User talk:Mangojuice
 Archives |
|---|
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!
U2 FAC...
Hey – thanks for your comments at the FAC. To be honest, a suggestion to make a lead shorter surprised me. Hmmm. I’ve generally gone along with the principal that a lead can be up to three or four paragraphs long (see WP:LEAD) – a one-sentence lead for such a long article just seems, well, odd. Ie, the lead is intended to be summary of the article.
However, if you feel the lead could be re-written, including trimming the “boring” bits (ie, that list of charities), that certainly sounds fair enough. If that means shortening it, well, all the better. How about a two-paragraph lead that has some fat trimmed? U2’s history has broadly gone through 3 or 4 very distinct phases that are outlined in 3 or 4 sentences, and much of the band’s character and music comes out in this. I’d suggest this is fundamental info.
Also, consider that the only other substantial oppose vote (so far) has made essentially conflicting suggestions on the lead (albeit some that I am not yet convinced about either). They suggest trimming the list of charities (fine) but then want *more* detail on the history – I thought we struck a succinct but informative compromise with the history side of it.
Anyway, I’m at work now and shouldn’t be on WP – hopefully I can change it tonight. Thanks for your review. Please let me or the FAC page know your thoughts on my comment. --Merbabu (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Collaboration requested on WP:DEMAND
I envision this project namespace essay someday becoming a guideline. To that end I am requesting collaboration from some respected members who have demonstrated some enthusiasm for the subject. Your essay User:Mangojuice/Slave is remarkably similar, as was pointed-out to me recently by another editor. Would you be willing to merge/copy the content of your essay there and to help expand and refine WP:DEMAND as necessary to be suitable to propose it for guideline status? JERRY talk contribs 18:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: www.sikhiwiki.com
Hi Mango, but I see links to this site on a lot of Sikh (and non-sikh) articles). When you check the link it is either irrelevant or the artcile at sikhiwiki is copied and pasted from other "first hand " links. So far I have changed about 10 and removed erroneous links to sikhiwiki, but it seems we have a habitual linkers to sikhiwiki. Is sikhiwiki a sister site to wikipedia btw? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirects with quotes
Hi. I want to comment that quotes should not be used for emphasis. Moreover searching for an article with or without quotes makes no difference. All other administrators have deleted these redirects. Some really old redirection had to be nominated but then we still were deleted. Check the discussion. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see they got deleted anyway. I was about to go delete them. I didn't realize that without the quotes one would still be redirected: that does make those redirects entirely superfluous... but then, they still don't hurt anything. Mangojuicetalk 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
User:LaruaWA11 - suggestion
I saw your recent request for checkuser regarding this user, and have had a suggestion regarding it.
From the old community sanction noticeboard:
Right. If he wants to come back as a totally new user, with no reference whatsoever to Willy, and behaves well, we won't even notice.
I suppose the same could apply to LaruaWA11. They should create a totally new account, with no reference whatsoever to LaruaW11, and behave well, along with editing constructively.
I'll adopt the user if they wish to do so. Next time if they make an unblock request, please can you ask them if they would like to be adopted by me??
Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Please do reply on my talk page!
- For what purpose? To get the person to stop bothering us with sockpuppets? We don't allow people back just because they annoy us enough and make threats to continue doing so until we allow them back. This person has furthermore shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that no matter what, s/he just won't "get it". Solumeiras, if you want to contact me please do so using my talk page. Email wasn't necessary for this. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:29, 23 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- I was suggesting the next time a sockpuppet of the user makes an unblock request, you could decline it on the following grounds - that their attitude is not in line with WP:CIVIL, and that if they want to edit productively, they should do so. Anyway, thanks for replying to the thread. If it didn't work, well, at least I tried... --Solumeiras (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- If s/he wanted to do that (edit productively), s/he has had the opportunity with every sock s/he came back with. The only reason s/he kept getting blocked again was because s/he kept making a ruckus each time, vandalizing and making demands. We could try letting her know that next time, but it also might be safe bet by now that this isn't the kind of person we want on Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:04, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. I actually tried taking a different approach in declining one of those unblocks: my understanding was that the person wanted to appeal their original block, and I made sure to explain the proper way to go about that, and explain that this behavior wouldn't result in an unblock. But LaruaWA11 is not interested in that, s/he is interested in trolling us. Mangojuicetalk 14:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your unilateral deletion of Eugene Martin Ingram was contrary to the outcome of the AFD discussion whose result was speedy keep. In fact, the AFD comments were unanimous for keep. Please undo your unilateral out-of-process deletion of Eugene Martin Ingram. Jwray (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Eugene_Martin_Ingram
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eugene_Martin_Ingram. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jwray (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking me. The administrators have been really helpful throughout the process, and I'm appreciative. I hope to become an admin myself one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtKotzur (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
FCYTravis?
I hate to bring this issue back up, but I was wondering if you could notify User:FCYTravis, that the issue was been resolved. I believe the issue has been resolved. I have a feeling that when FCYTravis returns to WIKI and see's KellyAna's comments on his page, his first action is going to block me without reading the agruements because I disagreed with his actions. I don't want to respond to his page because of the situation, but the comments KellyAna put on his site aren't completely true. I don't want to get block because of spite. So I was hoping you could fill him in on the situation, as your admin. and responded to the issue. Regards DJS--DJS24 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Whyareyoualive and {{2nd chance}}
I have written a lengthy response to the user's unblock request. As for the {{2nd chance}} instructions, from the few cases I have seen, I have reached the conclusion that they don't work at all; I even saw an administrator summarily reject a user's subsequent unblock request, even though he has followed them. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
DJS24
Since he has such a problem with me, but none with you, maybe you should advise him that leaving all that personal information on his user page, including email address, is probably not such a good idea. I actually thought you weren't supposed to put email addresses out for all to see, but that's from reading other thing elsewhere. Just a thought. IrishLass (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- AFAIK there's no rule against it. People are expected to take charge of protecting their own privacy on Wikipedia. The software prevents people from using an email address as their username, but that's as far as we go. Mangojuicetalk 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Poker Hall of Fame
Try Hall of Fame (nobody uses the term "famer") and you will get over 85,200 hits on altavista and 13,000 on Google.Balloonman (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Responded to your response on the DVR.Balloonman (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Crips r us
Hey Mangojuice, just thought I'd let you about Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crips r us. I think it might be smarter to let that play out before we decide whether or not to unblock this user. Thanks! GlassCobra 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
krauthammer to user subpage
Dear Mangojuice, can you switch 'Krauthammer' to a User:Gaborhor/Krauthammer user subpage. I will work on it there. Thank you. Gaborhor (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:Dcssupport
Stupid me, I didn't notice. I was too caught up on how he had filled out an accepted unblock request himself. I assumed he didnt understand the system... my bad! Cheers SGGH speak! 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
enquiry
Hi, not sure what you want. I put the deletion down to misjudgement. Victuallers (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Article deletion review
Hey there. I'm wondering where I can discuss the deletion of the DJ River article. Both AfD/DJ River and Deletion review/DJ River say that the content must not be edited since it's there for archival purposes only. Fire (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi mangojuice Can you please remove my block ? I have asked AndronicO but he has been less then helpful ? I have emailed the abatration comit. to look at it but the have emailed me to say they have a back log ? thanks Kate 100%freehuman : ) I have asked them both to say sorry and put and end to it but it seems ahh less than likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Mangojuice : ) 100%freehuman (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
how to put back article "Krauthammer" on encyclopadia from user subpage
Dear mangojuice, You helped me to put this article on a user subpage for further devt and now I would like to know how I can put it back on the encyclopedia. Thanks Gaborhor (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for seeing my appeal and unblocking me, i am working towards being a contributor to the community. i owe you!
Haelsturm (talk)Haelsturm —Preceding comment was added at 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Question about RfC procedure
Hi Mangojuice. How ya doing? I'm trying to open an RfC at Palestinian archaeology. I placed the tag as instructued on the page, but the automated listing at the main RfC page (in this history and geography) is just not happening. Could you take a look and let me know what (if anything) I've done wrong and how I can fix it? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- You haven't done anything wrong. That list is updated by a bot, which may not be working for a while; it seems to have run . I recommend that you just add the summary to the list yourself directly. If you want to try to help get the bot working again, the bot is User:RFC bot; you can leave a message for the bot's operator here. Mangojuicetalk 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
QuackGuru
I saw your comments on QuackGuru's page; just FYI, I did respond briefly to his accusations, but he replaced my response with more accusations, so I'll leave things there. MastCell Talk 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I had seen that message from you, I didn't realize it had been deleted. Mangojuicetalk 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother
- Hello now that the 12 hours have passes will this thing on my page remove itself or will admin do it?block at the bottomMegistias (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| I award you this barnstar for your brilliant idea that each row in the proxy table should be a transclusion of a user-space page on which a user keeps track of their proxy choice. Ron Duvall (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC) |
Just to let you know: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Attack_accounts. I don't think Slakr had this information when he blocked, but I went ahead and declined the unblock :). -- lucasbfr talk 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
User:AntiHomophobe/sig
Can you deleted User:AntiHomophobe/sig for me? --AntiHomophobe (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
BOLEK
Hi Mangojuice...
My actual name is Boleslav Polívka - Bolek is a nickname derived from Boleslav. This is a very common name is the Czech Republic (so, I am told). My parents immigrated from that place to the US and I grew up here. Because Boleslav can be difficult to pronounce, everyone calls me BOLEK. Unfortunately for me there is some actor with the same name... This is not the first time that people on Wiki told me that I can’t use my name and honestly it is getting a bit silly... I feel that I do not need to explain myself over and over again!! It's MY name!!
Regards,
Bolek Bolekpolivka (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I shouldn't have removed the user's comment from his talk page – but something may still need to be done about the username. Cheers —αlεx•mullεr 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mangojuice, Wesker220 is the account that created the following sockpuppets User:TheBillyIsGay, User:NossyVG and User:GwernolFag. NossyVG is the parent account of User:TheBillyFag and User:TheBillyFagReturns. See [1] and [2]. I should tag them al to make sure this is more obvious in the future. Best, Gwernol 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for protection
Please protect Talk:Gothic_chess/Archive_4 just like you protected Talk:Ed_Trice/Archive_1 (and for the same reasons). Just to clarify (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm willing but since there's been no disruption there yet, I am going to add that to my watchlist and hold off on protection until it happens there. (Hopefully, whoever this is will give up.) Mangojuicetalk 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
My talk page
It's my talk page, I'll keep what comments I like on it. If you've got a problem with that, just don't visit it again. ViperNerd (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine; I'll just post my response here then. Mangojuicetalk 05:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Absurd. Way to overstep your bounds. You have no business being an admin with lousy decision making like this. I bring a violation to attention and somehow I get punished along with the disruptive user who started an edit war in the first place and demonstrated no respect for Wiki rules. Nice job. ViperNerd (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- What I saw was the person you reported reverting 4 times, and you reverting about 7 or 8 times. The other editor would never have reverted 4 times if you hadn't kept reverting back. That kind of goading doesn't sit well with me when we're talking about an edit that isn't blatant vandalism. Even if there was a clearly established consensus on the issue, your action was inappropriate, but from the talk page I didn't see one. In any case, consensus can change and no one owns the article. Next time, engage the other user in discussion. Your reverts were straight undos with NO explanation, you didn't even use an edit summary to point the other user to a discussion that already took place! Do not think you weren't causing a problem here. Mangojuicetalk 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
userpage!
Hi there,
On your userpage there is a sentence I am not a Rouge admin. However, I am just Rouge enough to have falsely added myself to the Rouge admin category for no good reason. However, the rouge admin category has been deleted... so should you not update this?
