User talk:Mangojuice

; Archives
	15,000,000,000 BC – 17 Feb 2006; 17 Feb 2006 – 17 Apr 2006; 17 Apr 2006 – 10 May 2006; 10 May 2006 – 9 Jun 2006; 9 Jun 2006 – 12 Jul 2006; 12 Jul 2006 – 26 Aug 2006; 26 Aug 2006 – 19 Oct 2006; 19 Oct 2006 – 3 Dec 2006; 3 Dec 2006 – 16 Mar 2007; 16 Mar 2007 – 22 Aug 2007; 22 Aug 2007 – 20 Jan 2008; 20 Jan 2008 – 7 Oct 2008;

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

Leave a new message.

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!

Eric Robert Rudolph

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, Grsz ^X 02:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mango juice^talk 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Mango juice^talk 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion at RFCN was indeed basically unanimous. Look, I've had enough of this. If you want to open an RFCN go ahead. You know that it may well be unproductive. If you aren't willing to divulge your secret reasons to me, I can't advise you. Mango juice^talk 05:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hehe, you listened. Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 12:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly just don't notice that stuff. Sections aren't numbered when you just hit "end" every time you load your page... but what did I have, like 200 sections there? I should really archive more often than that... Mango juice^talk 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested

Per my reply to you on User_talk:PrinceOfCanada, I'd like to formally request your input on the community discussion regarding G2bambino. My reply here is the specific issue that I'd like your input on - but the proposals begin here. Above that section is the context and diffs. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should really make this a WP:RFC. ANI is a fine venue for quick action on clear problems but this case is way too complicated for that venue. Mango juice^talk 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paperwork

Heya, one last piece of paperwork. When you notify an editor about an Arb case, it has to be logged on the case page itself. For Pseudoscience, since it's combined with another case (just to make things that bit more complicated, heh), this is at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications. If you check there, you'll see the format. Just list their name, and a diff of the notification. --El on ka 16:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, taken care of. Mango juice^talk 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

Hi, thanks for the note about Pseudoscience. I wish I would have gotten something like that before I got blocked. If you have a chance, could you have a look at the events that happened, as I and many other editors (including one that was directly involved--the other didn't weigh in) never knew there was an edit war until I got blocked. The only reason I have this article (and many others) on my watch list is because disruption or vandalism had spilled over onto other pages I normally edit... I just kept an eye on pseudoscience to help maintain order. Just a thought, but maybe 3RR needs to only apply when there's actually an edit war going on.

Also (as long as I've got your ear), when I was unblocked, Elonka said there might be an autoblock that I should mention on my talk page to undo, but after the unblock I couldn't even edit my talk page. I emailed Elonka, but she didn't get around to resolving the issue until just now. I also emailed the address given in the help section, but there has been no response to that in the past 15 hours. Why wasn't I even able to edit my talk page? NJGW (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether the 3RR block was right on its own, I do think that most of the time there is someone who complains... but the rule is meant to be a bright line and you definitely crossed it, so the block was legit. As for the arbcom ruling, you would not have been blocked under it until being made aware, that's part of the ruling. But now that you know, you should just try to be extra careful in reverting on that page and on similar ones. On a highly watched page, remember that it can be someone else's turn to revert an edit if it's inappropriate... and that approach can also give you an idea if maybe others might feel differently. As for the email list, honestly, responses can be a bit slow, {{unblock}} is much faster. But those procedures are really designed for long-term blocks: short ones automatically get removed, after all. As for your talk page, it's possible you tried to edit it while the autoblock was still in place but you hadn't logged in? Only thing I can think of. If you showed me the full text of the message you saw, I could help you figure it out, but it's probably working now. Mango juice^talk 05:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The message that appeared when I tried editing my talk page said the IP was autoblocked because of the 3rr block, mentioned my ID, and said if I have trouble then I should add the template to my talk page... kind of hard to do when I can't edit my talk page. I was logged in, and I logged out and in again just to be sure, tried it a few times throughout the day. NJGW (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that shouldn't happen. It might have been a cache thing possibly. Anyway, you can edit your page now, right? Mango juice^talk 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I can edit now (Elonka removed the autoblock), but I just want to know what exactly happened in case this is happening to other people, or in case Elonka made some technical error... I pressed ctrl-R several times, closed the window and reopened it, and then erased my cache through the tools menu, none of which worked. Have you ever heard of users not being able to edit their talk pages besides when fully protected? NJGW (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but then, I'm not a developer. See WP:BUGS for info on reporting bugs. Mango juice^talk 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lemansbjw

Was he bugging you on email too? I got an email from him earlier asking me to explain why I deleted his article and blocked his account. I never heard back from him in email, but he apparently made a bit of a fuss in his page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heard from him, it was quite a bit more harshly worded than a mere request. I tend to not respond to people like that over email, because then they'll have my address.. Mango juice^talk 03:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Checkuserblock

Hi Mangojuice. There was so much vandalism coming from that IP that I felt the need to checkuserblock it; some of the vandalism was seemingly innocuous, but if you actually took a moment to consider it, it seemed like there was something more going on than met the eye. For example, a fair few of the users that have been affected by the block have put blocked templates on their own talk pages. This was all happening while the IP was blocked anon-only so I don't really want to unblock it. Feel free to grant that user block exemption if you think it's appropriate, though. --Deskana (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to change the Wikipedia:Autoblock page

I will refresh your memory in regard to this discussion you answered about revealing user's IP address when they are dealing with an autoblock last November (i know a while ago!). I think you should place some kind of information on the autoblock page that their IP address will be visible to everyone and if they don't want this to happen they should hold out and no one would be much the wiser. Note what it says on that page "The only circumstances in which a user may be associated with an IP address, are certain policy violations detailed by the checkuser policy", this obviously needs to change. Thanks 211.30.16.21 (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not sure you will have the same IP address later, I'll leave my response here. I agree that users should be cautious in posting their IP address. However, that particular passage at Wikipedia:Autoblock is trying to make a different point: that admins can't help IP blocked users unless they post the IP address. I'm not entirely sure where it is best to leave this warning, but buried in the middle of the explanation of what an Autoblock is is probably not the best idea. Perhaps try posting about this issue at the Village Pump? You might get some helpful feedback there. Mango juice^talk 14:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mangojuice

Thankyou for unblocking me, however, I am considering retiring from Wikipedia. Thankyou for all your help and support.

I now have a BLOG, and although I'll miss 'blogging' on Wikipedia, at least I won't get told off for blogging on blogger.com. Feel free to pop by my blog and leave a comment or send me an email, just go to http://thesecretworldofladyrenegade.blogspot.com/ (search engines won't work, type it directly into your URL).

It's sad to leave Wikipedia on bad terms, but I really don't think I am an editor of value.

Yours sincerely, HJH Lady Renegade.

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mango, Question.

In the future, when someone else is the one editing out stuff that I post that meet's WIKIPEDIA standards, whom do I go to specifically? Because if history is any experience, I know that user Scorion50something reacts negatively to ANYTHING that he does not like, even if it meets the standards (and in my own self-admission, when I was in the wrong as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_please.3F

Many thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helio Ban

I think you may have missed the actual ban i was appealing and what I was saying. There was no ban ever communicated to me. If you've been able to find documentation that suggests otherwise feel free to point that out. But at no point after giving Shell my email address, providing IM information, or on the boards was it ever communicated to me that I was banned from anything. The ban I was appealing was the one previous to this "block evasion" one. What policy was that based on? What was the reason for it? Shell says there was never an issue of vandalism or any other breach of wikipedia policy so what was the need for the initial ban? In fact if you review the edits you'll see as soon as someone suggested posting the information instead in wikileaks is when I left it alone because I found that to be a reasonable alternative but never got around to it...66.186.44.2 (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell showed me an email to you that was quite clear that you were not to edit any articles having to do with Helio. The word "ban" wasn't mentioned, but you were told that *any* edits to those articles would result in a block: that is a topic ban. Same goes for the warning Ned Scott found and pointed out. The choice to impose the ban looks good to me: I was only really interested in the question of whether you were clearly and fairly informed first. Mango juice^talk 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelley Limp

Hi. How exactly was it that the decision was "Keep", given that the article is an unsourced stub that has not established notability of the subject, and that all seven of the votes were for Delete or Merge? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SLAVE. There was no clear place to merge the article to. If you have a solution, go ahead, the AfD provides the consensus you might otherwise have to build. Mango juice^talk 12:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Would you mind then restoring the articles discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken or at least sending them to my userspace for additional work like you previously refused to do? See User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was against deletion of Kelley Limp. The consensus was for deletion of those coaches; I merely remarked to those supporting merge that there was no place to merge in addition to lack of consensus to do so. As I said before, if you pick any one of those articles and show me some reliable sources you can use to build up a real article, I'd be happy to undelete in userspace for you. Otherwise, no, or find someone else. Mango juice^talk 13:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar articles have already been restored. It would be easier if you would simply userfy the articles in question. If you continue to wait, I'll simply work on other articles that have the head start and then the only ones left will be the ones you held up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my condition. I think it's reasonable. So did Stifle last time we talked about this. If any other admin disagrees, them userfying for you is fine by me. See CAT:RESTORE for people you could try asking. Mango juice^talk 18:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "condition" apparently has already been met and also is unreasonable, as seven similarly-deleted articles have already been restored, either by the original deleting admin or through their consent. Wikipedia is not an accumulation of blank pages, but I think you would prefer it that way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm a volunteer, and undeleting and userfying pages is work for me that I don't feel like doing if you can't be bothered to show even one reliable source on even ONE of the articles, to indicate to me that it might be minimally worthwhile. So quit bugging me about it if you aren't going to do the work. I looked at your project and it seems like most of the articles are still in deletable state ~~, and at least one was moved back to the encyclopedia and subsequently deleted.~~ If you want to gripe about me, WP:AN is the place. I'll delete any more of it that you post here. Mango juice^talk 16:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you insist on continually deleting my requests and have asked that I open a WP:AN entry, I have done so here. Personally, I would have rather you had just userfied the articles on the first request instead of complain about not being paid. P.S. I'm a volunteer, too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I expected, another admin quickly userfied the articles once you bothered to ask someone else. Which has been my point for some time now. Mango juice^talk 02:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Friends ;)

Hey Mangojuice, do you remember me from the "America Needs Jesus" incident? We had a discussion here, and I laugh as I went back through it. ;) My stupidy and misspelling, dumb "lol" jokes, etc. I do the same things with new users now (I'm an admin on Simple English Wikipedia and Wikiquote). I just wanted to thank you for pushing me to change my user name then, it has completely changed my life and helped me greatly. Thank you, and God bless. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear things are working out for you, thanks for the note. :) Mango juice^talk 02:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stack article

You participated in an AfD Discussion on the article Jack Stack that resulted in that article being deleted. I have done some more research and have found a professional career and other sources and believe that the subject now meets WP:ATHLETE. Because normally articles like this are almost always kept, I decided to be bold and just place the article back where it was with the updates. However, if you still believe that there is a reason to delete this article, we can take it to any discussion forum you prefer.

