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.
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]
Page edits
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.
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, Mpinzuti15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Race and intellignece protection expired
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 Murray15:24, 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]
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.
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]
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]
User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound
Hi. It looks like we have completed the first pahse of our editing process. Can you substitute the text at User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound into the Race and intelligence article later today? Futurebird has removed the editing notes etc. and is going to work on some flow issues. I'll be gone for the weekend, but have asked Futurebird to post the next section to User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound so that our experiment can continue. Thanks so much for your patient assistance in resolving this thorny issue. --Kevin Murray15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Murray19:46, 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]
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 Bud02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB)
I'm trying to find my page. I saw you that you deleted while another moderator stated he didn't see any problem with the page. As for why the tag was changed, the instructions clearly stated that if I was contesting the deletion, to post a new tag. I followed instructions.
My question now is, how is is that another game of the same genre is allowed to stay in wikipedia while mine is not? I've listed on the talk page the links and wikipedia pages I'm refering to but no answer was given.
Zodiac0116:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the guidelines on reliable source. "1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting)."
The references listed all the sites related to the work:
I'd like to have the page accessible so that I can modify it to reflect the style of the [Star Trek Simulation Forum|Star Trek Simulation Forum] since they've somehow convince you to allow their page to stay even though they are the same thing. Zodiac0117:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB)
If I deleted the rules for gameplay, would that help. I'm still trying to understand why this article is not notable in comparison to the other one I noted. I don't know if you are aware but STSF is no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiac01 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of userfying the material and will attempt to further explain policies to you in the hopes that you can create an article that is compliant. This will take another couple of minutes. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope to make this an actual article and expand wikipedia viewers knowledge of PbBB gaming. USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB) alone is the only PbBB sample here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiac01 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The material has been userfied and further information on policies left at your talk page. Please feel free to let me know if I can clarify any of that further. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think i understand the "why" portion. Now I have to figure out how to get this into an actual article. But I'm lost as to what I need to add or delete. Zodiac0117:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I tag articles like Nathan Southern for sd? I found similar articles Gyorgy Kiss, Paul Donnelly (defender) created by same user. Wondering what to do with them. And this article Emily's Pub also confused me. Which one to tag for sd and which one to tag for unreferenced? How much time we should give for article like A&W Root Beer which was created on 25 sept 2004 to provide reliable references? Thanks. 1917:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I've had a look, and I'll tell you first that I am completely uninformed about sports topics and so make it a practice never to tag those for speedy or to delete them when I encounter them. Obviously, the admin who deleted Nathan Southern agreed with your tag. The general rule of thumb set out at WP:BIO on athletes is that notability is met by:
Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis
Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).
If the article does not even suggest that the individual meets those criteria (and it doesn't meet the WP:BIO guidelines otherwise, such as with substantial, reliable third-party sourcing) then it can properly be tagged for WP:CSD. If it does suggest that the individual meets those criteria but otherwise fails (like if the information is unverifiable or it may be a hoax), then it's best to proceed through other steps of the [WP:DP|deletion process]], WP:PROD or WP:AfD. As far as waiting for sourcing, articles that are unsourced can be nominated for deletion, but it's generally a good idea to run a search yourself first. With 93,600 hits on Google, it's very likely that reliable sourcing can be produced for A&W, even if the article's contributors are very slow to do so. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By this rational I got more hits than you for 'Nathan Southern'. It is horrifying to search how many results pertains to this 'Nathan Southern'. You may suggest to use different keywords. I did it today with Nelson (singer) and it wasted my one hour. Keywords like 'singer nelson bronx new york' were leading me to some insurance broker.
If burden of reliable sources is diverted to new page patrollers and admin, then... what can I say. Thanks. 1918:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, checking sources is quite the game of hide and seek. :) You may wish to tag the article for reference improvement. The three tags I use most often are {{unsourced}} (if there's nothing), {{primarysources}} (if everything goes to the company's website or some such) or {{refimprove}}, if what's there is insufficient. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flubber (character)
Hey whats up Moonriddengirl, its PaidInFull1987. You recently deleted my flubber page and im not here to scold you, you were right for deleting it, it was silly vandalism, I was just being silly. I was just wondering if you could send me the paragraph that I wrote because it does hold some personal value to me. Don't worry, im not going to attempt to put the Flubber page back up and vandalize again, I just got a kick out of it and I want to get that paragraph back so I can e-mail it to my friend, who would definately get a laugh out of it. Im hoping you can have a sense of humor about all this and grant my request, I would highly appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaidInFull1987 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SJP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
He Moonriddengirl! The words you are reading now are a bit special, because they form my 1000th edit (see here and check the <count> tags). Not much compared to your amount. But still, I've been browsing through Wikipedia for quiet a while now, and ever since, not a day has passed in which I did not thought about this project. But anyway, ehm... I was wondering, could you give me an apprentice badge? That would be great! I ask you because, as you can see on my talk page, you are not only the last person who left me a message, but also the only person I ever had a nice conversation with. I've seen you've done a lot of good things for WP lately, even became an admin! Keep up the good work, but don't get bonked you know... Cheers, Face22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Congratulations. :D I have so bestowed the tag upon you. Feel free to move it if you don't like where I put it. I have been pretty busy on Wikipedia since we first encountered each other. Comes of having No Life. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for (fairly recently) adding a mini discography to Big Joe's page. He, amongst others, is a passion of mine. Is your work now done, or are you still working on this? Can I help (really not sure how)? Cheers,
I am done. :) If you can find sources, his discography could use more individual article creation. Also, the article I created for The Boss of the Blues could use considerable expansion. I am slowly building a print library, but, alas, haven't much, and the internet doesn't care so much about the jazz guys. (At least, not "reliable sources" internet. :)) --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB)
If I deleted the rules for gameplay, would that help. I'm still trying to understand why this article is not notable in comparison to the other one I noted. I don't know if you are aware but STSF is no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiac01 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of userfying the material and will attempt to further explain policies to you in the hopes that you can create an article that is compliant. This will take another couple of minutes. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope to make this an actual article and expand wikipedia viewers knowledge of PbBB gaming. USS Amazon (Star Trek PbBB) alone is the only PbBB sample here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiac01 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The material has been userfied and further information on policies left at your talk page. Please feel free to let me know if I can clarify any of that further. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think i understand the "why" portion. Now I have to figure out how to get this into an actual article. But I'm lost as to what I need to add or delete. Zodiac0117:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The USS AmazonStar Trek PbBB RRP is a is a Star Trek based play-by-post role-playing game where players interacted by roleplaying over an internet forum. Players develop their own characters and help develope storylines presented in the form of missions. Since it's development, the forum has hosted over 100 role-players. The forum is controlled by a senior GM, also called the Commanding Officer that monitors the content of each players post. USS Amazon is a part of Horizon Fleet, A Star Trek simulation organization. Horizon Fleet is home to 22 Star Trek simulations, 2 Task forces, an exclusive Fleet Academy training program, Advertising department, Department of Personnel & Awards, and Judge Advocate General.
External links
USS Amazon game site for of the USS Amazon Star Trek PbBB RPG.
Horizon Fleet USS Amazon affiliated Simming Organization
