User talk:Mangojuice

Administrators: if you want to overturn one of my administrative actions, and I don't appear to be active, go ahead, so long as the action wasn't an overturning of your action. Use common sense, naturally. Mangojuice^talk 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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 9 Jun 2006 – 12 Jul 2006 12 Jul 2006 – 26 Aug 2006 26 Aug 2006 – 19 Oct 2006 19 Oct 2006 – 3 Dec 2006 3 Dec 2006 – 16 Mar 2007 16 Mar 2007 – 22 Aug 2007

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I think people casually reading my talk page would be interested in my response, in which case I'll respond here. Thanks!

Requesting the text from a deleted page

I'm requesting the text from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kids_Next_Door_Two-by-Four_Technology if possible, not to re-create the page but for the information it contained. I am attempting to create a video game mod based around Kids Next Door, and in the past I found this page extremely useful. If I could get a copy, I would dearly appreciate it. My e-mail is Ingulit@gmail.com. Ingulit | Talk 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to. Surely there is a fan site out there with similar information. I'm worried that if I do this, I will start getting flooded with requests for the contents of old deleted pages. Only admins are supposed to be able to access deleted content... and also, Wikipedia is not a webhost - if you find information useful, you should store it yourself because it is sometimes deleted. Mangojuice^talk 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This page seems to be available in an old mirror at [1]. EdJohnston 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Template: Did You Know?

Just wondering, I've spent a bunch of time on an article called 1965 Records, was wondering, can i nominate a page which started today (22nd)? There doesn't seem to be a heading for today. --SteelersFan UK06 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Organizing Group

Hi, I wanted to get your opinion on my reworking of the Pittsburgh Organizing Group article, since you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pittsburgh Organizing Group. Unfortunately the deleting admin's on a long wikibreak and probably won't respond to the message I left them. Anyway, I think the group is notable and verifiable enough to merit an article, so I've made a bunch of changes, and you can see what I have so far at User:Delldot/Box of sand. This shows most of the changes I've made from the deleted article (excluding the few I made in the first edit). I've added references and taken out anything I thought needed a reference and didn't have a reliable one. Your concern, as I understand it, was that the group was only trivially mentioned in most of the sources. I think I've fixed that. In a lot of the post-gazette articles and City Paper articles, POG is prominent. I wondered if you'd take a look and let me know what other changes you think need to be made and whether you think it's OK for me to undelete the article and change it to the version I currently have (I want to undelete it since some of the material is from the old article, so to add it new wouldn't be compliant with the GFDL). I don't want to bother bringing it to DRV but I want to do it in the most legit way possible, obviously. Any advice on how to proceed would be great. Thanks much, delldot talk 20:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What do you think about undeleting the original before changing it to my version because of the GFDL concern? Also, I don't want to move it, I'll just cut and paste from my sandbox, since there's a lot of history in there not relevant to the article (too bad I didn't think about that before). Thanks again. Peace, delldot talk 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I started with the deleted text. I figured it would be ok to undelete it since there's nothing, like, sensitive in there that shouldn't be undeleted. What do you think? Thanks again for all the help. Peace, delldot talk 18:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks a ton! Peace, delldot talk 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 04:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you

For all your help, advice and follow-up. It worked. Tiamut 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Unblock request templates

Well, it just seems to be how they want people to use the templates. Meh :) SGGH ^speak! 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mergul

Checkuser showed this username being created only minutes after a definite sockpuppet of a banned editor made a taunting post at User talk:Proabivouac. Only edit history from that IP has been socks of that banned editor. I thus believe it to be highly unlikely that this new editor is anyone but that same banned editor again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hacker Ministry AfD

No problem - I relisted because of changes made to the article towards the end of the AFD, but that's cool too. CitiCat ^♫ 19:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just read that discussion

I do feel that Pixelface is being most unreasonable. How can one editor with a controversial editing history be allowed to change policy and guidelines like this? You are aware that he tried speedying Template:Trivia, right? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am. In that case, I've been a bit unfair to Pixelface (but not that much). IMO, this was a reasonable change. However, evidently I'm not able to effectively change it to what Pixelface wrote, therefore I'll leave it be. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call

Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!