To be fair, I am notifying everyone who made a comment on the AfD. If you wish to make any comments, it might be best to put them on the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mack Flenniken who had a professional career with the New York Giants and Chicago Cardinals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOOPS Typo--it is Jack Sack not Jack Stack. Apologies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress: two other articles were restored when clear-cut notability was discovered, Jimmy Robertson (American football) and Dwight V. Beede was merged into Dwight "Dike" Beede. I also have sent several of the articles for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 7, and some are still waiting for improvement. You may wish to participate at the deletion review discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my user page

I'm hoping to avoid whatever mistake I made last time with my Bard Ventures page. You moved it back into my user space after I changed my username. I'm confused as to how i make it "live", how i take the "user" away and make it an official page by it's proper name, and not be viewed as a spammer? I've tripled checked the references, and the industry association, and it's all legit. Should I make any remarks in the editing notes so no one else does speedy deletion (the last editor deleted it without observing my references.I appreciate your help.Natasha 23:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Natasha —Preceding unsigned comment added by YogaN (talk • contribs)

re: bard ventures

Thx alot for the feedback. Now I know what to work on. Natasha 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Natasha —Preceding unsigned comment added by YogaN (talk • contribs)

wow, dude, thanks for deleting so many literary philosophy pages right when i need them for my friggin' term paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.247.69 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: European Jews for a Just Peace

I realize there was no consensus, but the article had nothing in it to establish notability, and there was no hope of anything significant being added that could change that. You will understand if I consider keeping such an article as problematic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, I understand perfectly. But then, there is no deadline, and sources have been brought forward that can be used to improve the article. I suggest, tag it as unreferenced (I think that's fair, their own website wouldn't count), and nominate it again in (say) 6 months if it hasn't been improved up to minimum standard. Mango juice^talk 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to ask you about this [1], in which Darkspots says that the user who initiated the AfD should not vote. Is there such a rule, or established wiki-etiquette? If so I will not do that again. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal for a nominator to have a bolded "vote" in their nomination or directly below it. If there is no such vote, it is normally assumed (after all, if you nominate page X for deletion, presumably you want it deleted.) So I agree with Darkspot's crossing of your vote but only because it was substantially removed from your nomination. Mango juice^talk 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

common sense

A few of us took a bet on who would be the one who would object to the notion that common sense is policy. Oh well, if you consider it optional....--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's optional, it's that the category of policy pages should be kept as small and important as possible. Each one ought to present its own unique, critical aspect of the workings of the Wikipedia community. Mango juice^talk 18:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And common sense isn't among the important things?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also very important that you remember to breathe while you edit, but I don't think we should be emphasizing it to people who want to learn the rules. And anyway, the point of WP:COMMON is not that people should use common sense, it's that using one's common sense is the proper way to interpret WP:IAR. In other words, it's a particular way of explaining WP:IAR, but not the same as the policy itself. It's just the same as the other explanatory pages WP:WIARM, WP:UIAR, and WP:EXCEPTIONS; those are all essays, even though they say much more important things than WP:COMMON does. Mango juice^talk 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome

Hi, since you have previously shown an interest in the topic of CFS, this is to inform you that I have started an attempt to resolve a long list of existing disputes on Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. You are welcome to participate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure of July 29 in Rail Transport.

Hello, I just want to let you know that I disagree with your closure of July 29 in rail transport. I went ahead and took the matter up to deletion review. Link: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. Your comments are welcome there and I'm sorry I didn't take it up with you sooner. Tavix (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sorry, withdraw the request. I spent over an hour composing that message, and I had to get another admin to actually remove the templates afterwards because I had taken so long, and your not discussing this with me first is a slap in the face to both of us. Your nomination wasn't in bad faith, obviously, but the debate was not a good start at addressing the issue because this is not really an area where policy will say one thing or the other. So, like article editing, a change here is most likely through persuasion and compromise, rather than a big fight like the AfD debate makes it. I don't think you were doing anything in bad faith, and I see that this made the most sense to you. My only criticism of your nomination is that you could have tried discussion first before a mass deletion nomination. But you obviously didn't learn anything from that because here you are starting another contentious debate without discussing the issue with me first. Mango juice^talk 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Thank you for helping me get unblocked and i appologise for not realising that i was unblocked sooner i just thought that i would get rejected Harry weasley (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Block log icon

I notice that the icon on your user page links to someone else's block log: ...&type=block&user=Jza84&... A mistake, I guess? Jubilee clipman 03:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MangoJuice,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the discussion on my article I tried to create on Sambucol. In the last discussion I had referenced some articles as well as the mention by Dr. Weil. Would it help if I can provide scans of the Weil mention? I have no problem sending this to you. I could also send you any other documentation that you might need to consider the product notable. Please let me know if there is anything I can do. --Sambucol (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willicon block

Thankee kindly! 'twas a bad mistake on my part. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking my username. Moronicbajebus (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YAY!

I have been waiting for someone to block my school for...well...since i got here actually. I'm no admin, so i can't do that. 5 years...awesome. I won't have to continue getting autoblock messages for something dumb! THANK YOU! Buffered Input Output 17:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgin English Dictionary, Port Moresby

I understand that you are liaising with the author of this to add it to Wikibooks. I have been dealing with the issue on OTRS (OTRS:2334014); can you please advise where it's been added on Wikibooks so that I can add an OTRS ticket accordingly? Stifle (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just did it today. It's at "wikibooks:English / Tok Pisin dictionary." Mango juice^talk 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kokondo

The reference of Kokondo.com is no longer valid. You continue to post a link directly to www.kokondo.com - which now redirects to www.seirenkai.com, which has NO information or reference to Kokondo whatsoever. As such, the link is no longer appropriate as it no longer contains any information on Kokondo.

My only objective is to ensure that Kokondo is accurately reflected. By utilizing references that no longer include information to Kokondo or are no longer affiliated, it is not an accurate reflection of Kokondo. The idea is that someone clicks on a link to learn more about Kokondo...if that link doesn't direct them to a source that reflects the information, what is the point of the link?

My intention is not have a battle here, but I think any objective person can click onto Kokondo.com and clearly see that there is no information from the wikipedia there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am a member of the association but am not acting on behalf of the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the name is Jukido or Jukido-ka or JukidoJuice, is irrelevent. In order to keep the conversation on topic though, I don't have any objection to changing the username.

I do not have a misunderstanding regarding what a "reference" is and what an external link is, although I appreciate your detailed explaination. Once again, my one and only conern is to ensure that any links (whether they appear in the reference section or the external link section, or within the article itself) within the Kokondo article do lead to a destination that reflects the material on the wikipage. I would suggest that Veracity demands that this be the case... if the reference mentions a website (www.kokondo.com), it is safe to assume that the wiki-vistor might very well visit the page for additional reading. Without mentioning that kokondo.com NO LONGER contains this information, it isn't complying with veracity and is misleading. Saying one thing and doing another..

In any case, perhaps a mature solution would be to ensure that the references do NOT contain liks to Kokondo.com. If the material was drawn from Kokondo.com (and DOES NOT APPEAR IN SANKOSHO), then it could be stated that the material came from Kokondo.com but that this site NO LONGER contains that information - in order to have veracity and not mislead the public.

I look forward to your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your respone and I feel that this is beginning to develop into a more constructive dialogue. In lieu of me going in and deleting the references line, I would rather you remove the second line (if you don't mind) referencing Shihan Arel's bio on kokondo.com. I have added a line that references that exact same bio (word for word), which appears on page 31 of Sankosho. Given that the text is identical, I don't see why this would be an issue.

I look forward to getting your reply and hoping that you'll remove that line. I appreciate your constructive correspondence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the picture used on each - the bio that appeared on Kokondo.com and the bio on page 31 of Sankosho are identical. However, I do agree that Sankosho should be considered the primary source of information.