--The Helpful One (Review) 13:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Explain
Well, for awhile there I kept thinking to myself, "Ah, I totally messed up now, I better start over under another account," but then people started saying that it was making it look like I was support-stacking or whatever, so I had to quit doing that, but unfortunately I had already scrambled the password for the Ron Duvall account, so after the cache cleared, I had to start this new one, and that's where I'm at now, although the switch to Ron Duvall was also partially because it was non-gender-specific name which was causing some problems with people thinking I was a girl, although now with this account, I have the same problem, so maybe I will have to switch again, which I'm not looking forward to, because it is just going to make people ask anew what is going on with all these account changes, so maybe I'll hold off on that for awhile, but fortunately it doesn't matter that much because I'm not trying to accumulate edits toward becoming an admin or something, although I can understand people's annoyance or suspicion at this behavior because it does make it hard to figure out who's saying what, and to get in touch regarding edits made with other accounts, and it is also unusual behavior, and the kind of stuff that people do when they're trying to pull off something underhanded, which I'm not trying to do, but which I should probably be more careful to avoid making people think that I'm doing, because one of the rules governing such matters is, Don't do that then. Absidy (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR
- Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
- On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
- On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
- On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
- On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.
Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Untrustworthy Admin Nandesuka
So, if Betacommand actually does email you explaining the Super Secret Reasons that I'm Untrustworthy, I'd sure like to know what it was that I'm alleged to have done. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- He emailed me but didn't say anything about you, so I'm still in the dark about that. Mangojuicetalk 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please Continue to Keep Raphael1 Blocked
Thanks for declining the unblock request from Raphael1. For your future reference (if necessary) there is more information about him here. In particular, admin Cyde Weys has expressed an interest in possibly invoking Raphael1's ArbCom "general probation clause", if two other admins concur. Thanks again. Art Smart (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Colleenthegreat
thanks for confirming my block, I have added a far more detailed explanation, I hope it is constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
block of User:UB65
I've overturned this. I hope you don't mind; given that it's a short-term block and you had already expressed some hesitation, and I got a quite complete picture from WP:AN3 and the edit history, I didn't consult with you first. I felt, in viewing the situation as a whole, that the block was unnecessary as all the issues have been resolved through discussion. And also, it's only the "in whole or in part" issue that makes this a 3RR violation, and I think there's good reason to think the user wasn't aware of that aspect of the rule. Mangojuicetalk 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, of course, that's fine. Yeah, I was pretty hesitant. Thanks for following it up! ScarianCall me Pat 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
User:UB65
I'm sorry, but in this case I request a reblock. His behaviour both before and after the block has been inescusable, he's engaged in lots of personal attack against me, he spammed the 3RR page with a completely pointless 'report', he has flat out lied, repeatedly about all the facts in the case, and repeatedly whined to lots and lots of admins, and he is actually in violation of the 3RR rule, which he obviously knew about, he was actually at the 3RR report page before I was! (Although I don't know why he was, I hadn't done anything.)
We shouldn't have to put up with this kind of stuff at all, not in any way. Your argument that other editors adding a link (which is not in any way required by policy) somehow makes his 3RR and insults and lies OK, just floors me. In any case it doesn't really matter why he 3RRs, and it's totally clear he did (arguably he was already 3RR before the 4th edit- you don't even have to do 3 reverts).
Please restore the block on this guy.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to give one tiny example of how he's lying, even on the 3RR page it currently reads:
"Moving to: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts as this seems more appropriate. Please note that this was started because of a revert war though for my part I tried to talk it out to no avail. UB65 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)"
The thing is, if you check the edits, that just isn't true, he didn't try to talk it out at all, not till he got to 3 reverts in. And even then he only tried to talk then because he obviously knew about 3RR.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I know it is a moot point, and that your decision agreed with my vote and consensus, however I think your closure did violate the injunction as it was an article about a set of television characters. Nevertheless, I see an end in sight for the arb hearing and the injunction. I just wanted to express my opinion. Ursasapien (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Coleen
FYI [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Bingo
Yep, same grammatical syntax, same topic area. But since the first time was more a civility issue than outright ban (if memory serves correct) and the WP:DUCK theory is under scrutiny by Arbcom, I think we need to find another way to do it. MBisanz talk 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Email sent, but don't let my gut change your course, its a good one. MBisanz talk 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)- Must learn to keep a cheat sheet of what I'm doing in different places. Check this [4] and this [5] MBisanz talk 02:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- And you were right. User_talk:Alison#Ron_Duvall_et_al. MBisanz talk 02:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can we hose User:Sarsaparilla/shop or must we re-MFD it? And what of any other subspace pages I find tomorrow? MBisanz talk 06:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- And please check Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly. I'm 95% certain Captain Zyrain = Sarsaparilla given that and scanning their topical edit histories. Do we need to tell Raul654 about this? And if anyone says he hasn't been deceptive, I'd say this is. MBisanz talk 09:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Good on you
Hi Mango, I see you are trying to work with Abuse Truth. I've mixed feelings about this - I've seen your patient work before with other problematic editors. Kudos to you, it's hard work that's often thankless and unrewarding. Regards AT in specific, here is where the feelings get mixed. AT is very polite, and promises endlessly to improve, change and be a good editor. There are the skills needed to do such - good grasp of spelling and grammar, understands the theory of referencing and definitely able to discuss on talk pages (note the absence of the word 'productively' though). AT does not seem to grok wikipedia though, there seems to be an almost organic inability to understand why others are objecting to his/her point of view and edits (I'm not saying AT has mental health issues, just that I'm flummoxed at how s/he fails to see where the problems are with his/her edits). AT misses the meat of people's objections and comments. Your reply to some of AT's comments shows you see this as well, so all I'm really doing here is saying I agree with your assessment. One thing I think would be helpful to AT would be editing pages completely outside of the abuse area. Template:Fractures has a bunch of red links, and it's virtually impossible to have a POV in this area. Perhaps AT could create some of those page using pubmed journals? This would show commitment to the project rather than to the idea of abuse. I created Jefferson fracture a while back, very therapeutic. I'm personally willing to continue working with AT, though not really in our previous areas of interest, but I would be willing to act as a resource on MOS, template and other rather banal issues if you or s/he thinks this would be useful. AT's redeeming characteristic is his/her ability to write and be polite in discussion, so s/he is definitely a potential asset to wikipedia. WLU (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Admin MangoJuice, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to work out the conditions on my block. I realize that you are very busy and I appreciate the evenhanded way you worked on this issue.
- In reply to user WLU above, I wanted to thank you for mentioning my skills and the fact that I am definitely a potential asset to wikipedia. I do feel that I usually do understand the objections to my point of view, and perhaps I should state this more clearly in my talk page posts, but I may disagree with these objections from time to time and I have tried to state these clearly as well. But, there is always room for improvement for me and all of us around this. I am looking for other articles to edit at this time. I am working at holding the topics at arms' length and trying to look at them from a neutral perspective. abuse t (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hendrik Wade Bode
Hi Mangojuice,
Sorry for the disturbance but I have a technical problem. I made this edit but nothing appeared on the talk page. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Request
Hey Mango, Justanother here. I hope that you will forgive my posting here under block but I have a good reason. I would like you to please revisit my unblock request based on the evidence that I have placed on my page (Down the rabbit hole topic). I trust you as a fair admin and I think that if you will review the evidence I present that you will perhaps see things differently. You have not been very active on Wikipedia since reviewing my unblock request and I want to give you the chance to go over the full evidence before I post another unblock request. If you see this and are willing to take another look please let me know. No hurry as I am not actively editing. I just do not appreciate the unfairness and the black mark. Thanks. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks from Colleen
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Can I ask your opinion on something? Should I create a new account and start over? As Slrubenstein made clear, the reason for my block wasn't my proposal to Talk:Jesus, but my edit history. I don't want this to be used against me again, or take away from people's respect for me as an editor. Now that I am more familiar with policy, would it be better to make a new account and start fresh? This way, other editors (and administrators who can block me) will look at me as I am now and not see the warnings I've gotten in the past. Is that the best thing to do? Thanks. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Afd goof
Yikes, how did that happen?! Sorry about that, thanks for cleaning up after me. GlassCobra 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Another kudo to you (Pro-pedophilia activism article)
Just a quick note to thank you for your patient reasonableness in that extensive discussion on the Talk page. Your voice stood out as one that fully recognized both the difficulties everyone was struggling with but also insisted that we have faith in basic Wikipedia principles of neutral language. Well done! I think the current introduction is enormously improved over what used to be there. Much of the credit for that should go to you. SocJan (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, did you check to see that these books are not being referenced in the actual article? Simply listing books is not the same as writing specific content sourced to the books in question. Besides, you seem to not be paying attention to the discussion at WP:ANI. Are you? Why are you behaving so obtusely unilaterally? Wikipedia is about discussion which you are not doing. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- In-line citations are not required for WP:N. Why are you behaving so obtusely and unilaterally? Please, let's just have this discussion on AfD where it belongs. Mangojuicetalk 18:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Foundation For Evangelism
Hello I wanted to follow up on a deletion for an entry noted as The Foundation For Evangelism. The reason for deletion is noted as A7 - "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant."
First, I want to understand why it is noted as not significant..
Here is the reasoning for significance in the article as follows.
1. Is noted as Harry Denmans associated organization, and has significance to his description on Wiki
He founded The Foundation for Evangelism in 1949.
2. Notes that the Foundation is the organization that holds the "Harry Denman Award" which is in reference and as noted in Harry Denman's entry
have established evangelism awards in his honor, including the Harry Denman Evangelism Awards.
3. Also is a cross reference to certain other organizations made specifically for Methodism or Evangelism...two major references also on Wiki
A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Methodist_Council B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_church
4. Is a beginning point for several new articles based on Technology and Evangelism...specifically organizations founded by The Foundation.
5. References in deleted article are exact date of The Foundations creation (not noted in original), and it's current location as well.
So, main significance is in reference to material already in existence on Wiki. If you still feel this article was in violation of Wiki rules, please forward the article to my email address for my account, with notations of why it is NOT significant.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openedge1 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that even Harry Denman is appropriate material for Wikipedia, but in any case notability is not inherited. I would suggest that any information on the Foundation be included in Harry Denman's article. The Foundation article made no claim that would seem to set it apart in the least way from any other minor or local charitable organization, which is why it was deleted. If you don't agree let me know. Mangojuicetalk 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I would probably consider the Church of Scientology and specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Technology_Center as non-appropriate material here as well. I do believe controversy lends a hand in their notation on Wiki, and not "significance". But, I accept your decision. I will rewrite the article, with the reason for the significance of the Foundation, and then we shall try again. Thank you for your input.--Openedge1 (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would probably pass the speedy deletion criteria. But I would strongly suggest you just merge this information onto Harry Denman's page -- it sounds like Harry Denman is the only claim to notability. I feel pretty confident that an WP:AFD debate would agree. Mangojuicetalk 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with you?
How could you delete my hangons? That is not fair. I am only trying to save my precious article from being deleted! Stop going through my personal pages, please! Kristy22 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Listen to me!
Listen, Mangojuice! First of all, I want to tell you a few rules I want you to follow!
First of all, NEVER go through my personal pages, no matter what!
Second, do not send me messages telling me you deleted any of my personal pages. It is so rude to me! I have enough things to be dealing with right now!
Last, never send me a message saying that I can't make articles about a person that is unacceptable to Wikipedia! I only made the Glenn Sharland article because I wanted to vent my feelings about this person on Wikipedia! Kristy22 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
These rules and more will help you learn how to get along with me on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristy22 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies for the removal of this, hope there are no ahrd feelings. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Harry Heard
One film is not a criteria for a biographical article. I should know, I founded WP:Actors and Filmmakers itself, so by now I have a pretty good idea of what is salvagable or not for a biographical article on an actor. He was a dwarf who was hired in the film because of his unusual condition. Googling him comes up with nothing ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 23:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've merged it with Funny Man (film) as it was a one off ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was the content which nearly cause your PC to crash -I've archived it. You have an older computer? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. I can load it no problem now but all the images are in the cache. But for anyone who has a slower connection, you've really got a lot of images there; the animated one is the largest. My connection isn't slow, but it has its moments. :) Mangojuicetalk 00:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Magic Bullet article
OK, added nine outside references to the company and its products to the article, expanding the article in the process. Reckon this is enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayofthetriffids (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfair?