An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lucas

Thanks for providing a fresh look at the entry. -Jmh123 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some angry sounded IPs are really interested in this entry today. I've gone to all the porn sites I can stomach today verifying references. I really do not like this guy, but fair is fair. Fact is, most of the citations I've checked out are valid; only a few dead links. The only question is whether some of the autobiographical material cited to his artist's profile is accurate or not, but as I understand it, this is acceptable in his own entry. I've made a stab at some improvements, but I've had enough. Would appreciate your keeping an eye out and making any further improvements strike you, and helping deal with the complaints of these IPs. Thanks. -Jmh123 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cryptography

Hi,

Thanks for patient responses to my questions in Cryptography talk page. I think I understand what you mean: for example Britannica online in first sentence says: "Cryptography: Practice of the enciphering and deciphering of messages in secret code ...", and you would like to emphasize this practice aspect. If this is a main point of view in the article, in my opinion, it should be clarified, at least in the introduction. Other way we will have more misunderstanding among reader - I am not the firs, who complain about the title. Also the distinction between terms cryptology, cryptography and cryptanalysis might be reconsidered. Best, kuszi 18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

PS: I know about "do it yourself" rule, but I don't feel to do it, I just suggest that possibly this FA might be even better. If you do not agree I am not going to disturb you anymore.

Ok, I am participating in translation this article into polish, well we have nearly finished the translation, but we are not happy with some aspects. When we finish polishing I will try to make some suggestions. Best, kuszi 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

Michael Lucas

Regarding the paragraph you have deleted from Michael Lucas (porn star), most of the comments quoted were from this column in the NY Blade: [2]. I see he has edited his personal blog to delete the other quoted comments. (You can see references in the blog comments to indicate that previous "colorful" language existed.) He has published a number of controversial columns in the Blade. The one you deleted, [3], this one on Islam [4], and others. Are his published opinions not to be considered acceptable sources? Thanks. -Jmh123 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. I was confused by the edit comment as most of the material is sourced. Hopefully other editors will get involved with this entry and resolve some of the problems. There's been more discussion today at the WP:COI/N board. -Jmh123 02:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but verifying cites for a couple of hours yesterday was more than enough for me. Maybe some of the folks working on related pages will want to take it on. -Jmh123 03:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi Mangojuice. If a trivia section contains only two or three pieces of trivia which can be removed without loss of information then I don't see the benefit of retaining any elements. Why would you want to ALWAYS retain a section containing nothing of value? I'm missing something here. Especially as you are the originator of the very sensible Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Categorically remove", to me, means to remove such sections just because they are trivia sections. You shouldn't do that, even if there are cases in which removing all the trivia is what you think is best to do. That's not saying that you shouldn't remove an entire trivia section all at once, but do it with regard to what's in there (and don't describe WP:TRIVIA as mandating that change). Myself, I like to remove trivia sections over several edits so I can record my different objections to different items... and so that if there are any worth preserving or integrating, people can see that edit separately in the history. Mangojuice^talk 12:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps then the wording needs looking at. "Categorically" means entirely and absolutely - but perhaps what is intended is "unconsidered" - which means without consideration, or rashly. I think you are in favour of removing trivia sections entirely, but that you feel that people shouldn't remove them without first considering their potential value. Would I be right? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Deadline

For the NFCC proposal, it doesn't really matter whether the deadline applies or not. Certainly there are people who think the deadline does apply to us (yes, I know that it is easy to interpret the resolution to show it doesn't). The deadline isn't the issue there, though, so our goal was to avoid that problem. The image have to get fixed eventually anyway, and for now that deadline is as good as any other. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the deadline doesn't really matter. But I really don't see how you can interpret the resolution as applying that deadline to English Wikipedia when the English Wikipedia policy is explicitly given in the resolution as an example of an EDP, and the deadline is specifically applied only to projects that don't have an EDP. Anyone who is confused about the deadline should be set straight. The reasons for that proposal are orthogonal to the resolution deadline, although other points in the resolution might apply. I didn't touch the mention of the March '08 deadline in the Goals section, because it's a fine goal regardless. Mangojuice^talk 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's our general opinion too - even if we aren't obligated to meet the March deadline, it's a good target. If you have thoughts about the rest of the proposal, please feel free and welcome to comment on its talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will at some point, if I have time. Mangojuice^talk 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Marbury v. Madison