I appreciate your efforts and I look forward maintaining the Kokondo page as reliable, I'm confident that you will be a part of that effort as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukido (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldstrumpcard

I'd be inclined to unblock, now. There is evidence that he isn't a sock [2] and he appears to be promising to be good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with me, go for it. Mango juice^talk 05:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Inferno, Lord of Penguins

He's been unblocked, with a barnstar as well for owning up to the other account's actions. Thanks for giving me the chance to look over this, I do appreciate it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake the Bean Guy

His account was mistakenly created for him by the account creation team, because they didn't notice he shared both an IP and an email address with a banned sockpuppeteer. He is User:Fang76, User:Fang2009, User:Free a nude gay, and User:Fangisawesome. They all make various attacks on MBisanz. Prodego ^talk 16:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concise and excellent summary

of the deletion review of Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Just what I had wished for. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I have read and understood your comments. I will make an additional effort to explain edits in future. I will leave the other issue to yourself and fellow administrators. Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brutanti unblock decline

You summed it up perfectly; thanks for seeing the deeper context behind my block. Tan | 39 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But I'd encourage you to be more accurate in your block summaries... if for no other reason, so that the blocked user can at least try to adjust their behavior. :) Mango juice^talk 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Tan | 39 19:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Expertise

Hi MangoJuice. How are you? I was wondering if I needed your experise on some Sikh related articles could you spare the time? --Sikh-history (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- sorry I missed this the first time around. Could you be more specific? I really don't know much about Sikhism, but if there's a behavior or policy issue I can certainly help. Mango juice^talk 19:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the unblock

hey, thanks for unblocking me, and that bit of advice on the cold reading article will come in useful Phallicmonkey (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apogologies

Hi there, sorry for the inconvenience I caused you regarding the block extension due to me misintepreting and breaking the allowable alternative accounts rule. Least thats cleared up for me, won't repeat that again. Then again, I'll try not to get blocked again in the first place hah hah (sheepish laughter). I'm glad to report though that the other editor involved in the edit war has finally accepted my reasoning on why my cites are valid (apparently due to the detailed reasons I gave), so this should not happen again. No offence taken at the Block Extention, I'm still continueing to learn how to be a good Wiki editor every step and every day, and everything that happens is a lesson learnt.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Howdy! Are you having a fine day?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Utahboysranchnetwork

Saw your message on the above's talk page. I don't know what's going on at West Ridge Academy - new Good K (talk · contribs · logs) showed up there yesterday, only making edits to that article, but I cannot tell whether they are editing from the same POV as UBRN or not... – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, gang; I love it when these things work the way they should. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unrealkitten block

Thanks for letting me know, and for handling the unblock request. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Maltese (dog)

If this is the purpose of RfC, to have side choosing and one more editor to tip the balance on one side then this is pointless. Pietru as a UK based person has much much resources to gather support of the likes of Elm-39 and Crotchety Old Man. The two previously named editors have expressed a simmilar agreement to revert the article back to a version before I came along.

If Wikipedia has no way to stop trolls and griefers like Pietru, from deleting sourced edits and during those deletions offend fellow editors. I think that the 3O is a better choice for now and we shall see how it goes. Latter this week I will try to finish the RfC and also contact the Wikiproject (even if it is preety much "dead").

Imbris (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I respond here?

Thanks for your response. I would like to mention that Mljet is an island which was called during Roman times Melitae. Also it was called Meleda in Italian language. I hope that you would not be offended if I say that it is not unreasonable to mention Croatia because if mentioning Publius/Martial is "quite interesting" then why not. Croatia is currently not mentioned at all and Malta is mentioned four times. Italy (Italians and the Italian language) are mentioned three times. For those three should be mentioned because those three had connection with the word Melitae. So Malta 4 times, Italy 3 times and Croatia zero.
If the oposing editor agreed once that we should list viable names, why stoping the issue with "This is English Wikipedia". Please see Talk:Maltese (dog)#Other names issue. The Bichon Frisé has in the other names section Bichon à poil frisé and Bichon Tenerife.
This section will host more and more sources, for now, Talk:Maltese (dog)#Other sources that the general connection should be omitted.
We will return to this, less important topic.
I am sorry but I cannot understand why Publius/Martial should be taken out the history section and used as corroboration of the illusion of the origin being Malta. If we can agree that it is only in name connected to the three places, Mljet, Sicillian historical Melita and Malta. Why should we use a one time event like Publius Issa and construde a story based on one poem.
Ok.
Talk:Maltese (dog)#Other sources that the general connection should be omitted. We also have sources, currently in the article which do not speak of Malta but of Adriatic Melitae like Callimachus and Pliny the Elder. We have Briggs in mid 1800. and lots of them who did mention Malta as not the place of origin.

Imbris (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you would reconsider on some points. -- Imbris (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to hear from you regarding the No. 1 issue. Don't you think it would be POV to list Malta (one poem's worth of sources) four times, Italy (the current patron of the breed) three times and not list Mljet in its Croatian context? Callimachus wrote about it (he is Greek), Pliny the Elder confirmed (he was Roman), then we have others like Bochart, Aldrovandus that by Briggs quote the first two. Melitae is mentioned in the works of Timon, Aelian, Artimidorus, Epaminodus, Strabo, and Saint Clement of Alexandria (which all should be checked out). Lee Rawdon Briggs wrote:

"Many early writers have mentioned these little dogs of Malta. Aristotle did, and he died 322 B.C., whilst the elder Callimachus, who was almost his contemporary, likewise alludes to them, and has something to say as to hounds and dogs generally in his poem to Diana. No doubt those Canes Melitaei were pretty much identical with the long-haired, white little dog which is the Maltese of the present day, and that he was of an ancient race even the is evedent from the fact that there appears to be some confusion as from whence he came. There are two islands bearing the name of Melita, from either of which this dog may have been originally introduced."
"The one island was Melita in the Adriatic, near Dalmatia; the other Melita in the Mediterranean, near Sicily, and the Malta of to-day. Callimachus, already alluded to, and who was undoubtedly an authority on dogs in his day, say the little animal originally came from the Melita in the Adriatic, and the learned Bochart, in his "Hierozoicon," quotes him as likely to be right in his statement. Others have said the dog first came from Melita in the Mediterranean, which island is at the present time generally acknowledged, though I belive wrongly, to be the native country of the Maltese toy dog."
At pages 314 and 315

The question is why the article should not list Croatia and the name in the Croatian language, why this information would be deemed not neccessary, not interesting?

Previously Pietru requested that Callimachus would be proclaimed obsolete and we should use just Publius and Martial, then he deemed neccessary we use modern sources. Two of those modern sources are listed in the Talk page.

Please answer here and not on the Talk:Maltese (dog).

Imbris (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are considering an edit-war over whether to say "Mljet" or "Mljet, Croatia" you really need to get some perspective: it just doesn't really matter that much. As to the name in the Croatian language: why should we list that, and not, say, its name in Japanese, Hebrew, Swedish, Spanish, and Urdu, despite that no other dog breed article lists translations into other languages? It sounded from the phrasing of the question that "Bichon Maltaise," being French, was being questioned: if that is not a common term for this breed of dog in English writings, I would favor removing it. That is the standard I think should apply: names in the infobox should be commonly-used names for the dog breed that people use when writing about them in English; this does not inherently preclude a foreign name, but would allow only such foreign names that are in common usage in English. If you think my interpretation of the standard is incorrect I'd like to hear why; it certainly seems to be the approach in the 7 or 8 random dog breed articles I looked at. It sounds like you want to portray this dog breed as Croatian, but I don't think the sources support that.

I am not considering edit-war over the issue but will continue with my requests that Croatia would be included. It is fairly easy to emphasize why Croatia and the name in the Croatian language should be included. We are not talking about origin. I have successfully explained the matter to Pietru that we are talking about the name. There are three historical locations that sources list as the location from which the dog got its name. Mljet (Melita, Meleda) has most of those sources, historical Melita on Sicily has a few and Malta has been found to have least to do with the name. This is why the name Mljetski psić or Mljetski pas (which has more Google hits "Worldwide") should be included. If you want we can even agree that formating the name without Template:Lang-hr. The names in those three languages which have some support in history should be used despite their usage in the English language. This is the least that an English encyclopaedia should do because the English are the ones who without sources determined that the dog should be called Maltese. I have no doubt that this would be most NPOV way to go about the name issue. Also I belive that you have not looked for the names that have nothing to do with the English language in those 7 or 8 dog breed articles. If you have looked its full of non-English names. Your objection that I seem to portray the breed as Croatian is without foundations. Have I insisted on deleting all the words "Malta" from the article - No. I have added all Italian content in the article and the Etruscan and the Greek, and Spain and Lyons and you want me to say that there is no need to enter that Mljet is in Croatia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources aren't disregarded as obsolete on Wikipedia so I definitely disagree with Pietru's point. The best approach is to simply report on what we know of what reliable sources say in a neutral and straightforward fashion. As long as we aren't trying to establish which belief is the common one, or whether one is a fringe theory, there's no need to talk about the relative importance of sources so long as they are clearly reliable. Mango juice^talk 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to hear that my work on bringing historical sources was not in vain. I do not support fringe theory here, simply pointing out that three location which used to be called Melita exist and that Melita in the Adriatic near Dalmatia and "Black Corfu" (Korčula) has the most support in sources to be associated as the "provider" of name for the dog breed. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact: "Mljetski psić" (and similar spellings) turn up zero documents on Google in English apart from Wikipedia itself, and all of those mentions are due to you. So I see as strong evidence of lack of use of the term in English as one could possibly hope for. Mango juice^talk 19:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you looked only in the English language, Mljetski psić is supported by almost all of former Yugoslavia and we have a second form that is more popular, Mljetski pas, a form used by Antun Gustav Matoš before the WWI (he was from Slavonia, studied some veterinary medicine and hardly ever been in Dalmatia). I belive that Gino Pugnetti in the All about Dogs described the Maltese as Mljetski psić. He was Italian. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for point #5, I have no idea what you are trying to get at, but including the famous story about Publius and his dog does not violate WP:NPOV. It should be included; let the facts speak for themselves. I'm just saying that if you think having those two sentences next to one another causes some kind of problem of emphasis, they can be split up, but both are relevant to the article. I was merely thinking that if a section talks about the early history of writing about the dog breed, that would be an appropriate place for the Publius story. Mango juice^talk 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to omitt the Publius/Martial stuff but to place the info in the appropriate historical flow. They could not be mentioned as a strengthening tool to sentences that should be omitted. The info should be split up. I agree that it would be the appropriate place, meaning early history. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if you have the time and the willingnes, what about the point 7. Are Callimachus, Pliny the Elder, and others who quoted them, to this century like Robert Leighton, William Drury and Dan Rice, not to mention Lee Rawdon Briggs from mid 1800's. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: final word on the name business. I checked, and my perception was spot on: the documentation of the infobox template Template:Infobox Dogbreed clearly specifies that "altname" should list other names by which the breed is known in English. Furthermore, as far as I can tell this dog breed has effectively nothing to do with Croatia at all. The island of Melita, which happens to be currently Croatian, is only noted as the name of a place with a common word root with Malta/Maltese; all the refs I've seen that dispute the dog as associated with Malta talk about it as if it was all over the Meditteranean. The fact that there is such a minor connection and yet you are so adamant about this silly Croatian name business makes me extremely concerned that you are approaching the article with an inappropriate agenda. Mango juice^talk 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate agenda is keeping the article with mentioning Malta 4 times, Italy 3, Spain, Lyons, French name Bichon Maltaise, quite interesting facts like New South Wales most something, etc., If Mljetski psić or Mljetski pas doesn't deserve to be menioned in the infobox by rule of a template (whatever, there are no rules that templates are policy) then the name Mljetski psić and Mljetski pas should be mentioned in the history section per sources. First and second (maybe even third) paragraph of the article contain a list of names, some of which are not even used in this time and age. I propose that the name should be placed there. The island is not just currently Croatian but long term Croatian.