But BBV, the other independent spinoff audio company, has no references on its page at all, and all that page does is discuss its works-- why haven't you marked that one for deletion then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayofthetriffids (talk • contribs) 13:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Reversions
FYI, I reverted you the second time only because I assumed I had been unclear in my previous edit summary that I thought the page wasn't spam
- But you reverted -- period/full-stop -- so that nonsense you wrote about my reverting until I "got what I wanted" applies equally as well to you, so bringing that up as some sort of argument against me is absurd. That you thought the page WASN'T spam and/or for a role account makes me question your judgment; that you'd bring it up on WP:AN/I to argument about, even more so. --Calton | Talk 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia
When I made my first account on Wikipedia, I expected to have a good time here. I thought it was fun when I edited articles on Wikipedia. I had the best time ever when I made contributions to Wikipedia. Then people like you came along and left messages on my user talk page telling me that if I edit pages on Wikipedia I could be temporarily blocked. I don't understand why! I mean, isn't Wikipedia's slogan 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? I think you should go to the welcome page. Kristy22 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Questions
Umm--well I do have one question for you, Mangojuice. How do I get adminstrators and editors to accept me as someone who will contribute postively to Wikipedia? Kristy22 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
WP pop culture personal essay
I just wanted to point you to my own draft essay on the topic, after having seen yours: User:Mangojuice/PC. Mangojuicetalk 19:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Mj. I have watchlisted it, but haven't given it a thorough read yet. User:edgarde/IPC is a basically unedited archive of an essay by Eyrian. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Warning
Your recent changes are going against Wikipedia policies that require consensus. Consensus is not three people, especially when there are two more people. If you continue to persist in such changes, you will be reported for vandalism. The community has not spoke in favor of you, and such policy rewordings cannot be changed without appropriate discussion, especially at Village Pump. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- And then, shall I cut down the largest tree in the forest with... a herring? You think this is controversial but none of the rest of us do, and I'm quite sure the rest of the community won't either. Your stake in the matter cannot be ignored. The text of policy pages, especially when they don't reflect common sense or actual practice, is not sacred. Mangojuicetalk 01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- By "none" you mean that two people blatantly stated that the change was wrong, and SwatJester stated before that the policy does not apply to anything beyond Wikipedia. It seems like the odds are against you. The fact that you refused to go to Villiage Pump is showing a lack of proper procedures, which I expect that you will fix immediately and that you just haven't gotten to that yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Thank you for telling me how to get editors to accept me! Kristy22 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Powermaxed
My apologies ... I didn't realize you'd declined the speedy request seconds before I threw the block. I went ahead and lifted the block myself. Blueboy96 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Report
Im Sorry about that i will do.
Thanks Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Reporting Usernames
I am taking everything you are saying in to considration and i do sometimes get con fused when trying to figure out what to report and what not to.
Thanks Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do but im sure that you understand were that i am comming from also.
Thanks Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Recreated Indiepix
I recreated the Indiepix article you just speedied because I was in the middle of a major rewrite of the original author's content while it was being deleted. It caused an editing conflict between us and I opted to recreate the article with the new text, which basically tossed out everything from the old article and added references.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Username block
OK, fine with me. jj137 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
commitment schemes...
I recommend you read http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~crepeau/PDF/Commit.pdf for some reference to early work on Bit Commitment schemes (much prior to BCC88).
Regards
Claude Crépeau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.74.51 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent! That's good stuff, it was tough trying to trace the origins of the notion. Mangojuicetalk 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thank you
thank you for ur comments. Well, the user Grandia01 keeps re-editing information that was discuseed on the discussion page. in this case, it's the king Abdullah 2 page, I have sent them the reasons why, and my sources, they re-edited the page and wrote, i dont care about your sources or the research (with my professors).. any how, please help us put an end to such uncivil editing manner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: 3RR block
I think PageantUploader's block should remain. He was warned and definitely made 3 reverts equal to edit warring. As for David, I don't know, I did warn him but I'd be okay with you (or any other admin) deciding that further action is necessary. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay then, I do appear to have made errors. If you wish to rectify anything then go ahead. I won't oppose any action on this case. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Question on dealing with an editor
Hi. As you were the person who dealt with my wikiquette alert against User:RobJ1981, I'd like to ask you some advice on what to do now.
Since then, RobJ1981's harassment of me has been unabated. He has templated my user page with the civil/bad faith stuff that I complained about in the wikiquette alert. He also filed a bogus ANI on me. But now, I have reason to believe he's engaged in wikistalking.
Despite our wikiquette discussion, and despite being told to stay away from me in the ANI he started on me, Rob continues to follow my actions like a hawk.
Rob has never before made an edit to a Dungeons & Dragons related article. His very first one was to undo something I did.
I tried to get a Request for Comment on User together, but none of the other people who've had problems with him have made the same effort to talk things out that I did, so that's a no go. What are my other options? McJeff (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't see harassment. I saw you two got into it at Talk:List of characters in Bully but that started because you complained about Rob's behavior even when he had been leaving the article alone. Both of you should just drop it, like Stifle said in the ANI thread. If Rob does show up again, respond to him in good faith as if he were a complete stranger. As for the revert at Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons) Rob probably went there because it was mentioned on your talk page. And honestly, I agree that the tag should remain there. The article needs to be improved first. Mangojuicetalk 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
king abdullah page
i told Grandia01 i was given permission by sysop to edit page as long as it had discussion and source. he went ahead and re-edited any way, please help, i reported their 3 edits in 24 hour, but i read through their page and they have gone through edit wars before, that wont realy stop them. please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- You just reverted for the fourth time yourself. So, I blocked both of you for 24 hours. "Permission from the admin" doesn't give you authority to edit war. Mangojuicetalk 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- i did not revert his edits that time, i left them as is before i repored them, any how, that passed, i need your help in resolving heir matter,
here is the situation. he is placing the edit about king abdullah on an editorial written by a journalist who quite frankly never lived in jordan and cites unnamed sources!!! what i provided was a report by the Department of Defence that talk about america in the middle east, and it explicitly cites that stability in jordan is due in the greatest part to the very popular king. i have also asked professors from my unversity and others (people well aquainted with the middle east political systems) and they have agreed with my source. further more i have lived in jordan and im very aware of the political system, and i have found that to be true from my experience. he says that administrator delldot left that part, well same administrator told me i coud change it if i found the sources, which i did. therefore please get involved and help us resolve this matter
User:Exiled Ambition deleting comments
User:Exiled Ambition has deleted comments made by myself and another user from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. I have asked him to restore them, but wondered if you could help if he does not. It appears that he has blanked comments made by the very person (the webmaster of Samurai Archives) that he has been in dispute with in the past, as apparently you know. John Smith's (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It was taken care of by another user, but I was wondering if you could look into Exiled's behaviour more generally. John Smith's (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, might it be a good idea for this guy to have a header on his user and talk pages to show his previous accounts? Only an uninvolved admin might not know his record if he gets into trouble again. John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
My username
My name has been discussed for deletion before, and they decided not to block it. Their are many more like mine, and just the opposite. I have made so many posts on talk pages and pages and Wikiprojects, I have many subpages, and userboxes that lead back to America Needs Jesus, so I don't really want to change. There is other users that have copied my America Needs ____, they are allowed, why me? The name is not against anyone, just shows my opinion. I saw where the change was asked, and you got the ball rolling? Cheers, AmericaNeedsJesus 17:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind it, but I don't want to be made to change. If all hate it and want me to change it, then I'd want to do it myself with choosing a new one. I don't mind if we got other opinions, though I really don't want to change. Cheers, AmericaNeedsJesus 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wrote down a long response and hit cancel, ;]! I don't want to make a scene, and I feel like I'm being a bother. I think it would be a good idea to see on what other editors on WP:RFCN think about my name. Sound OK? Blessings, AmericaNeedsJesus 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like they don't like it, what is with that "However, I want to explicitly note that the user is on record that if consensus is against him here, he will willingly change his username." Stuff? Was I in a courtroom or something? Cheers, AmericaNeedsJesus 06:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I will have to change, but the only name I want has to be usurped. It has never been used, and the name doesn't even a userpage or talk. I don't know if you can, but it says you have to wait a week to see if the user will respond. How can I get it changed before than, can you or any of your friends? What about my subpages and userboxes? I could move them and then have the old ones deleted if that's OK. It's called American Eagle. Blessings, AmericaNeedsJesus 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ya I've moved things before, but a week? I'll have to wait. I'll go sign the thing. Thanks, no wait, you're the reason I have to change! lol, thanks. Oh and what about all the users who are using my userboxes, I want to have the pages moved but don't want two pages for each one. But if their deleted the userboxes will be wrong. Would I change the pages for them? Blessings, AmericaNeedsJesus 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It will even of the old one is deleted? Cheers, AmericaNeedsJesus 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
User:America Needs Satan
Clearly the same issue arises. --David Shankbone 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you revert my restoration of the Absidy Talk page?
You gave no explanation for the revert, which wasn't vandalism. Absidy wasn't blocked for sock puppetry, and the discussion there was about matters that have enduring interest and which may become relevant in the future. So please undo your revert. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absidy is blocked as a sockpuppet; the original reason doesn't much matter anymore. And you need to stop these ill-conceived gestures of protest over the "mistreatment" of your fried, who has caused enormous amounts of disruption. The more you do this, the more you are perpetuating the problems he created. Mangojuicetalk 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There was no ongoing disruption occuring because that page was accessible. I asked why it was masked in the particular way that it was (which makes it difficult to find the history, and I'd not seen it done before). This has nothing to do with any "protest" about how Absidy was treated. He was not blocked for sock puppetry, he was blocked for, on the face of it, the creation of a hoax article and placing a joke in another article. (It was actually something that was funny, unsourced, but common knowledge). He was then unblocked. My request here is not a protest against mistreatment, it was a question that stands on the face of it, whether or not he was mistreated. And alleged mistreatment formed no part of my concern about the masking of the page content. So, I still ask: why?
If it is desired to have a notice that he is blocked as a sock puppet, replacing the page content with a sock template would accomplish it, easily, and would not have given me any pause at, since I'm not protesting the common designation of the Absidy accounts as sock puppets. Given that I've heard no reason not to, that's what I intended to do when I get around to it, unless some objection becomes plain. (Absidy wasn't really, a sock puppet at all. There was no socking happening when Absidy was not blocked. The only sock puppetry came after Absidy was blocked, as block-evading socking, the only kind he has *ever* done, as far as I can tell. So if you reallywant to push this, I suppose we could go to dispute resolution, of which this, here, is the first stage. One step at a time. Now, off to go shopping and make dinner for my kids, pretty soon.--Abd (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with doing that,abd, is it is then likely to come out how you know a blocked user is currently editing under a sock account - what, do you think that an account that obvious would slip people's notice? --87.114.131.160 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... I took the above out because it's an edit by Fredrick day, and not useful to the project, and the consensus seemed to be that blocked editor contributions could be reverted, but not if they were useful. Swatjester reverted it back, and actually went so far as to warn me about my removal, claiming that I was following Fredrick day around removing his stuff, which I haven't done for a long time. Just goes to show. In fact, everything goes to show, that's how it's designed, if anyone is looking. So, goody-goody, I get to respond to Fd here. Mangojuice, you may remove all of this if it pleases you, this reply goes with the Fd sock report above. Since he asks, I am aware of only a few accounts which are operated currently by a blocked user, and they are all related to Fredrick day. I keep finding more. And the more I find, the tighter the evidence becomes. What has been published is the tip of the iceberg. So, if there is a WP:SSP/Fredrick day (3rd), it is going to be a doozy. In fact, it will probably not be made as an ordinary SSP report. Since my goal is quite the opposite of disruption, I will probably offer this puppet master the opportunity to retire quietly. On the other hand, piss me off enough ... I'm human too. If I were Fredrick day, with a clue about what I'm talking about, I'd quietly disappear right now, with all the provocative stuff, and keep my fingers crossed that this fanatic editor -- who is way over twice Fredrick day's age, possibly three times his age -- gets distracted, falls in love, or otherwise decides that Wikipedia isn't worth the effort.--Abd (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Piss on the pot or get off it, the fact that you entirely struck out with Seddon means that this is sure to be another comedy of errors - however I'd love you to 'expose' me because then we can kill off your ducking stool for good. --87.113.101.1 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Rfc - RobJ1981
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RobJ1981 (talk · contribs). I myself have added an outside view. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981Template:Highrfc-loop]]. -- Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The KellyAna and IrishLass case
On April 12th, just a few days ago, you stated that you firmly believe that these two are not the same person. Your reasoning was mainly their difference in personality (temperament mainly), which was something I pointed out as well. But others just suspected that one was "the more abusive" sock. I eventually stated that they are mostly the same person, after I read over that case's evidence.