I am conducting reviews of Law articles listed as Good as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. A week ago I put Marbury v. Madison on hold, but has not received an answer. I don't realy want to delist this article over several missing refs, so could you add them? Ruslik 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

your edits to Loyola law school

You deleted comparitive statistics because you thought they were cherry picked. Those were not cherry picked schools. Rather, they are the four other ABA law schools in LA. We need those statistics to compare Loyola to the LA market. Please leave them in. --Brickexistab 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

I've unblocked Betacommandbot as it doesn't appear to be malfunctioning, and is needed in the upload logs. Feel free to overturn the block, or tell Betacommand the problem, if you have a good reason to do so. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't hardblock Bots...

Hi Mangojuice. Regardless of the merits of the block, please take the autoblock off when blocking Bots. At best the Bot shares its operator's IP (and they haven't done anything to be blocked) and at worse it runs of the toolserver (like BetacommandBot) and the autoblock can take down every other Bot on the toolserv. Fortunately it wasn't editing at the time so I don't think any autoblocks resulted but wanted to make sure you were aware of the potential disruption a Bot hardblock can cause. WjBscribe 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the reminder, I made a mistake there. Mangojuice^talk 18:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Should :Image:Amazing May 1938.jpg be restored to Amazing Stories

I have been doing research on the copyright status of pre-1964 Ziff Davis Publishing magazines. They did not make it a practice to renew copyrights. My interest is electronics magazines such as Radio News but I have been adding fair use statements to various other magazines articles such as Amazing Stories to prevent covers from being deleted.

You removed the May 1938 issue from Amazing Stories as not being significant. I have no opinion on that. (I don't follow science fiction.) I updated the copyright status on all three Amazing Stories magazine covers to Public Domain, not renewed. Should the public domain cover Image:Amazing May 1938.jpg be restored to the article? Thanks SWTPC6800 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion here: no. The article already has a lot of cover illustrations, and even if that one is PD, it doesn't add anything. However, do you have access to other cover images? Because there's one mentioned in the trivia section, about the July 1940 issue that is quite interesting, sourced, and would make an excellent caption if an image could go with it. Mangojuice^talk 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Osiris Games

Why delete the Osiris Games page? The company is significant. It's games have been acknowledged as being well made and have been said to have inspired other developers, now famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.94.154 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources on it, feel free to recreate the article. Mangojuice^talk 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

your essay

give me a few hours or overnight. It was a good idea to do this. I;'m trying to tighten language, and indicate where you may want to present optional views. I'll save as i go, because the WP server is unstable today, but I'll tell you when I finish. And there is the pop culture emergency to deal with in the meanwhile DGG (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mangojuice

I guess I am not important enough to matter. I will just keep it in case I end up a hostage somewhere and can use it to contact my parents in some convoluted narrative scheme. But thanks for answering! Saudade7 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image use question

Hello, MangoJuice. I noticed your edits at Image talk:Numanumanewspaper.jpg and wondered what you would think of the fair use justification for Image:Chris Crocker on frontpage.jpg. Can we get away with it? Should we resize/crop? Ichormosquito 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. Thanks for the advice. Ichormosquito 08:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK Update needed

If you are online an update is overdue and DYK has a backlog. Could you do the update?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, not right now, I'm just on for a few minutes here and there. Mangojuice^talk 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do You Believe

Do you believe in superstition, Mangojuice? Yes or no? Please leave an answer at my talk page. Pokemon Buffy Titan 09:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Myspace127