The documentation of the template doesn't even include patronage section (which I added to solve simmilar sittuations).

Mljet in its natural context of Croatia is common sense so if the name of the dog in the Croatian language should not be listed in the infobox, neither should be listed the name of the dog breed in the French language.

The dog has nothing to do with Croatia but it has to do with Malta and Italy, that is what you are saying. Those three have everything to do with the dog's name and also those three have something to do with the origin of the dog being Central Mediterranean Area. All the refs you have seen support that Malta has nothing to do with the dogs name and Malta is mentioned four times.

I do not wish for Malta to be completely stricken from the article, it is mentioned enough but Croatia should be mentioned not only for the name issue (in the appropriate history section) but also in the context of Mljet, Dalmatia and Croatia (Dalmatia as Croatian historical region).

When I found the article it was complete Malta POV and now after my work on the article, when a few facts need to be included you speak about your concern over my agenda. I simply want to quote sources that approve of the Croatian name of the dog in this wikipedia's article about the dog.

As a contributor who added much valuable content to the article I think that I am in the boundaries of WP to list the content if not in the infobox then in the history section.

Imbris (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to mention the Croatian name in the article anywhere. Stop arguing about it to me, I'm not going to change my mind on this. The island has barely anything to do with the dog. From a Google web search for English pages, I found 2100 hits that contain "Bichon Maltaise" and none that contain the Croatian name. So I think there's a decent argument for including the so-called French name, as it's in substantial use in English. But there is no argument for the Croatian name. And mentioning the name in the article is ridiculous: that's what interwiki links are for. Mango juice^talk 13:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the history section of the article on the Maltese Dog. There are lots of names there, I have added Italian names for the dog. Please note that we are not talking about the infobox but rather on the history section (paragraph No. 1). I do not see any other reason for your constant objection to the insertion of the Croatian name (of the language or of the country) as trying to get a compromisal solution that will satisfy the biased user Pietru and thus solve the dispute for a longer period of time. You are training striktness on me even if I have contributed only sourced info. Have you seen the Pharaoh Hound article, they use Maltese sources and in the Maltese language all over the article, and in the Ethical dillema section they desribe a completely POV view to protect the national Maltese symbol - the Il-Kelb tal-Fenek. Why are you trying to omitt Croatia from the "equation". This kind of mediation, calling for a comment, knowing that nobody would answer to betterment of sources and to a broader inclusion of facts. Why shouldn't we quote from the article by Ratimir Orban Malteški pas je zapravo naš mljetski psić, published in the magazine for kinology, Moj pas, No. 7-8-9, year 1992. Why should not we list sources that are not in the English language. Not everything has been written in English. The dispute is not going to be solved by mentioning Malta four times, Italy three times and Croatia zero times. -- Imbris (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now what about the point 7 and all the sources presented in favour of the clarification of the general association. -- Imbris (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about point 7 any more, it's fine if sources support it. Stop harassing me about my opinion, you aren't going to change my mind by continuing to restate the same bad arguments endlessly. The point of the RfC is to solve these issues by establishing consensus, not by you hammering your points over and over until people agree with you. Mango juice^talk 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is OK I prefer to solve some issues here. Issue (1) Iiris Hyytinen. Did you ask yourself what she meant to say when she wrote "FCI breed standard" below the title "Maltese - a Lovely Little Toy Dog". Maybe she meant that Maltese is a FCI accepted breed. She did not write FCI-Standard N° 65 / 06. 04. 1998 / GB, using the standards' number, date, or anything that would support your claim and even defamation of her writing.

Issue (2) I would like you to stop with supporting sources that cannot be verified, authenticated, proved or whatever to be called reliable sources. There are lots of wikipedia's cut-copy-paste sources and people that belive Malta has something other to do with the dog than Publius (one specimen) Issa (a proto-Maltese) about which Martial sung a one poem. However worthy do you belive; Malta POV it is undefendable. From what you wrote I do not know what do you think about point 7, and since you have started caring again, I would greatly appreciate to hear from you (on your talk page) about the main point - point 7.

Imbris (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were answering me, you could have done that at my talk. Publius/Martial is mentioned in the article, no dispute there, but the mentioning of Publius/Martial in the context of "general association" is what is the problem. What reliable sources the "general association" has, none, zero, this "general association" could be mentioned only in the context of disproven belief. -- Imbris (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) - Iiris Hyytinen is credited as the author of that source. I found the first two paragraphs of the "history" text in a few other translations, but the rest seems to be original work of Iiris Hyytinen. Is she an expert? If so it's reliable text, but since it's self-published it might not be on par with other sources such as books. Issue (2): what sources? Do not assume I'm reading random web pages and mistaking them for reliable sources. I haven't named sources but I've been working exclusively with text from Google Books; that is, I've been looking at published books about the Maltese specifically or about dog breeds more generally. The books I'm using are published by reputable publishers, and I have no reason to believe these fall short in any way of the reliable sources standards. When I get a chance tomorrow afternoon I will attempt to list some of the ones I found most useful. Finally, I'm going to ignore point 7 because I think the article needs general rewriting and expansion; I did see the "without offering... proof" statement in a source so I understand how that is sourced.

However, your comment here has me concerned for two reasons: first, you are criticizing the reasoning in these sources, as if they have no right to claim that the Maltese dog is associated with Malta unless there is some kind of proof that the dog originated there. Sources are sources and we do not get to pick and choose which ones we consider to be "worthy". Similarly, your statement that "Malta POV it is undefendable" is very concerning because your agenda has consistently been against Malta for whatever reason, and now it's like you're saying that any source that lends some support to an association between Malta and Maltese dogs is automatically unreliable because you don't agree with it. This is not the way things work; if you can agree to follow the Wikipedia approach, that is, gathering reliable sources and forming prose out of the statements in them, without drawing our own conclusions or distoring the balance, then we should be able to proceed amicably. If you continue to try to argue against published and respected sources because you disagree with them, or try to "balance" points of view by insiting on equal consideration for unequally important viewpoints, then that will be the source of disagreements between us. Mango juice^talk 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Iiris Hyytinen is the Chairperson of the Maltese Club of Finland (est. 1974, publish a magazine) which is a full member of the Finnish Toy Dog Association (est. 1921, in this form from 1986). The web-site belongs to the Finnish Toy Dog Association. Mrs. Hyytinen is a well established breeder, begun in 1986 and owned a Maltese Dog from her childhood on. She owns Kreivinkartanon Kennel in Kasvattaja, Finland.

(2) Sources that say Maltese, yeah it's from Malta, the name says it all are not reliable and also I have not spoke about reasoning (where did you find that word in my writing and in the context of sources pertaining to Malta POV). I spoke about verified, authenticated, proved or whatever to be called reliable sources. Sources that lend biased support to Malta (speak only of Malta without quoting anything) can be quoted to describe the sentence that Maltese has nothing to do with Malta. The general association should be formulated differently by all means feel free to say what is on your mind.

(3) We shall see about that disagreement, but arguing against sources is allowed, natturaly on the talk page. We shall see. Also the name of the dog in the Croatian language goes into the article per second commentator.

Imbris (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Ok, I am not sure that establishes her as expert enough that anything she writes is reliable, but, clearly the Finnish Toy Dog Association considered her expert enough to publish what she wrote on the matter... I guess that is editorial oversight. I am concerned that this source isn't as reliable as others (say, books) but it sounds like it's usable, so, I think this matter is settled. (2) That is exactly what you just did. "Sources that say Maltese, yeah it's fram Malta, the name says it all" are reliable if they meet WP:RS. On the other hand, no one says that. Published, authoritative sources are by and large pretty thorough on the matter. Look, I'm not taking a blind approach to this, and maybe it's time to start discussing actual text: I assure you that the association (meaning, the association in peoples' minds) exists but there is a lot of skepticism about its merits and quite little in terms of arguments for it. If we just present that story, I can't see it as a pro-Malta bias. (3) Actually that user said that in a case like this where the country of origin is disputed we should go with the FCI, which lists no country for this breed, instead saying "Central Meditteranean area" (source #1 on the article). Its "patronage" is listed as Italy. If we're going to have an origin name listed in the infobox it should probably be "Canes Melitenses" (Aristotle's name), which is the oldest, or the latin version of it, which I have seen also referred to as an English name for the breed. Mango juice^talk 13:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following are sources I've found that I consider reliable. This is not an exhaustive list.