Would you look at my talk page about this case and tell me more of your thoughts on this? I mean, what do you make of all the evidence against them...such as the time evidence and the fact that they never talked to each other while on Wikipedia? Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- The evidence shows that the two never edited from the same IP address. There is obviously a connection, but they never made any secret of the fact that they knew each other and would sometimes edit at each others' requests. Furthermore, the evidence that they edited at different times of day is consistent with this view: some people can't use Wikipedia from work, and others can't use it at home. No big concern. As for never talking to each other on Wikipedia, it doesn't concern me at all -- if I had a friend who couldn't use the Internet from work, say, I would not try to use the Internet to talk to them during work hours, I would call them. In short, there really is no evidence linking the two accounts to one person, just a lot of suspicions. And what's more, they both always seemed to me like volunteers, here to help, without an agenda. Mangojuicetalk 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Can the advertisement notice be removed?
Hi, you were involved with arbitration of the Ovi page and I was wondering whether it is permissible to remove the 'This article or section is written like an advertisement' at the top of the page. Butcam (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply
...and try to ignore the fact that I'm responding in a sub-section. I don't have computer access right now, and have been using the PlayStation 3 to communicate online, which doesn't lend me as much editing freedom.
I still feel that the evidence against them was pretty strong and damaging. I mean, if you notice on my talk page, Antigone28 was also addressed, and if you do your research on Antigone28, there can be no doubt that she was/is KellyAna. Well, KellyAna denied being Antigone28 as well. So that made me even more believing of the evidence against KellyAna and IrishLass.
Even if they were/are two different people, as I noted they could also be as well, that doesn't negate the chance that one could have been using the other's account at times.
I still found/find it very odd that they had never talked to each other while on Wikipedia -- something I had never paid attention to until that case against them.
Anyway, thanks for elaborating on your thoughts. Either way, I truly do miss them. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's no excuse for the crap KellyAna ended up pulling. If she wants to return to editing she'll need to explain herself. I just hate that IrishLass got dragged down into this, when they are different people. Mangojuicetalk 04:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Very meticulous
I am impressed with the meticulousness with which many of you operate. I rm your msg once after which I got another. I was just checking with WP:Talk whether I can rm it, when you did it yourself! Thanks for the msg as well as the rm. Prashanthns (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Question about blocking
Hi, I was pleased to see you block a recurring vandal this evening, shortly after I'd tagged them as Level 4. Could I ask what "(account creation blocked)" means when a registered user is blocked? I could understand it for a blocked IP address. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope your happy...
Ever felt like banging your head on the wall... Just kidding. My name is now changed, and yes, it's your fault. (hehehe) Cheers, AmericanEagle 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
rm'ing users who haven't responded from UAA
As long as you do it after some length of time has passed. Yes, I know about one user in several hundred actually bothers to respond. I think the text of that template should be changed to "expressed concern" rather than "discussing", as that implies some sort of exchange is taking place, which as we both know it rarely is. I do that mainly because rspeer and other users have expressed concern to me that we block too readily for borderline usernames ... starting that discussion at least puts some of the blame for that on the user in question. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether there's been any sort of response (on the theory that someone really willing to contribute will respond soon). Actually, someone should regularly patrol Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over. You'd be amazed how many dead pages are there. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have enough pages on my watchlist without adding a lot of likely-to-never-be-used talk pages. (IME, someone serious enough sends me an email. It has happened). Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like this editor is back to insulting people at any chance. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Youth in Ancient Rome, and a new comment on his talk page. Apparently a 1 week block wasn't enough. -- Kesh (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like Clio took out the "Use your bloody brain" comment he made [7].
Grant High School (Los Angeles, California)
I'm not sure what's going on at Grant High School (Los Angeles, California). At first I thought it was vandalism, but not it seems to be some sort of ongoing edit war... -WarthogDemon 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:LibertyRI
MangoJuice: Thanks for welcoming me. I am very new to all of this but just took a seminar and trying to find my way. Why did Doe mark me for speedy deletion? I don't seem to meet the criteria. I don't believe that LibertyRI is a company. I'm confused. Help please.LibertyRI (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The "we" is myself and my girlfriend - we use the same name as we're getting into this. Don't want to edit and re-edit with two different users and have editors thinking that it's socks(I think that's the right term). I could always say that I'm the King of a small country and that it's the Queen's "we". Thanks again for the help.LibertyRI (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Declined unblock
To be fair, your decline to unblock Mccready is not entirely accurate.[8] There is an on-going review here. However, I am resetting his block due to canvassing. Vassyana (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Declined WP:UAA request concerning User:James-van-blaricum-oil
Please look at the user's user page. He's clearly promoting his company, with his user name and via his user page. He also links to the company's websites jamesvanblaricum.net and james-van-blaricum.com. I still think this user name is against the username policy since it's the name of a company (and their website) and thus promotional. I've posted a uw-username on the user's talk page but didn't receive any response as of yet. Perhaps have another glance at this user please? User Dœ αTΩC 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikiquette alert question
We seem to have reached an impasse at the Wikiquette alert regarding Wetman. DenimAdept, DDStretch, and myself all agree that Wetman does need to change his behavior. but I am not sure what the next step is. How exactly do we get him to listen to us? Asarelah (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
ViskonBot
Dear, Mangojuice. Sorry for my slowness. I am in the process seeking for its approval Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. It is also seeking for approval in other 3 wikipedias at the moment. Please believe me - I've created that bot for serious reasons. Thank you. So please don't block it. -- Wisconsus TALK|things 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Long violinist username
Per his deleted contribs, he had posted a vanity article about himself on his userpage, so that made it blockworthy for me, although it was originally listed at UAA over the length of the name. Before you let him change his name (and really, he can just go ahead and start a new account as his edits are minimal), ask him if he's really interested in contributing anything beyond information about either himself or this person (there was also another India-based username which appeared to be a PR firm spamming that day, so it may not be him). If he doesn't reply, don't unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Simply check the contribs, especially [9] vs [10]; [11] vs [12]; and [13] vs [14]. I don't remember whose sock it was, but I think it had something to do with this "award" (i.e., the "it's raining men" part + the rainbow star). --slakr\ talk / 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"of"
My apologies. (When using UNDO, I sometimes miss that I didn't yet add an edit summary.)
Several lines of that page have had such additions previously. The problem is that they don't necessarily work in the way intended, and may be confusing depending on what needs to be said. (The delete drop down page has had similar issues.) They've even added text to the block page (and delete page) suggesting that a clear edit summary would be a good idea.
So anyway, that's why I reverted. Hope this helps clarify. - jc37 05:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: UAA
Good call, thanks for putting it past me. Keep up the good work! WilliamH (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Noted, but I'm wondering if you're from a different English speaking region to me, since in Britain/New Zealand/Australia and other English speaking countries of the Commonwealth, terms such as wank, nob head, are flagrantly profane, hence me construing them as clear violations. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have come across problems like that before. Like supposeldy, bugger is profane somewhere? where to me it is just an annoying person and there was a discrepancy at UAA. I dont think the username policy addresses issues of different meanings depending on locale. What locale should be used to interpret it? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
ED
The refs I've listed for Encyclopedia Dramatica don't ever use the word "shock site" (and for that matter, neither do the refs for "Rotten.com"), but they make it clear that the site contains shocking and offensive material. I won't readd it again for the time being, as I don't want to start an edit war, but I think that the refs do sufficiently cover the "shock factor" of the site. Also, though this is original research, I'm going to state that anyone who has been to Encyclopedia Dramatica should be aware that it is indeed a shock site. The images alone (many of which are borrowed from other shock sites) are sufficient to qualify it as such, and don't even let me get started on the textual content. But anyway, if Encyclopedia Dramatica does not deserve to be mentioned in the article, then I believe that Rotten.com and any other site listed there with is not described using the word "shock site" should not be mentioned there either.--Urban Rose 16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Quoted from this source
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=620760
"Essentially, Encyclopedia Dramatica is run by people well-versed in how to be a jerk on the Web, so be prepared for this Web site to offend you somehow."