At first I was borderline about this username violation (the username does "match the name of a company or group"). I asked some fellow admins, and there was a consensus to do a username block. May I ask how you found about this block? Were you contacted by the user? Nishkid64 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

protection for vandalpolice guy

I reinstated it since your reason was invalid. The talk page protection has nothing to do with the rationale for the initial block. The talk page protection was a response to his continuous abuse of the unblock template. This is the standard and appropriate response when a blocked user is abusing that template. It does NOT preclude him from unblocking by any means: He may email the unblock-en-l list, or he may email OTRS unblock queue, or he may contact the arbitration committee. However, my protection of his talk page was an appropriate response to his harassment of admins by repeated use of the unblock template. It has nothing to do with WP:BITE which is so generalized of a topic that stating it as an unprotection reason doesn't really mean anything. I'd ask that you do not remove this protection and allow the rest of the situation to play out. While I firmly believe that this guy is an unproductive user, nothing about his block prevents him from creating a new account. If he really wants to come back, he can do that. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what SwatJester says I was not intentinally abusing the unblock template. I have posted my side of the story here TUvp 10:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Certainly. The user is the same as User:BiasThug, User:BulliedByTinyMinds, User:AboveTheClub and User:TruthHider. This is shown by edits to Mumia Abu-Jamal, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal/archive1. The user is blocked for sockpuppetry. The civility is incidental, although it does show the same pattern of abusive edits, including This is a picture of a negro with his mulatto child and Malcolm X is a rent-boy. DrKiernan 11:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks to remain posted on Talk pages?

Thank you for your opinion. I'm now asking for further verification. You are telling me that the removal of personal attacks from talk pages is un-acceptable at WP? Is that your opinion as an Administrator? I'm very surprised by that. I have read the Talk page guidelines and it seems to me that the contrary is the case. May I have a Second opinion? Thanks for your previous response. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, I didn't see any personal attacks, but I didn't read every word, so I take with a serious grain of salt the idea that you actually have been attacked. But more importantly, when an editor makes personal attacks, it's a behavior problem that needs to be addressed, but removing the comment isn't much of a remedy. This is backed up by policy: see WP:NPA#Removal of text. Mangojuice^talk 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Juditha triumphans Did you know? column on October 19, 2006.

Hi Mangojuice, How are you? Sorry for the intrusion once more but I saw your name as one of the participants in DYK and I would like to ask you how I can find the above entry of Juditha triumphanssince there appears to be no search engine for this. Thanks and all the best. Dr.K. 13:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Transient-Key Cryptography

Hi, Mangojuice--You posted a note on the Discussion page for Transient-key cryptography in which you said you'd review the ANSI ASC X9.95 standard to see if it was a reliable third-party source for the article.

You may be having some difficulty downloading the standard, which is available only for a fee. Here are some links describing the standard:

• press release
• the standard

Please let me know if this will qualify as a reliable third-party standard, as the T-K article has been marked for deletion in the next day or so. Skulvis 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Both of those links are broken. If you have access to the full text of the standard, perhaps you can just let me know what is said about Transient-key cryptography in the standard? Don't worry about the deletion, that can always be undone if it's wrong. Mangojuice^talk 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry--bad spec on the links. They should work now. Here's what's in the X9.95 spec:

A. 3.40 In the Terms and Definitions, the entry for Transient Key reads, "A method of chaining time-interval-correlated public keys sequentially whereby the public key of an interval is cryptographically signed by the preceding interval’s private key."

B. 7.4 In the description of Time Stamp Token, the possible types of encapsulation of a time stamp info object include signed data, authenticated data, digested data, and TransientKeySignedTST, which is used when the Transient Key method is employed.

C. 8.5 Transient Key Method. Summary: In this time stamp method, the TSA uses an asymmetric key pairs that is generated for a defined interval of time. During the time interval (TN), the TSA uses the private key of the asymmetric key pair to digitally sign the time stamp info object encapsulated in the time stamp token. The time stamp token verification is carried out by performing signature verification using the corresponding public key for the given time interval. The remainder of the 10 pages of this section describe much of what is in the article: how private keys are used to sign public keys before they are destroyed and re-generated for the new interval, how a requester can acquire a timestamp, how timestamp chains are contained and disseminated through network archives, how transient-key servers can be used to cross-certify keys, etc.