The Up-to-date Toy Dog Lillian C. Raymond-Mallock; originally written in 1924, first published in 2005. (notes Malta/Melita name confusion)
British Dogs, Their Points, Selection, and Show Preparation By William D. Drury, 1903. (Debunks the Malta theory.)
The illustrated natural history By John George Wood, Dalziel Brothers, 1865. (Says they are from Malta, no details.)
Dogs and All about Them By Robert Leighton, 1910. (Says they are probably from Melita, but this cannot be confirmed)
The dogs of the British Islands By John Henry Walsh, Cornell University. College of Veterinary Medicine. 1878 version, 1882 version, and the 1872 version, the earliest of which contains much more detail on the Malta connection.
Toy Dogs and Their Ancestors By Wentworth, 1911. (Very extensive, discusses naming confusion and how it arose, and also breed confusion; says the original "Canis Melitei" may have really bean a Pomeranian.) Title page says this is by "the Hon. Mrs. Neville Lytton," Google Books must have wrong info there.
The Portrayal of the Dog on Greek Vases by Helen M. Johnson, in The Classical World, vol. XII num. 27, 1919.
Maltese: A complete pet owner's manual by Joe Fulda, 1995.
The Mythology of Dogs by Gerald and Loretta Hausman, 1998.
Small Dog Breeds by Dan Rice, 2002.

Mango juice^talk 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Question for the first source, what Early writers mentioned two islands of Malta, even if the author(s) lists the Melita in the Adriatic near Dalmatia first we know that there are no Early writers that mentioned Melita (between Africa and Sicily in the Sicilian Sea of the Mediterranean). We should be careful in using this source because it quotes only Aristotle.

(2) The link leads to no page

(3) He said that "As the name implies, it was originally brought from Malta. (my comment: by simple trade maybe)

(4) The link leads to no page but I think there exists an edition of Robert Leighton in 2007 or 2008

(5) The earliest version doesn't even have the section preview and the complete title lack: Being a Series of Articles and Letters by Various Contributors, Reprinted from the "Field" Newspaper; thus sound less reliable. The map section of the link doesn't contain Malta. Also John Henry Walsh is reffered to as "Stonehenge", who, in his earliest work on the dog, describes the breed as nearly extinct, but, although "scarce, still to be obtained in Malta." He, however, in the same work gives an engraving of a dog, as a Maltese, imported from Manilla. In "The dogs of the British Islands," stil hankering after Malta as their birthplace, he confesses his inability "to trace any record of the dog, after many inquiries made amongst residents in Malta.". page 575 by William Drury

But in The dogs of the British Islands, being a series of articles on the points of their various breeds, and the treatment of the diseases to which they are subject (1882) the text speaks differently.

(6) the link leads to no particular page [3] leads to a sentence on the page 23 which goes: those which Callimachus calls Melitei from the Island of Melita in the Sicilian strait whence that kind chiefly had its origin also. So this source falsely quote Callimachus

(7) Point to nothing, no page

(8)(Fulda) on page 11 "l believe. and at least two other canine scholars agree. that the Maltese did. in fact. originate on the isle of Malta." should be quoted very carefuly since he and his companions are in obvious denial of historical sources and promotes a fringe theory of origin. Also his "manual" is not a historical or scientifical work with sources but a meere manual. On page 6 he and his companions base their writing on Publius/Martial (one specimen named Issa), but also bring some interesting authors like E. Topsell, Linnaeus and Danberton. They completely avoid Callimachus and Pliny the Elder. That source should be listed as it is named Maltese: Everything about Purchase, Care, Nutrition, Behavior, and Training, by Joe Fulda, Betsy Sikora-Siino and Michele Earle-Bridges, Barron's Educational Series, 2005- a meere manual.

(9) Points to nothing, no page

(10) I have quoted that source also.

About the name in Croatian language which is not a hoax like the derived name by Pietru in the Maltese language would go in the history section and would be sourced by Antun Gustav Matoš, Ratimir Orban and baroness Turković also Mljet in the context of Croatia should go into the article.

Imbris (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* No, it shouldn't. There is nothing about Croatia in a single one of these sources. Melita, yes. Mljet isn't mentioned anywhere either, but it certainly seems relevant. Why are you so insistent on this irrelevant point? NPOV does not mean that we discuss every possible national perspective with equal weight: see WP:UNDUE. Mango juice^talk 13:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about the information being presented in those sources you listed? I did no such thing, did you? I have said that according to other sources Croatia is going into the article. Something like ...All ancient sources mention Melita in the Adriatic Sea near Dalmatia (Illyrian Melita). Croatian writer Antun Gustav Matoš called the breed Mljetski pas according to the name of that island in the Croatian language, that being Mljet. Croatian Kinologists Ratimir Orban and baroness Ksenija Turković use the name Mljetski psić.

Also about your worries of my offences against Pietru, let me point out to you my answer at the subtitle Utterly Absurd Editing in the Talk:Maltese (dog). I hope that I will communicate less and less with Pietru alltogether. -- Imbris (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a particular dog named Issa and a song about that dog is quite interesting then it is also quite interesting that in the Croatian language there are four, maybe even five different names: Mljetski pas, Mljetski psić, Maltezer, Maltezac, Maltež (Northern Dalmatia and the surroundings of Zadar). Croatian language is the only language that calls the breed with a possesive noun Mljet-ski according to the supposition on its origin of Mljet. -- Imbris (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one source that attributes any kind of significance to the Croatian name and I might change my tune. Naturally, a source in Croation that confirms this is the term would be easy to find but it's irrelevant. You have a theory: that the Croatian name lends extra credence to the theory that Melita, not Malta, is the origin of this breed. Show me a source that espouses this theory, or this is WP:OR and unsuitable. In fact, show me more than one -- every other origin argument I've seen has been argued in multiple sources, so if this deserves to be in the article it ought to be there too. If you can't do it, drop it: you're outnumbered 3 to 1 on this. Mango juice^talk 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not drawing my own conclusions but simply trying to quote sources, in verifiability section of WP there is requested referencing with one source only. If this one source became challenged then someone might request additional sources.

I have every right to expect inclusion of sources in foreign (to English speakers) languages. I will present three sources which were written in times of Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia. This should relieve you of any doubt of validity of information. Where have you read anything about determining validity of information (in WP)? The information about one of the names in the Croatian language is most certainly valid because the Island of Mljet was perceived during centuries of history as the place of origin.

Can you honestly say that any of those other names, listed in the first paragraph of the history section of the article in question have any validity? The only thing that matters is properly source with reliable sources. Nor you, nor me are licensed to determine what is valid (or true).

It seems to me that you are determined to prevent any mentioning of Croatia out even if we have sources that speak of Slavic people on the Island of Mljet since Constantine Porf.

I am not outnumbered, as you put it, but you have sided with Pietru and the other editor who answered to the RfC said that all sections of the history before the breed of today (breed of today must have known lineage and parentage, ownership, certificates, etc., happening today, since 1911 and the foundation of F.C.I.).

As I said the other commentator wants all history section into the disputed history (I would rather it call History of the ancient Catuli Melitaei.

I would also want you to stop patronising me and speaking about how I want something, and you do not want something. The name in the Croatian language doesn't give any extra credence to the origin problem, but solves the naming problem which is all I want. The origin will not be solved by two of us.

Also we should move the wikilink from Malta into a [[Malta Island|Malta]].

Imbris (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were showing me a source there, I don't see where it is. Mango juice^talk 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were presented and now reside in the history section of the article. For your convenience I will repeat them:

Pugnetti, Gino; baroness Turković, Ksenija. Sve o psima, Mladinska knjiga (Ljubljana) i Mladost (Zagreb), 1983 and 1993, No. 291
Matoš, Antun Gustav. Sabrana djela Antuna Gustava Matoša (1873-1914-1973), Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts, Mladost, Liber, Zagreb, 1973, vol 18, p 221
Orban, Ratimir. Malteški pas je zapravo naš mljetski psić, Moj pas i njegovi prijatelji : stručno informativna revija za kinologiju, Hrvatski kinološki savez, Zagreb, 1992, No. 7-8-9, pp 14-15
Article Mljetski psić - Maltezac ; excerpt from the book 'Sve o psima', from 'dogsnordic.net', Senada Rudić, Osijek, Croatia

Imbris (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources are backing up is the translation. What importance do they attribute to the Croatian name? I'm sure writers in Chinese would use a Chinese name for the dog but I don't see how that is relevant. Mango juice^talk 21:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three prominent places in the world connected by name (some like the Adriatic Melita by extensive sources, some like the Sicilian town of Melita by not so much sources, and some like the African Melita by Publius one specimen named Issa (Romans called the Island of Vis - Issa)). For the Adriatic Melita there are also names like Illyrian Melita, Sclavonian Melita, Melita near Dalmatia in the Adriatic Sea, Meleda, etc.

Now you are telling me I should justify (or as you put it before validate) a source. We do not validate anything we use sources to verify - not validate.

Chinese have no ancient sources of the origin of that proto-dog. We know that the breed started when the certification and collecting data about lineage and parentage started. So stop imputing that I want something else than what every decent editor wants, to contribute data, information, knowledge and wisdom through verifiable process of reliable sources.