There are two other written sources which refer to Encyclopedia as offensive but as they're written, I can't verify them.--Urban Rose 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The connection was confirmed by CheckUser evidence from Dmcdevit; please note that the original account is banned by ArbCom for pro-pedophilia advocacy. east.718 at 19:15, May 8, 2008
sorry
Dear Wikipedia users and staff, I would like to express my sorrow for all the trouble I've caused you. Please understand that I have learned from my mistakes. I did not intentionally vandalize Wikipedia. I really really want to be a Wikipedia administrator, and please answer this question, what are the odds of a blocked user becoming a Wikipedia administrator. Well I don't really know what the odds are, but I doubt they are high. I am forced to give you this apology not in my talk page, because somebody protected my talk page so people can't contact me, and so I can't say I'm sorry. One of these days I will become a Wikipedia administrator and help people with their problems. I will also stop vandalism, I will be able to convince the vandals that are good and don't know that they are vandalising Wikipedia that what they are doing is wrong (I can get throught to these people, because I used to be one of them). I can get through to them, that way no one has to go through what I've been through ever again. I will also make very important edits about very important topics. Some of these topics include Prussia, the SS Free, Praize, Halo Delta, Subsim, Sword Forum International, Three Sixty Pacific, and others. Everyone, the only way we can fight rogue admins is if we all join together, remember there are more of us than there are of them, don't forget that 95% of Wikipedia's admins are actually good, I hate to say it but............Daniel Case could have originally been a good admin, he just likes banning people a lot. I will also pass Wikipedia rules against what Daniel Case did to me and so many others like me. I will also fix the blocking system, I will make it so people aren't automatically blocked, they will recieve a fair trial in which they are innocent until proven guilty. I will also remove the speedy deletion bot and so every article gets a fair trial before it is automatically deleted for no reason by a bot. I will also improve Wikipedia by making it more reliable, together we can make it so schools and universities allow Wikipedia as a source. I can not bring about this change alone, we must stand together, this is the world's encyclopedia/wiki/online encyclopedia, not just the admins, everyone has a say in the New Wikipedia. But before I can do all these great things, I have to be unblocked, like I said before, what are the odds of a blocked member being an administrator, some of you may say "Well if he/she is blocked, I don't think they can be that good of an admin, since they can't edit". But people, I'm not a bad person, I am here for you. I care about YOU! We need to think before we edit WIKIPEDIA! WE MUST STAND UNITED! OR VANDALS WILL DESTROY ALL OF WHICH WE FOUGHT SO HARD TO BUILD! Please people, take my hand, we shall make Wikipedia whole again. I will never again vandalize Wikipedia, the times in the past that I did, I am deeply sorry, but I can't change what I did, we have to live with it, we have to move on. Just think to yourself, what would Jesus do? Would Jesus smite me for making a mistake, or would he forgive me and give me a second or third chance? Do you know that pretty much every single day, for the past 2 years, I have apologized to Daniel Case and the other admins, for what I have done. And all they do is block the IP address and laugh at me. Please, look into your heart, I am deeply sorry. Please forgive me, I am not a poster, I am not an IP address, I am not a vandal, I am not a spammer, I am not a Wikipedian that apologizes to people just to get laughed at, I am not a Wikipedian at all, and neither are you, we are human beings, and its about time we get treated like we are. Did you know, that Daniel Case, hates me so much, that he wanted to ban all dial-up people whoi use Wikipedia. He also wanted to ban a company. If you don't believe me, read the ANI Notice led by Daniel Case about banning me. He talks about how much fun it would be to ban all Level 3 Communications Internet people. He thinks I use Level 3, which I don't, but he wanted to ban everyone for using the same type of Internet as me. He banned a company from Wikipedia, he banned Reenactor Entertainment's website and all of there games's websites just for fun. He also banned all InvisionFree users and urls, just because I use InvisionFree forums and he hates forums now. He banned all ZetaBoards forums and users as well, because InvisionFree's company, Zathyious Systems also made ZetaBoards. Can you be any more prejudice? I mean this guy makes the KKK look like a couple of Zerglings on StarCraft. Please unban me, I beg of you! People please, if you think I deserve another chance, please reply, and say it, please.--xgmx (T | C | D | R | DR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.42.95 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Recently it came to my attention for you to edit 'Warlock Motorcycles' and for it to be deleted because it it about a person, club, or company. So, tell me how different is Orange County Choppers or Warlock Motorcycle Club...should these not be deleted to. What makes something more notable? That is subject to each individual. I urge you to reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlockmotorcycles (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
DumZiBoT
The thread got archived, but I answered. I really expect an answer from you when you're back; I consider that your actions were not appropriated :(
NicDumZ ~ 06:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Autoblock undo
How do you undo an autoblock??? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at that iplist but could not make heads nor tails of it, and could only find my name for a username block earlier in the day. :-( Very confused by that... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to stay awake for the next odd one-in-a-million chance a bad username user actually wants to change it. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing autoblock
Just a short thankyou for processing my {{unblock-auto}}. Keep up the good work :) Packt Like Sardines ✎ ✉ ✰ 13:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you remember the edit war discussion on my talk page (if not, go look). What am I supposed to do about this guy, eh? OK, it's not really vandalism, but whatever. Note that just days after the page protection expired, Hamish put his changes back up. You said, that's all that could be done. Exactly my point. If I stick my neck out and keep reverting, I'm just risking being banned. Please, you handle it. —Jemmytc 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:Uw-spamublock
Thanks for fixing {{uw-spamublock}}. Apparently I had too much coffee today (or maybe not enough?). --MCB (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update
I wasn't sure about those all-Arabic characters, but I'm certainly glad that you filled me in. Thanks much for the info. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeek! No yeeks?
Ok. But you know that Wikipedia is a victim of its own success. The reason I made the page was that I wanted to look it up myself, and was surprised that there was nothing. This is where people come to look stuff up.
I don't make the criteria, but I always that "notability" for something like Wikipedia should be the objective equivalent of "Anything a reasonable number of people will be looking up information on."
But that's just me. Carlo (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Disruptive?
Editing 4 words into an article is not disruptive surely? Are you basically saying that I am not allowed to edit this article ever again? I mean I would have thought people reverting with no explanation was disruptive. But here I am discussing and explaining the tiny change I want to make and I am the disruptive one. --ZincBelief (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- It really doesn't matter how many words it is. I've seen lots of obviously inappropriate edits that added just 4 words. Say, for instance this one. Frankly, after the crap you were pulling before, your credibility is shot. You were trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to push your own variant of The Game, and worse, you were attempting to disguise this as legitimate encyclopedia-writing, which didn't work. Now, people think you are either editing here with an agenda, or are an aggressive editor with a very poor grasp of what Wikipedia's purpose is. If you are really and truly dropping the agenda (which you definitely had) then people should give you a second chance, but we have really had enough of the kind of thing you were doing before over the years. So, you are allowed to edit the article but the fact is, everything in it is sourced and we know of no further sources we can use, so it's probably about as good as it can get at the moment. And if you were to edit other articles instead for a while, you might build up some credibility and then people wouldn't be so (justifiably) suspicious of your motives. Mangojuicetalk 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are the one pulling crap. It is quite obvious that you and your little friends do not alow anyone to edit the article away from its current state. I ask to change now to january 2008 and you describe that as inappropriate? Who do you think you are kidding. You camouflage objections to that via my previous edit, but you fool nobody. The change I am making is sourced, I stated this time and time again. Maybe you are incapable of reading the source itself which I helpfully quoted. It is a legitimate edit. Instead of discussing the edit you use muckspreader tactics.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Idle curiosity. Why is the page for "Crystal Gail Mangum" protected from editing? I am not questioning the reasons, I just simply want to know what the reasons are?Claffey27 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)claffey27
I did not intend to put my prior message in the same category as the "disruptive" on your talk page. This is a seperate questionClaffey27 (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Claffey27
- Basically, because lengthy and intense debates led to the conclusion that there should be no article on Crystal Gail Mangum, but rather, it should redirect to the page about the scandal. There was a lot of intensity on both sides, and ultimately to put an end to bickering over the issue, protection (on the redirect) was implemented. If you think this is wrong, the best thing would be to attempt a deletion review but please do first read the old one. Mangojuicetalk 22:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the old one: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23. Mangojuicetalk 22:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I took Rjecina's word for the sockpuppetry, but I see now that it wasn't confirmed. I blocked User talk:J. A. Comment solely because he seemed to be the same person as the IP addresses editing the article (which Rjecina claimed were being used by a banned user, meaning, therefore, that J. A. was also the same person). I apologize for the hasty block, I should have looked for the checkuser case... If there aren't any other concerns, I'd agree with an unblock. · AndonicO Engage. 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Short version of evidence is: He is user from Washington DC area (like Velebit), which is editing WWII Croatia related articles (like Velebit), which is adding "books" pages on article talk pages (like Velebit) and which is knowing wikipedia rules.
- It will be interesting to see if user Velebit has edited article Srbosjek before deletion and recreation or article but normal user can't see this.
- Now I am interested to hear in your thinking how many users which are editing under this conditions we are having on wikipedia ? I think that we are having only 1--Rjecina (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your persistence in attempting to get this user blocked is actually quite obnoxious. There is nothing wrong with, as you put it, "books." "Books" are the standard storehouse of human knowledge, and bringing them up as sources is what we WANT people to do, not disruptive behavior. Your continued insistence on internet sources is actually against Wikipedia rules. Furthermore, WP:AGF dictates that, given the checkuser results, we assume this is not the same user. Being from the same city is not misbehavior. If you think this user is pushing a point of view, or editing disruptively, it is up to you to present evidence of that, and you haven't. All you've tried to claim is that this user is someone else and the evidence just doesn't support it. Mangojuicetalk 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am sure that in your part of world books are standard storehouse of human knowledge, but in my part of world history "books" are weapon of war in which every nation is trying to show how we are having history rights on this province or how other nation has done very bad things to us. Because we are having fresh example of this situation (and IP editor) I will like to hear your comments.
- Because article Ivo Andrić has been under constant nationalist vandalism about his parents I have given 6 internet sources about his parentage. Only 5 hours latter vandal is deleting my 6 internet sources and changing then with 2 "book" sources and 1 internet source which is not speaking about parents because "my" internet sources are not "reliable and verified references" [15]. After doing that last problem of vandal is commons document which is saying that Andrić is Croat. He is going on commons with demand that document is deleted because of copyright violation [16]. Tell me after all that who can trust balkan "books" like sources of articles ? --Rjecina (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know about WP:AGF policy, but after cleaning garbage of user with 20 or more puppets I like WP:DUCK rule. I will not disturb you in near futury. Bye--Rjecina (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- You need to understand this: books are considered more reliable than web pages. There's nothing wrong with a New York Times article or a publication from a recognized scholarly society on the web... but a lot of web pages out there are published without any editorial oversight at all, and normally they can't be trusted. I disapprove of the edit you pointed out because several reliable internet sources were removed, but keep in mind that J. A. Comment wasn't doing that; he was replacing {{fact}} tags with good sources. Books always have a significant degree of editorial oversight, so long as they are legitimately published and not by a vanity press. But clearly the basis there is that books are good sources. I would be concerned if there was some reason to suspect that the books don't actually exist, or don't say what the editor claims they say, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Mangojuicetalk 20:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have broken my word (about disturbing you again).... Tell me in your thinking how is possible to fight book claims. For example I will use user:NovaNova (confirmed Velebit puppet) statements on talk page of Kingdom of Croatia [17] where he is claiming with support of many "books" that Croatia has not been kingdom before 1075. Claim is false but how is possible to defeat this false claim... Because of that sort of editorial work in my thinking he is very dangerous because NPOV users will think that his false arguments are real and NPOV. In the end I will ask your advice. In your thinking it is OK to put 1 of this tags: failed verification or verify credibility or verify source if other users can't check source in question (book) ?
- You are right that many internet links are POV, but users can check this source. On other side it is not possible to check book sources if they are NPOV or if they even exist and this is in my thinking greatest problem.
- About article Srbosjek my only comment is that in near future I will start deletion process. Reasons will be:recreation of deleted article and verification problem--Rjecina (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Simple: do not "fight" book claims. Book claims are perfectly valid. Now, a user misrepresenting information from books is another matter, but just because it's a little harder to expose such a cheat doesn't mean it's not possible. Specifically: (1) ask for ISBN numbers, page numbers, and specific quotes, (2) find whatever reliable sources you can on the same subject and see if the coverage they are presenting is outside of what you find to be the norm, (3) if those don't help, go try to actually confirm some of the quotes, in a library, and that should settle whether you should take all the user's sources on good faith, or whether they are abusing things. Mangojuicetalk 03:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you are thinking seriously about Ivo Andrić article it is time for small block of user:72.75.24.245. You can see that he has earlier been warned by other users on talk page about vandalism (he is deleting all warnings from talk page).--Rjecina (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not active enough to really get into this. Possibly, 72.75... has been edit warring across multiple articles.. or another way to look at it is that he's being harassed by you. The checkuser results didn't make it clear to me if the IP is related in any known way to any banned user, all I am familiar with is that J. A. Comment is apparently not the IP. I think you should take your complaint to WP:ANI, where it can be discussed more thoroughly. Mangojuicetalk 05:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- he has started ANI and proposition has been to start new suspected puppets case and so....You are invited to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Velebit2--Rjecina (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not active enough to really get into this. Possibly, 72.75... has been edit warring across multiple articles.. or another way to look at it is that he's being harassed by you. The checkuser results didn't make it clear to me if the IP is related in any known way to any banned user, all I am familiar with is that J. A. Comment is apparently not the IP. I think you should take your complaint to WP:ANI, where it can be discussed more thoroughly. Mangojuicetalk 05:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you are thinking seriously about Ivo Andrić article it is time for small block of user:72.75.24.245. You can see that he has earlier been warned by other users on talk page about vandalism (he is deleting all warnings from talk page).--Rjecina (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Simple: do not "fight" book claims. Book claims are perfectly valid. Now, a user misrepresenting information from books is another matter, but just because it's a little harder to expose such a cheat doesn't mean it's not possible. Specifically: (1) ask for ISBN numbers, page numbers, and specific quotes, (2) find whatever reliable sources you can on the same subject and see if the coverage they are presenting is outside of what you find to be the norm, (3) if those don't help, go try to actually confirm some of the quotes, in a library, and that should settle whether you should take all the user's sources on good faith, or whether they are abusing things. Mangojuicetalk 03:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- You need to understand this: books are considered more reliable than web pages. There's nothing wrong with a New York Times article or a publication from a recognized scholarly society on the web... but a lot of web pages out there are published without any editorial oversight at all, and normally they can't be trusted. I disapprove of the edit you pointed out because several reliable internet sources were removed, but keep in mind that J. A. Comment wasn't doing that; he was replacing {{fact}} tags with good sources. Books always have a significant degree of editorial oversight, so long as they are legitimately published and not by a vanity press. But clearly the basis there is that books are good sources. I would be concerned if there was some reason to suspect that the books don't actually exist, or don't say what the editor claims they say, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Mangojuicetalk 20:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your persistence in attempting to get this user blocked is actually quite obnoxious. There is nothing wrong with, as you put it, "books." "Books" are the standard storehouse of human knowledge, and bringing them up as sources is what we WANT people to do, not disruptive behavior. Your continued insistence on internet sources is actually against Wikipedia rules. Furthermore, WP:AGF dictates that, given the checkuser results, we assume this is not the same user. Being from the same city is not misbehavior. If you think this user is pushing a point of view, or editing disruptively, it is up to you to present evidence of that, and you haven't. All you've tried to claim is that this user is someone else and the evidence just doesn't support it. Mangojuicetalk 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AIvo_Andric_declaring_himself_as_Croat.jpg&diff=12090336&oldid=3089404){kind=link}
I am taking 2 day wiki break but before end... POV pushing with multiple accounts in article Ivo Andrić. This "genius" (72.75.24.245, 66.217.131.60, 71.252.83.33) is deleting statement confirmed by NYT that his parents are Croats (and changing with statement that his parents are Serbs) but leaving in article wiki document which is declaring that he is Croat [18] ? If this is not POV pushing and writing of false statements I do not know what it is !--Rjecina (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ivo_Andric_declaring_himself_as_Croat.jpg){kind=link}
Thank you
Your honest handling of my case helped me to regain belief that it's worth to contribute knowledge and work to Wikipedia.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a random fact I came across in Ripley's Believe it or Not! that I thought might interest you because of your username
Anyway..."In a 2003 auction, Fred Piscuineri of Australia spent $26,400 for a dozen mangoes!" Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uhhh, were they magic mangoes?
Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mangojuice. I found your name as the creator of Template:User wikipedia/PROD Patrol. I located several additional prod templates and listed them in Category:Prod-related templates. Would you please go through Category:Prod-related templates and delete those templates that no longer serve prod needs. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing there looks like it particularly needs to be deleted, but I didn't think too thoroughly about it. Feel free to use WP:TFD for any you think need to go. Mangojuicetalk 16:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Long usernames
Someone please reprogram the bot, then. In any event, I restored the concern note as it is definitely a confusing username ... who's going to be able to remember all that and type it out? Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but my username (and my real name) has at most 11 characters. Easy to eventually hit on the right combo (and believe it or not, there's an old daniel case there somewhere that's never been deleted (or maybe it has now). Typing out those names is a different ball of wax ... since the account seems so far to be a vandal account, I suspect that string was intentionally typed out as a big goof. So he may well never edit again, or he may have been deterred. IME most legit new users don't use overly long usernames, particularly since they have to remember them too, and by leaving notes at such long ones we're subtly discouraging would-be vandals who expect no one to be watching as they age the account. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Template:User committed identity help
Hi, I'm contacting you as you seem to have been involved heavily at {{User committed identity}}. I am interesting in getting one but am very confused as to how, especially regarding the cryptographic functions. I am also using a Mac computer, and the steps described here were not entirely applicable. Please help me out! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I've got it now. Thanks for your willingness to assist me, though! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
How come?
This is me being curious. Why do user admins get ticked off when you don't sign your posts, espescially ZimZalaBim?--Dominic Edward Aragon (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Aragon: I replied on my talk page as to why signing is important, but please reveal to me where I got "ticked off"? --ZimZalaBim talk 01:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hi im just curious... do admins work at a special place, and get salaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic Edward Aragon (talk • contribs) 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I left a message for you on my talk page
Re: edit warring (very old discussion you probably don't remember). —Jemmytc 08:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
A request for the arbcom to examine the Guideo den Broeder situation
G'day - I'm dropping this note in to you because earlier today I responded to a request to file a request for arbitration. My examination of events led me to believe that there may be some use in the arbcom examining this matter, and perchance resolving an issue or two, and you have been named as an 'Involved Party'. As such, your thoughts would be most welcome at the Request page.
Yours rather nervously to be wearing a clerk-ish hat for the first time,
PM - Privatemusings (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Altai Khan
Hi Mangojuice. The evidence is in his IP range. You will notice on Buyid dynasty he first appeared as 85.178.160.99 (talk · contribs). He has used this IP range before as 85.178.185.224 (talk · contribs) and 85.178.138.168 (talk · contribs). This matches his general location which is in Germany. Also, the behavioral pattern matches. Altai Khan has not only edited the Safavids page, but also edits pages about other dynasties as well. Akanak (talk · contribs), an Altai Khan-confirmed sock has edited a variety of pages, as most of his/her contributions consist of stalking.
Please note that after 85.178.160.99 was reverted by 07fan, the account "NPOVfan" was created. How many brand new users do you know that are familiar with the term NPOV? His first edit shows a profound knowledge about Wikipedia in general (the ability to cite a reference). Compare these two edits. Both changed it to "Dailam", which. Based on all of this, I conclude that this user is a sockpuppet of Altai Khan. IMO the evidence is pretty obvious in this case. Khoikhoi 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Altai Khan was known for stalking User:Tajik. He gave himself away at User talk:NPOVfan the moment he mentioned him. Note that Tajik hasn't edited Buyid dynasty since January 2007 and hasn't edited at all since June 2007. Khoikhoi 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Polite request
Could you, please, request checkuser on the full list of the IP addresses and accounts as given in [19]
Best regards,
--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Exiled Ambition cleanup
I've resurrected this page as we may need to review his contributions and see if there's anything which needs to be whacked. Please let me know if you want to participate with this. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick question and thanks
Thanks for the close on the In Popular Culture DRV; was happy to abide with whatever the result came out as, but it's nevertheless refreshing to see a closure from somebody who evidently read the full discussion fairly and critically. Been an interesting experience I'll remember for some time, all in all. One lingering question I thought I should pose to you: some people mentioned restoring the deleted history, now that the article's a redirect; did you have any thoughts, on that count? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think there isn't consensus either way about that. I figure that leaving the history deleted should be the default. If someone wants to have a serious go at writing an article on that subject, I'd be happy to undelete the history, but at this point I don't think asking to see one reliable source first is too much to ask. Mangojuicetalk 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Cemetery Drive
I have nominated Cemetery Drive, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cemetery Drive (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Exiled Ambition
I noticed you blocked Exiled Ambition (talk · contribs) for copyright issues. Are any of the articles he created legit? They follow a common format, and some of those have been deleted by other admins as G12, which implies that all of them are copyright infringements.-Wafulz (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
VoicePulse
I added some references to VoicePulse. --Eastmain (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the AfD you cited was a redirect, not a delete. Corvus cornixtalk 18:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- It was delete, then redirect for this article. Mangojuicetalk 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- So why did it get redeleted instead of the redirect not recreated? Corvus cornixtalk 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Your username
Hey... I just want to say I love you username. The moment I saw it I thought of (guess what) mango juice. Man... the feeling of drinking it... *big grin* -Samuel Tan 01:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
A small comment to say.
Thank you for your help. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockybiggs (talk • contribs)
Smells like a sock
You unblocked the user formerly known as "Fecal matters" so that they could change their username to AdamBrandone75, but they instead changed their name to User:AdamBraniff75, which is a little odd. Then they went directly to ANI to tel everyone that they had just gotten out of prison (which you would naturally want everyone to know) and tagged an article about a major league catcher as a hoax. Then they edited Handlebars (song), a favourite of User:JeanLatore, now blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Wiki brah. Can we cut this short? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's definitely User:Rainbowwarrior1977 (also JeanLatore, Wiki brah, Courtney Akins, and a horseload of others). The deleted history of Anglo Saxon hunting provides interesting reading, and other connections. I'm sure we were all waiting for him to nominate himself for RFA, the one other thing this particular disruptive user does with ever single sock he makes. I'll do the honors for you. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I am curious as to your reasoning
Re: [Siddharameshwar Maharaj]. The "keep" votes were based on a Google Book/Scholar search which turned up a handful of vanity-press sources which don't count towards notability, and the bulk of the comments were from sadguru.us, the vanity press owner.
Kww (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- If that argument were accepted by the independent commenters in the debate, it would have been sufficient. But it wasn't. And your own comment about "within the movement" actually undercuts your own point -- a self-published source is one that a single has published on his/her own impetus, without editorial oversight. In a movement like this, there gets to be a community... yes, the community may have its own publishing but that doesn't imply unreliability in the same way at all: there is now editorial oversight. There was a lot of multiple-voting going on here: there were in fact only three users in favor of deletion, and 7-9 in favor of keeping (depending if you count Sadguru and the IP editor). Mangojuicetalk 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
For redirecting all those HS conferences. Know it must have taken some time. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 23:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
GreenEcho
Hi Mangojuice. Please have a look at the updates re GreenEcho's case. Regards. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.
— Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Cartell article
Hi Mango, I am a newbie on Wikipedia and I was going to create an article on the company Cartell but see from the logs that there was a previous but deleted article on the subject. I was wondering what the best thing to do is? 1. Create a new article? 2. Un-delete the original and edit that?
Autorecords (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Cartell article
Yes, I work with them. It was recommended by several (not technically competent!) persons outside of the organisation to upload a descriptive article outlining the companies remit. The company works with several Government agencies and has been referenced extensively in the written media with regard to vehicle safety in Ireland. As services are primarily available online it was felt that the public should have access to independently reviewed information and references rather than those available on the site. Autorecords (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
M&M's video games
Hi there. Following on from the M&Ms - Shell Shocked AfD I have created an article named M&M's video games and redirected both M&M's: The Lost Formulas and M&M's: Shell Shocked to it. Is there anything else I need to do? -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Abuse Truth/abuset/ResearchEditor
Hi,
Because of your involvement here (actually in the text immediately above the section, but it's a long section and your comments are right at the bottom), I thought you'd be interested in this discussion of a topic ban. WLU (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Logging of community bans
Hi there. Would you have time to comment here? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
ResearchEditor's Topic Ban
I believe that it is unfair to extend the ban to additional pages. I did not even have a chance to defend myself regarding this allegation. To extend the ban because of an edit I made at McMartin around this edit is unfair, especially without giving me a chance to defend my actions at this and other pages. Also, I re-read the debate around my topic ban and did not see clear consensus as to extending it to other pages.
You stated that you don't believe the others are "a special-interest cabal blocking legitimate balancing" but I disagree. If you look at their edits, this is clearly the case, regardless if they edit in other topic areas at wikipedia.
The hope of posting the article issues at NPOVN was that neutral editors would get involved. This did not happen, so I assumed the result was not finalized.