D. There is also a description in the Annex of the ASN.1 module for the TransientKey method, which runs for a few pages.

Is that sufficient? Please let me know if you need more. Skulvis 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it's extremely thin. If there is any actual academic work on the subject, it's a different story. Maybe the concept should be covered as part of the article on digital timestamping? Mangojuice^talk 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s fair to call inclusion in a national financial services standard an "extremely thin” reference.

ANSI ASC X9.95: The ANSI ASC X9.95 standard's references to transient key demonstrates wide-ranging and in-depth peer review by a large team of technology experts not associated with one specific company. To provide some background from the ANSI web site: "The process to create these voluntary standards is guided by the Institute’s cardinal principles of consensus, due process and openness and depends heavily upon data gathering and compromises among a diverse range of stakeholders. The Institute ensures that access to the standards process, including an appeals mechanism, is made available to anyone directly or materially affected by a standard that is under development. Thousands of individuals, companies, government agencies and other organizations such as labor, industrial and consumer groups voluntarily contribute their knowledge, talents and efforts to standards development."

This particular standard was developed over a period of years from contributions from some of the leading financial services companies on the planet, including: ACI Worldwide, American Express Company, American Financial Services Association, Bank of America, Capital One, Certicom Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., Deluxe Corporation, Diebold, Inc., Discover Financial Services, eFunds Corporation, Federal Reserve Bank, First Data Corporation, Fiserv, Hewlett Packard, Hypercom, IBM Corporation, Ingenico, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co, KPMG LLP, MagTek, Inc., MasterCard International, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Security Agency, NCR Corporation, SWIFT, The Clearing House, Unisys Corporation, University Bank, VeriFone, Inc., VECTORsgi, VISA, Wachovia Bank, Wells Fargo Bank.

While "ANSI ASC X9.95" may be a single reference in the article, it encompasses a huge volume of work. It's a line-item in the article, but so is "PhD" on a resume. This standard is only two years old, yet the above list of contributors indicates that it is going to be commonplace in short order.

Lack of references: Again, at issue is the newness of the technology, which has patent protection by ProofSpace. Based on the standard, the company built the technology, patented it, and then developed products based off of it. How is it that Wikipedia handles discussions of newly patented technologies? Unless they are widely licensed immediately, there will not be broad discussion of them on the Internet. And, as in this case, if they are an embedded technology, it is rare for them to get broad commercial recognition.

This technology is a parallel offering to public-key cryptography. However, it did not emerge out of university research and instead came from the private sector. Is that the fundamental issue? If so, how many Wikipedia articles could be called into question because their underlying patented technologies emerged from the private sector?

Here is a small sample of Wikipedia articles that seem to be of parallel construction:

• Real-time Transport Protocol
• Shadow volume
• Yahoo! Search Marketing

I have also noticed that Wikipedia seems to permit listings for software products, some of which I have never heard. Whatever the applicable standard, it seems ambiguously applied across categories.

The effort here is to provide objective information on an emerging technology that has considerable industry weight and years of research behind it. That, to me, is not extremely thin. Skulvis 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ATLANTA - BOY BAND

Thanks for all your support, this morning we met all the demands requested by everyone and published them, including proof from HRH Prince Charles, this we listed on the delete page, but sadly less than an hour later the entry for ATLANTA BOY BAND was deleted in full. Of course it upset the group themselves and after making contact with those parties that provided the evidence for us, they are most disappointed. We have requested an appeal/re-post, which still awaits reply. Kind Regards Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 10:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV#Justine Ezarik

Since you've reevaluated the AfD, you could have closed the DRV as endorse. --w^{L<speak·check>} 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't really think so. Just because some people wanted an independent admin to review doesn't mean that's what everyone wants. Mangojuice^talk 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: preciseedit