Imbris (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has ended and I have started to incorporate comments into the article, Pietru il-Boqli accused me of not complying with the commentaries, doing that himself. This is his tactics, accusing me of something he has done in order to fog the issues and share his blame. I do not know what to do about his blatant disregard towards editing on issues, sources and not on editors. -- Imbris (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your attempt to defuse the sittuation. Writing the Italian word for Mljet which is obviously a left over from the Italian standard which has been translated into English, French, German and Spanish. Have you not noticed that Pietru il-Boqli deleted sourced paragraphs. Distorted the time flow (a rule in writing about history). Have you not noticed his continual name-calling me a vandal. Why do you not support the Hafwyn's comments about making a history of a dog, and a history of the breed. Pietru is unable to accept the RfC commentaries and you have written that malat sentence in a way that puts Malta POV in a way that is unacceptable. The source clearly list the word malat, what about the word Melita (honey), etc. Why it is not longer acceptable to write that FCI distinguished Malta Island as the place from which the dogs most certainly did not sprang. -- Imbris (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to discuss this issue with you here any more. This is a discussion about the Maltese (dog) article, and it is not a private discussion between us. Take it to the Talk:Maltese (dog) page. This has gotten ridiculous. I'm happy to discuss individual changes. But please, drop this POV accusation: all I did was directly paraphrase the source: if there's bias it's not MY bias. Mango juice^talk 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Netbooks RfD

Hi Mango, you were very nice to me when I was extremely green, so I'm putting this request on your page to see if you can help sort out the big old mess that is going on on the RfD on the Save_the_Netbooks page.

Background The author of the page is the "leader" of the movement. The movement want to strip a legally obtained trademark from a public company because they believe the trademark is invalidly held. whatever the decision, the USPTO is meant to be making up its own mind. Dell computers have got involved in the trademark dispute and it's all pretty much out of anyones hands.

Anyway, the author has a bad habit of brushing off criticism and removing tags calling for COI and such without allowing any moderation/mediation to take place. I've attempted to have a dialogue with him over the last few days, but it seems impossible to resolve the issues with him as it stands, complete stalemate. Add in to this that some other unrelated individuals are goading him now. I'm finding it hard to side with their call for deletion, but I also believe that the original editor SamJ is not a suitable candidate to edit the page. really, it needs a snap decision from someone with experience and authority.

My objection: the page is hateful, bordering on liable against Psion the legal holder of the trademark (or at least has been at stages - it was edited quite extensively today and I haven't read it through again recently.) A lot of the reference the editor uses to support notability are just press releases and announcements. Little real original content. Lots of blogs and such.

If you are not in a position to do anything, I'd appreciate it is you pass this matter to another admin to look in to. It is getting beyond a joke, especially when the editor claims thing such as "british conspiracy" "organised editing", when quite frankly I have never even been acquainted with any of the members who have been editing today.

Thanks in advance for any help in brining a final decision, no matter what that might be. Memsom (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having issues with a user accusing me of having multiple accounts

Hi Mango, me again. The user SamJ has, yet again, accused me of being a sock puppet - despite the fact he has no proof what so ever. This User_talk:SamJohnston#Polite_request is a link to me retraction/request that he stop accusing me. I do not have multiple accounts. I have forgotton to log in a few times, and I only recently started signing my entries properly. I hardly ever edit articles on Wikipedia, because this usually happens. Not really making me want to do much more contribution as it stands :-( Memsom (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback Removed

I just want to apologize for my miss-judgement using the rollback tool. The reason I did it was because two users (which were SE KinG and Adolphus79)reverted it before I came in, and alerted me to revert that edit for being vandalism and unsourced. I admit I've gone a little bit overboard with the talk page, but I thought it was vandalism because it was uncivil. This is an unfortunate event that happened. So, have I have my rollback permissions back? Thanks.

Regards,

Techman224^Talk 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took rollback away from Adolphus79 also over his error, but yours was far worse. I gave his back after he reflected on it, but I feel I have to draw a distinction between the two of you. You reverted two sourced additions to a page as vandalism and removed a talk page comment that wasn't even uncivil, just agitated. Actually, the talk page comment you removed was the new user's honest attempt at dialog concerning edits that had been reverted with no explanation; that comment was necessary and removing it made the situation degenerate. You also left a level 4 vandalism warning for it that led an admin to indefinitely block the user for making this sourced addition. I am glad you seem to have changed your opinion on reflection but I think you did worse than make a mistake, you were being very careless. I don't think tools like Huggle and Rollback belong in the hands of someone who uses them carelessly. I also think you continue to not understand that nothing you reverted was vandalism. I think the best thing is to simply put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions whenever you are ready, but you'll have to convince the people there that this kind of issue won't come up again. Myself, I might support restoring the tool in a few months absent any other incidents, but I wouldn't support it now. Mango juice^talk 05:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you truly are amassing

you are amassing but I have one question. Have you edited the Jonas brothers page? If not you should. the brothers are truly amassing just like you--I love jd (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[sarcasm]I just have one question, what exactly is he amassing, and in in what quantities?[sarcasm]WackoJackO 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response on Kokondo article

MangoJuice, I have responded on the Kokondo talk page. I look forward to working together (as opposed to each other) - I'll remain hopeful. :-) Jukidoka (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Hi Mangojuice. Thank you for unblocking 24.62.100.100; I've only just started using the blocking part of adminship today, and don't have the confidence/experience to reverse another admin's decision, even though it seemed to be clearly in error. The sockpuppeting user has tried to have several other users blocked undeservingly today (other sock traits are declining unblocks and warning and reverting IPs when they've done nothing wrong). Do you think a Checkuser request is necessary to find other sleeper accounts? Thanks, Somno (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ignore my earlier comments. Yes, clearly TWM was a sleeper account, there are probably others. Mango juice^talk 14:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (hopefully correctly). Thanks, Somno (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for your help with that mistake. I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.100.100 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MangoJuice

You can rever the welcome message back. No problem. Additionally, I've added some points to our discussion on the sources in the Kokondo article. I look forward to your response on my page or on the Kokondo talk page. Jukidoka (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time ...

... to review and comment on my unblock request. It is very frustrating to be blocked without any way to respond to the accusation that led to the block. Sometimes all a person wants is the opportunity to be heard. You let me know that at least one administrator did hear my side of the story. Oh, and by the way, your link to wp:lame was spot on. (But it seemed so important at the time.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Practices for COI

[4] - I hope you don't mind. Revert with my blessings if you do. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, not at all. It's in WP space, I've got no special ownership. And AGF is definitely a good one for the reading list. Mango juice^talk 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI Tag on Steven Toushin

Hi Mangojuice! You helped keep the Steven Toushin page from being deleted last December. I made a request on the discussion page to have the COI tag removed from the page. Can you take a look?De Bergerac (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride

As you may or may not be aware, there is currently an ArbCom case currently open regarding this Administrator. I humbly suggest that you may want to delay this block until the conclusion of that case, as the running of Adminbots is pertinent to it. Blocking him now will only lead to further acrimony and division. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Botched block review of Histopher Critchens and Wikipedius Reparo

Please see this comment:

Again, I am not Wikipedius Reparo. Wikipedius Reparo is not me. The claim that my "contribs are suspicious" is absurd -- back this up with one single example, rather than tossing around unsupported allegations. Please unblock Wikipedius Reparo's account. I can understand honest mistakes, but this is becoming ridiculous -- I'll file a complaint against the offending admins unless you all clean this up quickly. Histopher Critchens (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Histopher Critchens (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- sorry, but it's up to Wikipdius Reparo to request unblocking himself. Mango juice^talk 17:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for stopping MZMcBride's deletions (though understandably a difficult situation). You just beat me by a couple of minutes, as I did not feel to perform the block myself as an involved party. Thanks again! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prekazi 81 about blocking

Oky. I understand your point about projecting the pages and informations. Than I try to be clear. I am trying to make Turkish football club pages with true and clear pages. I don't know if it's called a project or whatever. But the reason of my work is, almost evry pages about my topic are full of wrong and careless informations, and also links. I don't mean to make this whole thing without dicsussing but to be honest it seemed very hard to watch the wikipedia instructions. So I would be glad if you or anybody guide me about this. Cause I really want to work on that.

Kokondo

MangoJuice:

My apologies for not answering the Kokondo discussion in the last several days - business has picked up and wikipedia time has taken a hit. :-)

In any case, I noticed that you reposted what you believe to be the best references on the page. I would prefer that we reach some type of mutual agreement in good faith (as I posted in my last contribution to the page), before making any edits. I certainly don't think having an edit war is helpful, beneficial, or the most mature way to go about it.

I'll post my comments on the Kokondo page. Thanks. Jukidoka (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

MangoJuice - Thanks for the communication. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Adil your

I think recent edits show that he is very disruptive and hopeless. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threeblur0

Hi there, I see you commenting about Threeblur0 possibly being unblocked. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for me to continue to comment at Versageek's talk, so I figured I should contact you here. There's more than enough evidence that Threeblur0 is IP .219 (see Talk:Akron, Ohio) as well as a few points I left on Versageek's talk. The issues, though, go farther than just an article. Some of the more major issues include the creation of User:Wuanridingjerk a direct attack on User:JonRidinger and threatening gun violence (I live just a few hours away from where this guy is at). Other than the tons of copyright issues here and Commons which added up would end in a long-term block, the user continually adds cruft to Akron with some sort of obsession. It has been mentioned by many that the article needs cleaned up, and when that happens they come in with 2 or more socks sometimes and "undo" everything we've removed. It's a senseless cycle and I'd really like to just see this stop. I understand that I have a bias against this user, so my comments probably don't mean much to you, but I think this has gone past the unblocking of someone with 3 or 4 accounts and blocking someone with over a dozen, plus a few IP, accounts. Isn't there a limit where having too many socks is "bad" and we should just ignore these people? Thanks for "hearing" my thoughts. Feel free to reply wherever or not at all for that matter, §hep ^Talk 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help me if I had a better idea of the full picture of the disruption this user has caused. I think the evidence is pretty clear that this one is a sock, but that said, they have offered to avoid the Akron article if unblocked, and that makes me think some kind of acceptable terms could be reached. Mango juice^talk 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems we have differing opinions. It would be bad form for me to reply to comments made about me at Threeblur0's talk, correct? The "little fibs" has me peeved a bit. They also claim to have only used one accounts at a time, I consider an IP an account of sorts, Talk:Akron,_Ohio#Meth_capital, #Recent editing, #Picture removals, moves, #Editors, #Ahem and others are examples where they've used more than one sock to "gang up" against any opposition to him/her. They're still not being straight after "coming clean". I'm sorry, I'll stop posting here now; I know you could probably care less about what I have to say (anyone would) and this probably isn't the best venue either. §hep ^Talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for unblocking me. I need to confirm that can I create my page Alok S Sharma. Its says there is no such page exists. If yes, then can I write a short bio about me? Like where I am from and how I can help other members of Wikipedia.

