editors and administrators might feel differently. However, I imagine that at this point if the article were still perceived as problematic, deletion would probably be pursued through the articles for deletion debate process, in which case the page would be tagged so that all interested contributors could weigh in. These conversations typically last five or more days, though on rare occasion consensus might be established strongly enough for early closure. If you want to strengthen the article, it could do with more inline citations from reliable sources to verify its notability. I don't think it's dangerously lacking in this as it stands, but I tend to err on the side of caution in creating my own articles. :) I hope this helps. Please let me know if you'd like to me to expand on anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Moonriddengirl, I appreciate the quick reply. I'll review the text with our communications folks and try and provide the line citations you suggested. I'm new to the world of Wikipedia (been doing intranets for years, just recently been given the keys to external sites) so I am teaching myself as quickly as I can. I do have a random question though: if you check the edit logs of the page, someone named CWJE went in there a few weeks ago and wrote a ton of the text that you've since edited. I wanted to know who that person was (suspecting it was someone in our firm) but couldn't see a way to track the IP at all. So my question is, outside of the talk page to resolve conflicts or ask questions, is there a way to see the IP's of individual edits to a page? That would at least tell me if the person is internal or not. Anyway, thanks for any help you can send my way. I'll work on getting some edits up there to strengthen the text and hopefully make everyone happy in the end :) -- Thanks, Mpinzuti 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
We are starting to make progress on Race and Intellegence but the protection expired this moring and already an IP has added significant undiscussed text to an article we are trying to drastically trim. Can you revert to the prior protected version and reinstate protection. Ironically I had just sent an email to Guy, but as he is in Britian it is not likely that he will be able to respond beofre all hell breaks loose here. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Kevin. I've extended the protection on the article another 5 days, but since the material inserted does not appear to be a case of clear vandalism or to carry legal impact, I have to protect in its current version per policy. Whether you incorporate the new additions into the consensus version you're creating is, of course, up to you guys. I'm glad to hear that you guys are making progress. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Kevin Murray 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you deleted my page could you please tell why this was??Johnterrylover 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire contents of the article Cally timmins when I deleted it were "woohoo!! to be continued...." This is an obviously unencyclopedic article and was deleted accordingly. Creating and recreating pages that are nonsensical or obviously unencyclopedic can, like attacking other editors, lead to a block. Wikipedia welcomes all constructive contributions. If you are unsure how best to contribute, you may wish to review our introduction page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you comment again at Sejny; this time a new statement ([1]) is being added and reverted and the issue again is WP:UNDUE.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on picking up on a hoax and listing it for AfD (here). That's really the biggest hoax I've ever seen. jj137 (Talk) 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I'm afraid I don't get credit for spotting it. :) It was tagged by somebody else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editor User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel did not follow proper procedure when nominating Nndb for deletion. He/She added the entry to the template but did not file an entry in the proper TfD page for discussion. This entry is now dated 29 October 2007 more than enough time to properly follow procedure per WP:TFD. Attempts have been made by other editors to remove the tag and it has been reverted, claiming it is 'inappropriate to remove a TfD while in discussion', yet there isn't an article for dicussion. In this case it appropriate to remove the tag from the template and consider it AGF or Vandalism? I ask because I noticed someone has their AWB set to delete entries from articles based on this bogus or improperly filed TfD tag.
- --DP67 (talk/contribs) 06:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind; I found it.. Followed wrong link.. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 06:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just created the page Tim Dunlap bio, and you deleted it due to a copyright violation. I had the author on the IMDb that wrote the article email wikipedia stating that it can be used. I wrote the work, and I was the one who wrote it for IMDb. Therefore it is not a violation of the copyright laws. Thank you for you time and support.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeguy3 (talk • contribs) 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- If permission has been emailed to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, then the article can be restored with a note on the talk page indicating that permission has been sent to the OTRS system. Someone from within the system will tag it accordingly. However, I note that your new article Tim Dunlap (by contrast to Tim dunlap, which is the one that I deleted for copyright violation) has been deleted by another administrator as failing to satisfy notability guidelines. Before recreating the article, you may with to review WP:BIO, paying particular attention to the criteria for creative professionals, to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be pleased to know that User:211.29.188.33 has been banned for a week. StephenBuxton 13:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. :) This is an ongoing situation, involving the same editor described in User_talk:Moonriddengirl#58.104.138.184 above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have done as you requested. The information is not formatted in the same manner as the other information you have on the page, but I guess you can do that if you wish. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much! I'll take care of formatting. :) I appreciate your assistance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Any time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It looks like we have completed the first pahse of our editing process. Can you substitute the text at User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound into the Race and intelligence article later today? Futurebird has removed the editing notes etc. and is going to work on some flow issues. I'll be gone for the weekend, but have asked Futurebird to post the next section to User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound so that our experiment can continue. Thanks so much for your patient assistance in resolving this thorny issue. --Kevin Murray 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep an eye on it, and when the strikethroughs (or Futurebird lets me know it's ready) will put it up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HI.
We are making good progress at R&I but I would like to request that the protection be continued indefinitely while we work as we have been in consensus. I'm hoping that a culture of cooperation will develop. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Kevin. I'm glad to hear that you're making progress. :) I would not personally be comfortable indefinitely extending full protection to the article. As I read WP:PP, I don't think it's meant to be utilized often. Even an article as contentious, say, as "abortion" seems to receive incremental protection rather than long-term full protection (just glancing at the log). As it stands now, the protection is set to expire on November 11th. When it does, if edit warring resumes, the article may be protected again. However, it is highly preferable, I would think, to encourage the editors involved to simply make a habit of discussing major changes to the article on the talk page before implementing them. I have not been extensively involved with page protections, though, and I would certainly understand if you want to bring the matter up with an admin who is over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please go here. Laleena 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to see you go. :( I hope you will return. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking an interest in this article, and thank you also for policing its precise deletion status. As a beginner on Wikipedia I have noted the concern with the article's notability and attempted to address it - I hope successfully. If you feel it needs more work to merit its inclusion, please let me know via my talk page and I will respond accordingly. I'd like to note that my stimulus to write the article and my model in drafting it came from a refererence to the magazine in an article on Cantab, which appears very similar in content and justification and has raised no notability problems. If Cantab is ok, should not the newly redrafted Energy Matters now be too? --Andrew Bud 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