If this issue was looked into more closely, which is what I had hoped for, then it would have been obvious that there is a pattern of harassment of those that don't agree with an extremely skeptical POV. Even my minor edits were considered edit warring, while major changes by other editors were not even looked at. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- RE: When talking about the "cabal", MG probably had in mind this. There is no cabal here. —Cesar Tort 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was using the lingo from WP:CABAL. They are not trying to unfairly dominate the article, RE: they just represent the consensus position. That may look to you like an unfair situation, but it's because you simply refuse to accept that there is a consensus against the kind of edits you want to make there. It's no crime to be in the minority, but when you push and push and persist and persist, it becomes a problem, which is where this ban came from. Take it to WP:RFAR if you want to appeal. Mangojuicetalk 04:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus was never achieved at the page. A view held by three editors overrode any concerns by two or three others. I still would appreciate an explanation as to why the ban was extended to other pages, when there was no problem at any of the other pages. Only one edit of mine was cited for this and I backed up the reasoning for that with a URL showing that it was a reliable source. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I will end with this. I believe you made the wrong decision. If the edits and involved talk pages were thoroughly looked at, it would have been obvious that two other editors either agreed with me or had a more neutral perspective on the issue than the extreme skeptical one. One stated he felt intimidated by those with an extreme skeptical position at the talk page and would no longer work on the page. This time the process at WP:AN did not work properly. Hopefully next time it will. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Question similar to the Cumuls Cloud undeletion
I agree that CC's page needed to be undeleted. Can you take a look at this link of user:RMHED and see if you think it should be undeleted. RMHED appears to be moving his talk to his userspace first then getting it deleted. I dont think this is a good idea but would like a 2nd opinion. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
User:I hope you're happy now
Group of six sockpuppets, all blocked at the same time, see the IP block list. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- We've been getting a lot of 6-groups like that, with similar styles of username, used for pagemove and edit-summary vandalism. Let's wait and see if this one bothers to answer FisherQueen's question. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The GS Analyst
I'm not so confident the user's edits were all in good faith. Since you've unblocked him in spite of his personal attacks against NawlinWiki and myself, I presume you will monitor his future behavior? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I can watch but I honestly don't think it's merited. He's agreed to change his username, which was the only blockable problem. He reposted a deleted article... once.. but anyone can make that kind of mistake. And I just don't think it's fair to punish someone for getting annoyed when their first experience with Wikipedia is an indefinite block they don't understand and outright deletion of their article that they don't understand. Mangojuicetalk 18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little concerned that we had to explain the block 3 times before they got it, which is part of why I didn't approve (or decline) the unblock-un request. I'll keep an eye open as well. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- On reviewing my actions, I did undo one edit of his in error. I removed it by mistake under the false impression that it was spamming, and I've apologized in full on his talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You deleted this article previously so you might want to have a look at its reappearance. I added some article history links to the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've G4'ed it. This has been through DRV 3 times by now, it's no longer a candidate for bold recreation. I'll inform the article creator. Mangojuicetalk 21:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Agiglio
I support your unblock of the above user, who I had previously blocked for spamming; I agree there is a chance of useful contributions if he really does understand. I'll keep an eye on him. DGG (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for SocialPicks
An editor has asked for a deletion review of SocialPicks. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Y Combinator
Would you mind taking a look at this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Y_Combinator&diff=234140029&oldid=234135955)? I think that OrangeMike is deliberately defacing every constructive edit I make on Wikipedia. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, I blocked FA last night after this comment and he is now requesting unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:Mgunetiquette
I have no objection to you unblocking him. Jon513 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Hello, Mangojuice. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:FinancialAnalyst. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Mangojuice, do you mind telling me what in the world I am supposed to make of this? What am I supposed to do about it? The last time I voiced a concern to you I ended up being indefinitely banned... FinancialAnalyst (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI - If you check this - you will see that it is highly unlikely that the user is Kendrick Moxon. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah okay, no worries, just wanted to make sure you saw that edit. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
DYK administrator help needed
Hi there. I'm not sure if you are on wikipedia now or not but if you are the DYK mainpage needs to be updated. we are currently suffering from a major backlog so prompt turnovers are really needed right now. Thanks for any help you can give.Nrswanson (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Talk:KEYW
Thanks for the assist with the deletions but could you please also delete Talk:KEYW? I had tagged with db-g8 so I can move Talk:KEYW (FM) into that slot but it was apparently looked in the mini flood of speedy requests. Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for unblock. I think I was treated very poorly. Blocked for merely suggesting a very long block of months instead of life.
This user is now tainted. I will begin a new user and never use Begin2009. I will notify you of the new user name. Begin2009 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I like mango, too. I saw your name just a few minutes ago for the first time. I am just about to write an article. Radiomango (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Pickaplant
Hi,
Thanks for not deleting the Pickaplant page. I agree with your comments and will set about working on the page as you suggest. In hindsight, I agree, it reads like an ad and needs more work.
Thanks for your patience and understanding. In short supply these days, so it is appreciated.
Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuffwack (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Pickaplant
Forgot to sign article above (pls forgive - new user..) Nuffwack (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Angeel56
Thanks for the update - sorry I wasn't around, we had an emergency the other night in my dorm and I've been out a couple days resting from it. I'll reply on his talk page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Unblock
Thanks so much for the unblohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mangojuice&action=editcking!!! I appreciate!!! Cheers, Antonino —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agiglio (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Help Please
Thanks for your help, One more question though. Recently I up-loaded a image to commons myself of the ford mustang AV8ER found here [21] and the article is here Ford Mustang variants#AV8R. I have tried adding that picture myself but failed, I thought I was doing it right as you can see by the pages history. What am I doing wrong there?--Theoneintraining (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ford_mustang_AV8ER.jpg){kind=link}
WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Unblock
Thanks for unblocking me at that school-based IP. Much appreciated (and good to see I'm not opening it up again for some student vandalism!). Rob Lindsey (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
well done
|
On 2 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article forking lemma, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
-- Victuallers (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you closed this deletion debate. You, however, never deleted the talkpage for Bruce Muirhead or Mark Nolan. Could you do this as soon as possible? Kind regards, D.M.N. (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: User talk:Justindavila topic ban
Right on his talkpage, User talk:Justindavila#Topic ban. The ban was discussed and approved by Iridescent, Jennavecia, and myself. GlassCobra 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean now. In the first section of the talk page, Jennavecia warned him that he would be banned from editing the article due to his COI issues and tendentious editing. GlassCobra 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
re. Owl and Weasel
- Heya and thanks for the thanks! :) Good to see that little snippet of RPG trivia on the front page, albeit briefly.
- Regarding the gallery and fair use of non-free content, I'd thought that through carefully and decided upon having just those additional three images in a gallery, out of all those I had available, on "encyclopedic purpose" grounds. In effect, those were actually references in their own right as they tied into /key/ stages that had been carefully pointed out in the article text (first D&D hook/special - which is what /really/ got them going, first Games Day, return from the US/GenCon with change of address) as described on the related gallery picture descriptions. (As a side benefit, those would also help to verify those sources as the printed material is /very/ difficult to obtain - I know of no other copies other than those I have (from a former GW employee) in some cases).
- The statement I'd focused on was "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and in this case, merely having an image of #1 did /not/ serve that same purpose or convey equivalent /significant/ information to having all four. (Certainly, compared with the article for White Dwarf where the gallery images /do/ appear gratuitous and serve no benefit of an encyclopedia nature in order to justify them). Similarly, the answer to "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" would, I believe be a "yes" as the images selected tie in specifically to the article timeline rather than just being "any old issue".
- Anyhow, "copyrighted images for decorative purposes" was by no means on my mind. :)
- Please let me know if that changes anything and/or whether I might need to state that justification more clearly on the page. And if not, could you point out the specific area of that policy I need to be aware of that limits to "one image only", regardless.
- Thanks & Keep up the good work, David. Harami2000 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- And replied on my own talk page: probably would've been a better place to have started that discussion to retain for general reference. Kindest regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
dab pages and speedy deletion
My understanding was that a dab page with only one linked article fails the content test. Can you expand on your rationale on this for me in relation to the "hound" page. If I'm wrong I'd like to know why so that I don't continue to operate under any misconceptions. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal at Weatherman (organization)
If I can see exact language, I can go along with your proposals. At this point it would be better for you to lay it out exactly, and I think that can get consensus. Thanks for your participation there. -- Noroton (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"
Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hiya - I'm currently trying to create an article for Angeline Greensill but it has been marked for deletion (thankfully not speedy deletion). You were so helpful a few years ago when I was creating a page for Tangatawhenua.com that I was wondering if you can come to my rescue again! Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Hope you are well and thanks for any help you can provide. Atutahi (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocking my IP address
Thank you for the extremely subjective judgment you've cast on me. I guess since this is not a court of law, there is no presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, just conclusions based on gut feel on what seems like a coincidence. when the fact of the matter is, my IP address is shared by an entire office floor. When you are done being high and mighty, I would appreciate having my IP address unblocked.Morpheuzzz (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Any time. I'll let you know when I'm done being high and mighty. Might take a few decades. :) Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest DYK
|
|
On 7 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hasty Pudding cipher, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note),
HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note), DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :) ).Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Your call, there is a ethnic-type troll on that, and other ranges. So WP:UCS. Prodego talk 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
IP Blocked
You have rejected unblocking me due to a blocked IP. My IP is belongs to the university, so there can be thousands of people sharing this IP. Is there a way to keep the IP block while allowing me to access using that IP through my user account? Or else the only time I can access is when I am outside of the university. Thanks.
-- You are right about the shared IP block being removed in a day. I will start being active in editing. Sorry for the trouble! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetrflare (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Techniche
Hello, I am contacting you about the speedy deletion of Techniche. I understand there was tons of spam and poorly written edits added by two specific editors User:Bhatla.ankit and User:125.20.8.166 (about one year apart) which pretty much contributed to the demise of the article.
User:Sainik1 had contacted me a couple of days ago to discussed the manner and mentionned that the edit history of the article was probably not checked before deletion and/or insertion of the speedy tag. The spam was added several months after the second attempt of the article.
I gave him the options to have the article restored but it would have to be reverted back to the version on April 17, 2007 to remove the mass-spam added by those two editors. However, by reverting all the spam, the article doesn't seem to meet WP:V especially for the bit that would solidify its notability - the portion that says it's one of the biggest festivals of its kind in India or around the area (not sure). It was previously deleted via PROD for failing WP:N.