Also, is my talk page meant for other people to leave a message for me which I can respond to them?

I want to become active member of Wiki and contribute all the knowledge I have and share it with other members and visitors.

I am more interested in contributing and writing articles on cruelty to animals. I want to create awareness amongst the people and the world that what pain and suffering animals go through right from their birth to their death. Even, their death is more painful than the life span they lived.

Please suggest me how I can contribute my articles. And once again, thank you for giving me a change to improve my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alok S Sharma (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Panthkhalsa

Thanks, I was thinking of referring the case to another admin. But, then I thought that this is a case of blatant vandalism -- the user is basically introducing deliberate errors in spite of being shown (see User talk:Panthkhalsa#Your_edits); so, I decided to block the user. Anyways, I should have referred the case to a third party -- I'll take care in future. utcursch | talk 18:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalliopethemuse

It appears that Kalliopethemuse decided not to wait for the rename request to be processed, and instead created the new User:Lindyhophannah account, then deprodded one of the articles created under the first account. Not sure if this is allowed? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding is fine, no reason to deny a full debate if that is wanted. Mango juice^talk 13:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I specifically meant was it okay for him to just register with the new name instead of waiting for the rename process? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. In many cases username blocks are made to allow account creation, so that users can simply create new accounts if they have a better username. In fact, I think much too much emphasis is placed on WP:CHU; it's bureaucratic and for most users like Kalliopethemuse, with barely any edit history, it's best to just start over instead of bothering with a name change. Mango juice^talk 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, just wanted to make sure. Wasn't clear what the policy was because of the COI issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is blocked as a "spamusername" there are two issues: the username and the COI. If the COI part is dealt with (as in this case: I wouldn't have unblocked otherwise) then registering a new account is fine. Typically that means the block has to be lifted, because the block usually prevents registering a new username anyway. Mango juice^talk 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alok S Sharma

Hello Mangojuice,

I have posted my first contribution at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Auction_Scam. Please let me know if I am doing it correctly and where I need to improve.

Basically, I was a victim of a domain auction scam and lost $700. I did a search on this topic and it did not exist, so I thought to open it.

Can I put my example on the above page? Its a very big and a deep story and also involves the negligence of PayPal. I have all the documents and communications with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alok S Sharma (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's very inappropriate. Wikipedia pages are not for you to tell personal anecdotes or make activist stances about things. If this is a scam perpetrated through PayPal, then if it's actually noteworthy it might be worth mentioning at PayPal. If this doesn't seem appropriate, then chances are it's because this content isn't appropriate for Wikipedia anywhere. You seem to have a very difficult time choosing topics to write about: not surprising because Wikipedia is already so diverse. I strongly suggest you refrain from creating new pages, and instead find ways to improve existing ones. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Mango juice^talk 05:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that I am not a expert and facing difficulties as a newbie, but domain auction scam does exist and its happening. Although I did create the page, but I did not mention anything personal on it because I know it may not be acceptable and this is why I asked you. I believe that Domain Auction Scam page not be delete but modified and more contents be added. Other than that I will try to put more focus on existing pages and see if they need some modification. Alok Sharma 06:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alok S Sharma (talk • contribs)

Greenhouse effect

The recent edit war at Greenhouse effect is regrettable, and Damorbel should be blocked for what he did. However, his claim of vandalism has merit. On 11 March 2009, Damorbel tried to reformat a long active discussion into several pieces so that the discussion would be more logical. Two edits later, one of the editors deleted all the separate discussions and claimed to have "archived" it. This was the edit war trigger.

The deleted material suggested that Damorbel simply was not smart enough to understand what was in the main article. However, this is not the first person to have trouble with that material (which, by the way, is unsourced). So, rather than try to improve the article, all the discussion was deleted. This is the "apparent vandalism" he was referring to. Like I said, Damorbel handled himself poorly, but he is not the only one at fault here. Q Science (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Advice - YozzaSport

Hi,

We met on the matter of YozzaSport deletion a few days ago.

By the time I was unblocked, the article had been deleted, but I would like to add some comments, and ask some questions of the people who deleted the article, and of your experience with wiki, and don't really know where to put them now.

My comments were as follows:

This has been quite a steep learning curve, after reading the first few pages about article creation I posted what I considered a very non-biased page about our company - based on a competitor - Demon Tweeks

I have now gone through all the process of changing my name and everything after Daniel Case decided that he would ban me "about to block creator anyway.", so I have been unable to provide any of the details that I gather you require to prove notability:

Some that I found in Google:

http://frenchcarshow.blogspot.com/2007/02/yozzasport-jumps-on-board.html http://frenchcarshow.blogspot.com/2008/02/great-news-yozzasport-are-back-on-board.html

It may seem a little difficult to understand in an online environment, but nearly all of the press about most mechanical and motorsport related and about us is printed, as people simply use the internet for car or race clubs. A simple google search for "forum yozzasport" will show you online articles on clubs and forums around the world, from Peru to Australia via nearly every European country.

We have articles in Track and Race Cars, Circuit Driver, EVO, Performance Car, Performance Tuner all about us - I can provide evidence if you would require, but very little online. I have included a link to our front cover 4 page spread from a while ago: http://twitpic.com/2761j

YozzaSport is one of the largest retailers and sellers of RenaultSport parts in Europe, and develop a number of specific parts for Race Engines on the 2.0 and 3.0 RS range - were are niche, but not obscure. I acknowledge that we don't have any articles in Google news about us, but if you look at one of Europes largest race exhaust manufacturers "supersprint" they don't either - on the other hand you search for Brembo and they have lots of articles that mention them by name, but no articles that I could see that were published PR. If it is a matter that you would need a google news listing, then I am sure that we will have some coming up as we have a whole new range of exhausts going live which will go through the PR channels.

What I don't want to do is to post this in the wrong place and to start another row about COI & the rest. Am I just best leaving this as I just seem to be treading on peoples toes, as it seems everyone wants to throw a stone if there is a chance.

I have been looking through Wiki and basically - you haven't got a motorsport hardware section at all - everything from Weber Carbs, Throttle Bodies, Motec, Omex, Bilstein... all of the major groundbreaking manufacturers and technologies are missing, and I am not suprised if this is the kind of welcome that people get to Wiki. The only information that I did find was AutoSport - the industry publication. The mechanical articles that I did look camshafts at that Wiki does have are so basic that a 15 year old with basic mechanical knowledge could write.

Basically - am I missing the point? I would have thought that developing accurate content was one of the most important things?

Thank you for your time.

Y0z2a (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help?

Hi mango. the IP user here. on the ACMA page, a user has come and deleted the content. I poked his talk page and invited him to the discussion.

Another user added it as a reference. Then he deleted it again.

A third, different user, added it again. The guy deleted it a third time.

He has engaged in the discussion, but he clearly believes he is able to remove content which 7 others have added. And he has broken the 3 revert rule. I've been very restrained, and have not reverted anyones edits ( i did revert one, it was actually true honest vandalism though, check it out. ). Could you please intervene? It's very hard to be civil when someone is acting alone like that.

Here are his 3 reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority&diff=278031217&oldid=278029441 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority&diff=278048850&oldid=278039438 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority&diff=278056905&oldid=278056692

He had the audacity to say to this other user "and do not add contentious link without achieving consensus on the talk page first.". It has been on the talk page extensively, and was added by 7 other users yesterday. I find it hard to be civil with someone like this. Could you intervene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonwins (talk • contribs) 08:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:RickeyGoodling

Re. User:RickeyGoodling

Thank you for placing the block; unfortuately, I think it was the only option available.

If possible, I would appreciate it if you could keep me updated on this - although I realize confidentiality might prevent full disclosure.

Reason is, all of this matter stemmed from a helpme, regarding edits by the user that were disputed and the fact that they wouldn't respond.

There are other accounts involved, so whether this one block will resolve it remains to be seen.

If interested, you can read the 'tale so far' in this bit of my talk.