Preciseedit is an "author services" company. The edit by Preciseedit advertising "our website preciseedit.com" was to the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum fiction. As for his "constructive edits": all of them are to a worshipful article, about Luigi Ugolini, the grandfather of self-advertisement and spamming queen V*nn* B*nt* (whose name is disemvowelled to avoid it showing up on searches, as her followers customarily monitor all references to her); or to three other articles: the one about quantum fiction, the neologism V*nn* made up to advertise her work, and the debates about deleting her article and quantum fiction. I suspect that preciseedit is serving as a publicist for B*nt*. Other meatpuppets or sockpuppets of B*nt* are Tikka72, Tobias29, Italianstudies, Gatortaur, Ribofizz, and the IP 24.24.145.217. --Orange Mike 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to go after the entire cluster of meat/sockpuppets now? If you examine their collective edit history, it seems pretty clear that the above-listed group of topics, and others where B*nt* can be inserted, is their sole purpose for being. --Orange Mike 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta Boy Band

Friday 26th october 2007 - England

Hello Mangojuice,

Many thanks for the latest comments you have left for us, I so appreciate it and I have looked at the entry for "Monovox"

It's interesting that the first of their links/citations I looked at is to their own website, we have been so strongly attacked for doing this.

I feel the main problem is that most of those who asked for the original deletion of Atlanta are all USA residents and with great respect they do not understand both the culture and heritage standing here in the UK. We may speak the same language English, but it is so different. People from such as "The Prince's Trust" which is held in such high respect by the British people, can't believe what they have said and done for Atlanta is being called so much into question. Every event the group attended and concert appearance for The Trust was unique for an unsigned band.

The same with MIZZ Teen Magazine, not one other artist on any of their roadshow tours to major UK City Theatres, not small school halls or village halls had no unsigned artist except Atlanta. You say rightly the space given was not large, but many other band/groups signed said they would have been pleased to get that coverage. If you read the text it is so plain to see how MIZZ respected Atlanta to feature them for two years.

You mention the TV documentary, we have asked Granada TV who now own virtually 75% of all the UK Commercial TV area's in the UK, for permission to put up part of the documentary on "YouTube", we await an answer from them. I can assure you no other band was featured the boy band documentary is only about ATLANTA, the only other band included is Boyzone, Granada TV filmed them giving advice to Atlanta what life would be like as a star. RCA is featured in the documentary, the four boys, myself in Simon Cowell's office at RCA, before his IDOL days. Granada also filmed the group at MIZZ editorial offices in London. The filming took place for six weeks. You have made an assumption that in your opinion the documentary contained very little on Atlanta, for me I would never do this without hard facts and proof and especially in a public place such as Wikipedia, that is my opinion and the standards I was brought up with by my parents.

I have so much respect for what you have achieved in your life looking at your citations, myself, well I went into Commercial Radio straight from school, no qualifications, but I worked hard and in the 21 years I reached Management Board level. When Radio City was taken over I did a course in Manchester and qualified in "Business of Music" this was about 12 months after Atlanta asked me to manage them. After Atlanta came off the road from touring, I was the Director for a "UK Drugs Awareness Tour" taking UK Pop Chart Artists around the UK to try and get the message across about drugs.

Some have accused me trying to promote myself, this is so far from the truth. I lost my Mum very suddenly and my Brother died three days later with the shock leaving me with no family, this affected my health badly and I have not worked since 2001. Recently as part of the on going health problems I have had to have major heart surgery and have been advised not to return to work. Yesterday I got so upset that I had a bad attack, my first since the operation and my specialist this morning told me it was caused by stress. I will not give in though with something I believe in strongly. Fans asked Atlanta to make a reunion tour in 2007 to mark ten years, a decision was made not to, all but one is now not involve dwith music and I agreed with them. The memories and the notability achieved for a UK unsigned band are truly special and no one can take them away, more so a few on Wikipedia.

Here in the UK Wikipedia is looked on as a joke, media have done stories about such as libel statements and lies about professional footballers personal lives, but I have always used it myself as an information base, though I then usually check accuracy.