Second of all, which might be the best one giving the condition of the article prior and after the massive spam introduction, I gave him the option to simply restart a new version of the article since G4 doesn't apply since it was deleted without a deletion discussion on both occasions as PROD in 2006 and blatant G11 in 2008. I've also gave him the WP:DRV option if I'm not able to respond to his reply.--JForget 15:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fine. I didn't check the edit history carefully before deleting it. Now that I have, I see only one revision that was really close to ad-free; the stub from December '06. I think caution in recreating the article is warranted, given the history of the article as an ad. And it needs sources to be a reasonable idea. Mangojuicetalk 17:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Pop Weaver
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pop Weaver, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Richard Pinch (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder
I'm not sure why you would unblock this editor, but it's been what? A day? And this happens. Maybe he shouldn't have been blocked for NLT anymore, but for being a combative editor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ignored. Mangojuicetalk 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- So I put in a reasonable observation, and I get back "ignored." Nice, really nice. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that his complaint was completely spurious and vindictive. He accused me of adding false information (I didn't) and hurting patients (I didn't), when it was, in fact, him who was making the disruptive edits. If you investigate you'll see that he has a history of this (he was blocked in the past for doing the same thing), and he's at it right now on various CFS-related articles. I'm trying to work with him, but he just makes things very difficult because he won't allow any info to be added to the article if he disagrees with it, and he refuses to discuss disputed rationally, instead resorting to insults and constant reverts. When anyone challenges him, he always makes himself out to be the victim, even though it is patently obvious that it is him who is causing all of the problems. A lot of other editors are having problems with him, as you'll see in the various talk pages. I have had disagreements with other editors over content in the past, but all were resolved after rational discussion. Unfortunately this is not possible with Guido. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
And now he has gone and added the pov tag again to the psychosomatic article even though I have added valid references. If you look at the talk page, he isn't interested in discussing it. I'm just going to leave this to other editors now. It's counterproductive for me to try to add anything to the article, as it will just end up in another edit war. The problem is that Guido doesn't want any reference to CFS being psychosomatic because, as he has said, he believes this is hurtful to patients, so he is just going to push his pov by removing all reference to cfs being psychosomatic or psychiatric. Also have a look at the changes he has just made to the main CFS article removing the word neuropsychiatric. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mangojuice is a good candidate to comment on GDB's past actions because of his familiarity with the block history, but you're really going to have to get a new AN/I posting started to get any support for a community ban. Give 'im a break. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sciencewatcher: do NOT remove these tags until the situation is completely resolved, which means that a working consensus has formed. As for the whole POV issue, I really have a hard time judging who is right because I know little about the subject. It sounds like you need to get more editors involved though. Mangojuicetalk 05:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think you should have a look here and here(among others). I have tried to be patient and reasonable, but Guido refuses to discuss things reasonably, resorting instead to false accusations, snide comments, multiple reverts, etc. Currently, in order to avoid 3RR violations, he has instead just put pov tags in many articles, and all attempts to discuss the removal are met with silence, and if you try to remove them he just puts them back (is that a 3RR violation itself)? Anyway, as you have asked me not to remove the tags I'm just leaving things as they are for now. I would ask you to have a look at the articles and suggest or force a solution. Thanks. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
J.A. Comment
In June you have unblocked user J. A. Comment because of goodfaith policy. Now I am interested to hear your comment about my new blocking demand and new evidence [22] --Rjecina (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- You have not noticed that another user has started check demand with wrong IP. They both has not edited all August, and now they are here. Tell me please what is needed for you like evidence for Suspected sock puppets case if IP is different ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. How about this: you made an WP:RFCU request. That should be sufficient to identify any sockpuppets that need blocking. I strongly suggest that in the future you refrain from trying WP:SSP when WP:RFCU doesn't give the results you want. However, I am getting really suspicious of your multi-month campaign to have a specific user blocked despite repeated failures. It's disruptive and may earn you a block of your own. Mangojuicetalk 17:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Another question. This summer I have recieved death threats on Croatian wiki because of my edits on English wiki. It is OK for me to ask that checkusers from Croatian and this wiki find who is behind this threats (Croatian wiki checkuser need to give data to english wiki checkuser for action) ?--Rjecina (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- (Removed all the other comments; not interested anymore, and don't snipe at each other on my talk page.) Were the threats through Wikipedia edits? If so, a cross-wiki checkuser certainly seems plausible to me, but I don't know much about the procedures. I'm pretty sure a steward can help you out. Mangojuicetalk 05:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Mango (mind if I call you that?), I just wanted to say that your comments above have come up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Checkuser. If you could offer an outside opinion, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sophia Mirza
Hi, User:WLU pushes his pov on Sophia Mirza to the extreme, calling ME activists CFS activists while they fight against that term, and claiming that 30 years before the invention of CFS, people already used it. I have filed a 3RR report against him (7 reverts in total) but can't make anymore edits myself there (I will revert an edit once, and a tag removal once, but no more). So I'm asking for your help to at least retag until this dispute, too, is resolved, but preferably to declare that the overall dispute has been resolved and consensus says ME is not CFS. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh, WP:PARENT - ask an admin or ask 3rr but don't do both. FWIW I don't mind if Mangojuice gives his opinion, an outside comment would be fine but a third opinion or request for comment might have been a better choice since there's no issues with previous involvement. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- WLU continues to revert, all still within the same 24 hours. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Deletion review for Eugene Ingram
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eugene Ingram. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Suntag ☼ 07:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
List of shock sites
Hi Mangojuice. FYI, I cleaned up Talk:List of shock sites, focused the link to the merger discussion, and added archival templates to the merger discussion. Feel free to revise my efforts as needed. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC
This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
William McCracken deletion (and others)
I see that you closed out the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken. Can you please move the articles in question to to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article? Also, please note at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so that members of our project can continue efforts to improve the articles in quesiton with the hopes of re-introducing the articles at a later time or perhaps in a format of a single summary page of coaches for the school?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Would you mind reconsidering your position? Other admins don't seem to have any issue with the step on similar articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comments at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC
Rather than make statements like this at the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC, would you please stick to referring to policies and guidelines and whether or not the sourcing supports what is said, and whether what is said is relevant? I've read over the policies and guidelies about this multiple times and looked through the sourcing, yet your response is to say I'm doing something "suspicious" and "extreme". If you're going to make a statement like that, why don't you back it up with references to specific policy language and explain your reason, as I've tried to explain my reasons? Have you looked back at the policy pages and what they actually say? Have you looked at the sourcing I've added to the page since you previously commented and considered what it means for there to be so many reliable sources describing Dohrn and Ayers and Weatherman this way? I haven't seen an indication of that in your comments. Instead you're attacking my motives, which, frankly, isn't fair to me or helpful to the encyclopedia. Please look again with an open mind. And the name is spelled "Dohrn" with an "n". -- Noroton (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how many reliable sources there are. Even if the label were totally uncontroversial, your proposals would be inappropriate. Take a look at articles on real, uncontroversial terrorists or terrorist organizations, and look at how those articles choose to use the term. That you have made it such a quest to make sure these people are linked with the word "terrorist" in the lead of the article is evidence of blatant POV-pushing, and it's time to call a spade a spade. Mangojuicetalk 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- 103 more examples of blatant POV-pushing for you. Seems to be a pretty common practice. [23] -- Noroton (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's 103 more impertinent references. Noroton, why are you trying to browbeat people who disagree with you? That's awfully uncivil.Wikidemon (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at articles on real, uncontroversial terrorists or terrorist organizations, and look at how those articles choose to use the term. That you have made it such a quest to make sure these people are linked with the word "terrorist" in the lead of the article is evidence of blatant POV-pushing, So I took a look. If evidence to the contrary won't sway you, even on that point, you shouldn't make the point. It might give others the impression you aren't approaching discussion with an open mind. -- Noroton (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that some of those articles are using the term Terrorist inappropriately. A lot of them are using it appropriately; that is, referring to an official government classification of a group or person as a terrorist. So most of them aren't comparable to the Ayers / Weathermen situation at all; no one officially classified them as terrorists at the time. The FBI says so now, but in doing that the FBI is playing historian, and stating an opinion. We should not associate someone with a pejorative label because of opinions. Mangojuicetalk 16:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's 103 more impertinent references. Noroton, why are you trying to browbeat people who disagree with you? That's awfully uncivil.Wikidemon (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- 103 more examples of blatant POV-pushing for you. Seems to be a pretty common practice. [23] -- Noroton (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your check of situation with Volodymir k (talk · contribs). It's a pity that hyper-vigilant admin User:Tiptoety with an incredible contribution ratio of 1 block to every 3 mainspace edits can indefinitely block accounts twice older than his own, and after that just ignore any further inquiries or requests. Moreover he used some off-wiki communication with unnamed checkuser. Is this acceptable under WP:RFCU and wikipedia privacy policy? DonaldDuck (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
About Dmitry Galkovsky article deletion
He does not seem to care about deletion of the article, it is his readers and correspondents that got alarmed. I personally would like it to stay so that my English-speaking friends could learn of this writer and journalist already well-known for Russian-speakers. (Asolver - unblocking request entered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.5.194 (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
[Personal attack]
[peronsal attack] 68.121.151.229 (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is there an established policy/guideline on things like ^ ? Can one just delete stuff like this, as vandalism, or is it considered "protected speech" or whatever, and must be preserved until read? (if I don't delete it I feel like I'm part of forcing you to read it! bleh!) Shenme (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed terrorist from the lead per WP:BLP and WP:TERRORISM. The FBI statement talks about "terrorist attacks" but does not say "Rudolph is a terrorist." That bit needed removed as unsourced libel. Just thought I'd let you know if you wanted to peak over and keep an eye open for an uprising of the masses. Thanks, GrszX 02:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It also says that within the Domestic Terrorism Program, there is (was) no higher priority than ... Eric Rudolph. So, the FBI was pursuing him under their Domestic Terrorism Program, which means they considered him a terrorist. Mangojuicetalk 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
IReceivedDeathThreats / BlueHippo / 208.48.6.195
Please respond at the bottom of this .
BTW, I just (v. belatedly) noticed that 208.48.6.195 is assigned to Blue Hippo (per mtr) and had been attempting to censor its own page. Sample diff. How do you think I should proceed? AN/I? Proof: URL:http://www.fifi.org/services/traceroute?hostname=208.48.6.195&nprobes=1&resolved=yes&submit=Traceroute. Accessed: 2008-10-08. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5bQ9eOLlF) Is it possible to run http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=TronixCounty on the full page edit history? It would seem to me that all (anon and user) editing from these IPs might need to be blocked.
Likewise, [Dittus], a public relations firm, has been editing via 12.160.63.70, e.g. diff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRDT (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I read your response, but I can't find an answer therein. Are you saying you won't unblock IReceivedDeathThreats at all? Here's what I am asking:
- Thank you for being a voice of reason. ... I need to think about things in light of what I've learned: I've read the current RFCN but my experience to date suggests engaging that or a new RFCN would be highly counterproductive. I'll hold out for you (who wrote "...I also don't think you need to be forced to change it...") to read my unblock request above and decide to honor it.
- Mangojuice, please respond; did you mean I don't have to change my username? Did you mean that's your opinion and you will unblock me on that basis? Or did you just mean that's your opinion and you will unblock me only for the purpose of further discussion?--IRDT (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's my opinion. I'm not willing to act on my own while there are admins who have supported the block. Can you explain why you want to keep this username? And what do you think of the objections that have been raised to it? Mangojuicetalk 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I can do those things, but my experience to date suggests engaging in a RFCN would be highly counterproductive. If I felt I could have a debate on the merits of the username IReceivedDeathThreats, then I'd be up for it. Do you think that could happen? If you do, why? What could you or I do to make that happen? The discussions to date were anything but a debate on the merits. Instead, the ANI and UAA were mostly blatantly false statements and other trollbait, and discussions thereof. And then there was the apparent oversight. As for the RFC, the link to it here is broken; where is it? I've already said "I do not feel comfortable elaborating on why I feel I need to retain the name IReceivedDeathThreats." --IRDT (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know, the more I think it over, I don't think a discussion would be worthwhile, and I don't think there's any possible good reason to go back to your ill-advised previous username. Here is the discussion -- the feedback was basically unanimous. While I don't like the block-first-discuss-later approach for borderline usernames, in the end, you should be forced to change your username given the objections if you can't counter them, and you are apparently not interested in doing that. Mangojuicetalk 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I felt I could have a debate on the merits of the username IReceivedDeathThreats, then I'd be up for it. Do you think that could happen? Given that, as I recently pointed out at the start of this thread (on IReceivedDeathThreats' talk page), 2 admins didn't think I should have to change my username, I don't see how you can say that it was "basically unanimous". Do you want to reconsider saying that? --IRDT (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know, the more I think it over, I don't think a discussion would be worthwhile, and I don't think there's any possible good reason to go back to your ill-advised previous username. Here is the discussion -- the feedback was basically unanimous. While I don't like the block-first-discuss-later approach for borderline usernames, in the end, you should be forced to change your username given the objections if you can't counter them, and you are apparently not interested in doing that. Mangojuicetalk 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I can do those things, but my experience to date suggests engaging in a RFCN would be highly counterproductive. If I felt I could have a debate on the merits of the username IReceivedDeathThreats, then I'd be up for it. Do you think that could happen? If you do, why? What could you or I do to make that happen? The discussions to date were anything but a debate on the merits. Instead, the ANI and UAA were mostly blatantly false statements and other trollbait, and discussions thereof. And then there was the apparent oversight. As for the RFC, the link to it here is broken; where is it? I've already said "I do not feel comfortable elaborating on why I feel I need to retain the name IReceivedDeathThreats." --IRDT (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's my opinion. I'm not willing to act on my own while there are admins who have supported the block. Can you explain why you want to keep this username? And what do you think of the objections that have been raised to it? Mangojuicetalk 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Two things
1. User_talk:Dareheaven#Block has answered your questions and is requesting unblock. 2. Archive this damn page! :) MBisanz talk 02:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)