I have found Wikipedia like a minefield the many rules/regulations and I still struggle trying to submit information and I have used computers since the 80's. I believe strongly that ATLANTA deserve the recognition on WIKIEPEDIA and I'm so grateful for the few who have helped us like yourself.

For me the world has too many major problems which upset me for example "The Jenas 6" in the USA which is nothing compared to the heated debate a few have given to myself and Atlanta and at times, not yourself I point out, it is just keeping matters like deletion in perspective.

Yours sincerely

John

John B Sheffield

We will continue to provide information as requested and hope the TV perm ission is given soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John B Sheffield (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Insane date on 3rd Archive

Hi, Mangojuice. I was browsing through the talk page archives (don't blame me--I was bored) and on the third archive, I saw a date that said something like 15,0000,00000,0000 BC-2006 or something. Just thought I'd let you know--Cheeze Master

Oh yeah, I can't get at my account information...darn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.77.234.78 (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuing debate

Hey, Mangojuice, I was wondering if you would voice your thoughts in this discussion, since you took part in its deletion review, and I'd really like you to comment on this particular aspect of it as well. Flyer22 04:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Flyer22 20:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK way overdue, about 6 hours late

Help! In only 2 hours, we would have missed a full update!! I've moved hooks to the next update page. Need admin help to move to the main page. Thanks. Archtransit 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks/resolved. Archtransit 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Shuja butt

Just wondering, but where was the username violation with Shuja butt (talk · contribs)? Nishkid64 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see a legitimate A7. It doesn't seem that bad. Also, "Butt" a legitimate Southeast Asian last name. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:3RR report on you

Thank you for the notification. I have replied there. I believe that the report is not only not valid on technical basis, but in fact represents bad faith and disruption; that user should be warned if not blocked. You may want to take into consideration that the article in question (Kiev Expedition...) was mostly written and expanded to GA status by me; further compare MORDOOR's recent contribution to mine, and note he has never edited this article before but was recently engaged in some disputes with me on other pages (actually almost all of his last 100 contributions are to articles either created by me or where I have commented first - WP:STALK comes to mind).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the 3rd and 4th edits were back-to-back, or I wouldn't have even given a warning. As for the stalking thing, where do you think the dispute originated? If he's stalking you, he must be annoyed about something specific. Mangojuice^talk 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you strike out or blank the warning than? Otherwise I know it will be cited as 'evidence' at some point in the future against me (have seen it before). As for the dispute, I have disagreed with MORDOOR on certain topics since long ago; unfortunately it seems that he has taken to it rather personally. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiding breaking rule..

Look at this user how he (User:Moldopodo) wants to cover up things.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=168551129&oldid=168550642 --Moldorubo 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And now he is impersonating Mangojuice: [5]. Permblock? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Who? I just copied his colors, is that forbidden? Don't forget there are 2 persons here. I'm the good guy here. Moldorubo^talk 18:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Moldojuice" signature, I think, was too close to mine. The one you used just above looks fine to me, similar but distinct. Mangojuice^talk 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good guy? Account created today, and already filling a 3RR report? Hmm.... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah good guy :) don't you see I catch the ones who break the rules? also finding those who try to hide things? I don't know what you thing but this is pretty strong evidence against that person..--Moldorubo^talk 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Piotrus: Moldopodo was the one who altered the 3RR report; Moldorubo is the one who reversed that, and also has the signature similar to mine. A bit confusing, though. Mangojuice^talk 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You see. Mango you're right :) what do we have to do in order to deal with such character? I suspect he'll push POV again. Now pages are protected and he's free. I would prefer vice-versa, pages free him locked.--Moldorubo^talk 19:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There are ways to deal with complicated violations like POV-pushing, but they take process to work out. Mangojuice^talk 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WT:U

Hi Mango, I responded to your proposal more broadly on the discussion page. Basically I'm trying to get a feel for the types of names we'd be blocking on sight that are not offensive, and how point 4 will be implemented. Thanks! ~Eliz81^(C) 20:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)