Once again, thanks for your help, -- Chzz ► 12:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please take a look at the end part of User_talk:Godblessyrblackheart#help_me, re. "Looks like our little friend is back"; Godblessyrblackheart thinks RickeyGoodling may be circumventing your block with edits on other IP's. Thx. -- Chzz ► 18:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mangojuice, I replied to your message on my talk page under the "Summarizing the situation" section. Thanks for your help, I look forward to your reply. – Godblessyrblackheart (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^me 2. Good work Mangojuice. -- Chzz ► 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Damn Tour

Hi Mango
Well over a year ago you closed WP:Articles for deletion/The Best Damn Tour, an AfD about a tour that at the time was still only announced, but hadn't started yet.
Smanu (talk · contribs) has approached me and asked whether he could start a new article on the tour, and from the sources we found with a quick search this could be a notable tour (even though I am unsure whether there is enough for a standalone article).
Would you mind if I unprotected the article so that Smanu can work on building an article from them?
Cheers, Amalthea 14:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really up to me to reverse the AfD decision, even though I was the closing admin. And I didn't protect the page; it got protected because the article was repeatedly recreated without consensus. Given that history (even though it's kind of old now) I think the best thing would be a WP:DRV to request re-creation; a proposed starting draft would be helpful. Mango juice^talk 17:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Extraordinary Machine protected it, but he's no longer active.
Is a DRV really needed for this? I have only been sporadically in a discussion there, but as I understand it it's used for disputed decisions. Nobody is doubting the correctness of the close at the time.
I actually don't quite know what our process is in those situations, normally articles like this are just getting recreated with no questions asked (except in G4 cases of course). Common sense would suggest that if the circumstances have changed enough that the original concerns from the AfD no longer apply, then there's no reason to disallow recreation. It can always go through AfD again.
Oh, and DRV recommends to try and work it out with the closing admin first. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is also used to request permission to re-create articles that have been re-creation problems, particularly WP:SALTed ones. There's nothing to work out with me since you aren't contesting the closure. I would agree with you that one could WP:BOLDly recreate the article with a draft that addresses the problems, but when the page has been protected because of people inappropriately recreating it before, I think more review is prudent. Alternately, you could simply request unprotection at WP:RFP -- but I think they might tell you to go to DRV. Mango juice^talk 17:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck"

So basically your message is "Don't be a duck?" --Boston (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Nice to meet you.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise I guess, but I'm not here for random chatting. I suggest Myspace or Facebook for that. Mango juice^talk 18:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA Reports

Regarding the message you left on my talk page, I had no idea abotu Testa di Rapa, it just seemed liek slang for... well I dont know, but regarding Haileyjenn6969 I did provide a clear explanation, that it can be referring to 69, a sexual act. §hawn hath 15:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible socks

You recently blocked Foxcow and Rangersarecool. Add to your radar User talk:!foxycow and User talk:AgentSpy101. Suspicious activity. --64.85.222.144 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was just about to post the same warning here myself. I believe these are pre-existing sockpuppets that were not found in the original investigation and thus are still usable. See also User_talk:Sandstein#Rangersarecool if you didnt see that the first time. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:!foxycow has made no contributions at all; there's only the username to suggest any similarity, but it could well be a coincidence. As for AgentSpy101, I will keep an eye on them; they did "accuse" !foxycow of being FoxCow, and showed up on Sandstein's page in the discussion about this clutch of sockpuppets. Mango juice^talk 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And on my talkpage too. In fact I probably should have reported him three days ago, but I was too reluctant to do it because he seemed to like me and I wanted to give him a chance to do better. But his edits since then have been disappointingly unhelpful. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My IPBE

I'd like to thank you for giving me IPBE. But, I'd just like to say that never used a proxy to edit Wikipedia and had nothing at all to do with the any vandalism/proxy associated with that IP. But still, thank you. --Melab±1 ☎ 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Fidika is back

You can see the latest here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna Heiss Page

Thanks so much for your understanding and help; it truly means a lot to me! 1le0nny8 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayfarers (role-playing game)

Regarding the speedy for this you turned down as a recreation. Whilst I accept it was a good faith attempt to address the concerns from the AfD, it doesn't. Even the editor who recreated the article admits on the talk page that the new link falls short of being a reliable source (and admits that he can find none). It seems a bit pointless going back to AfD every time a new forum is added to the article. Nuttah (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources go somewhat beyond rpgnet now, and based on my reading of the prior AfD, there is good reason to believe those concerns might have been addressed. Not everyone may agree, but that's what we have debates for. I do think, though, that this should be salted again if it does go through AfD yet again and gets deleted yet again. Mango juice^talk 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Alanna Heiss

Hello! Your submission of Alanna Heiss at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-war at Maltese (dog)

Pietru il-Boqli is again edit-waring [5]. What is to be done? He deliberately deleted the part of the sentence does not indicate that the breed originated from Malta, which was agreed upon at RfC. Also he falsely quotes from the source, overemphasising the Semitic root màlat to form Malat. These are two separate things, described thoroughly at Talk:Maltese (dog).

Also I must say that what you have written to Tanthalas39 about me is not correct. I have reverted after the article was not under protection, that's what happened. Somehow that construed as edit-waring, resulting in my second block (ever in history), and subsequently in my unblock.

I will repeat once more, I have reverted to a Pietru il-Boqli's version before that edit-war and the revert was NOT made just after my first 24 3RR block.

Imbris (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Stop claiming consensus out of that RFC. What you are doing is stonewalling -- you think you have consensus but you don't, and this leads you to proclaim your consensus instead of recognizing that none exists and that there is a need for discussion. And both of you trying to score points off one another, trading insults, et cetera, is really not helpful. Start a section on the discussion page, explain the issue on this ONE point, and see if you can get a consensus going. Mango juice^talk 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have commented that the FCI sentence would be used, the other commentator also said that the sentence should be used. Now you are saying differently or what. The FCI sentence should go something like this: According to the FCI the breed does not origin on the island of Malta.

The fact that you insist on using the wikilink to the Republic of Malta is beyond my comprehension.

Also putting me in the same basket as Pietru who before I came maintained a false version of the article (in every aspect, proclaiming the Malta origin, the Malta name, etc.; then inserting false claims like Kelb Malti, Issa as the word of the Maltese language for the word now, etc.)

Why should you or anybody dismiss everything from the RfC, for God's sake, you should be the first to support the RfC. I have not done what you claim. I have tryed to uphold the RfC to the best of my abilities.

What point, haven't I explained more than enough that Pietru is pushing Malta POV, and his false quoting the source.

Imbris (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese_(dog)

G'day Mangojuice -

Ummmm... You reverted my reversion of a known vandal's work, but you saw no reason to leave any words of discussion on the Maltese talk page or my IP talk page?

And this in spite of the fact that Pietru was blocked and Imbris was warned, and that I had given clear notice that if those two did not go away I would revert and rewrite?

I reasonably believe my reversion and rewriting has produced a better and more accurate description of a breed you confess to "finding... fascinating." Further, it reduces the edit-war to a simple statement of etymology so that the general public would not be frightened away by the vitriol and perhaps think that Wikipedia is worth the effort after all.

I am going to revert your reversion, in good faith that you will re-read the discussions in /Archive 2, and will perhaps comment in some talk page about your proposed reversion.

122.200.166.113 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand that you do not get to declare yourself the authority on this article. No one owns Wikipedia articles. I don't know that Frozenguild is a "known vandal" but regardless, his changes are not vandalism. I reverted to the versions before his edits this time, though. I agree that changes should be discussed, but since my "change" is merely to undo a massive revision of the article on the basis that you intended to punish Imbris and Pietru for not leaving the article alone, I think you are the one who needs to explain your changes. You focus entirely too much on the quality of the contributors you are working with... I have my own opinions about them, but when it comes to the article, I just think we ought to be discussing what makes the article better. Let's just try to work together, okay? I just want to hear why you think your changes make the article better, which is distinct from making a reader's impression of Wikipedia's editorial process better. The article is far more important. Mango juice^talk 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main rationale is on the Maltese talk page, which is beginning to look like a continuation of what I swept under the carpet. HOWEVER... The readers' impression of the Wiki editorial process is inextricably bound to the content of the article. This is not merely my own opinion: the phenomenon is noted wherever "content" is separated from "presentation", for example in the regrettable stance taken by the W3C over the "correct" usage of certain HTML elements. When I wanted to quickly look up a couple of refs in Wiki about Maltese dogs, my first reaction was "Why am I wasting my time?". That is still my thought. And, BTW, the article was always of paramount importance, or I would not have bothered doing anything. You were there on the various talk pages, and you saw my "threat". Didn't it bother you then? Or didn't you think I {c|w}ould? you saw the reaction from various interested parties -- didn't you worry about engaging their thoughts? Or did you think it didn't matter because they were sufficiently well-trained? You and other have had three and a half months to do something constructive -- I did it in under two weeks. ¶Actually, if Pietru and Imbris had gone away, I would not have done anything except take myself away. They didn't, so I didn't. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of here.

OK, I've sort of done my job, despite all the opposition.&nbsp: You're on your own, I have several other projects, and no time to waste unecessarily on Wiki. The article is still a disappointment, but the old edit-warring should be finished now. Alas, a new round is due to start: Imbris is still around, claiming ownership (read carefully his posts on Talk pages) and Frozenjuice has put his hand up. Pietru will return. I suggest you compare the Maltese article to several other dog articles, specifically those in which neither Imbris nor Pietru have appeared -- you may learn what a good article is. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imbris/Pietru topic ban

Hey there. I have effectively declared a topic ban for Imbris and Pietru from the obvious article; can you comment? I think you and/or the IP above to be much more reasonable and have the best interests of the article at heart. Imbris (as can be seen on my talk page recently) claims innocence but we all know he just isn't cut out for collaborative editing, as shown many times in the past. Pietru is blocked for a month and I don't think anyone would have an issue with a permanent block if it continues when he returns. Tan | 39 23:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn. I don't think his ability to work collaboratively is promising given the past situations. That said, as long as he stops actually edit warring, I see the possibility of improvement, and it's best to not ban people when it's not necessary. But I feel a little strange trying to comment this way, because of my involvement. I might suggest you simply ask for review from the admin community generally. Mango juice^talk 05:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to explain why I should remain editor of the article in question

What have I done to deserve this? Seems that my faith rests upon Mangojuice. What was shown in the past? I'll try to summarize (regarding the Maltese (dog) of course).

(1) Virtually nobody was interested in the article. All previous compromises made between Gordon + one more user and an IP user from Italy (in the Archives 1) were broken.

Pietru il-Boqli appeared and maintained false info allready in the article, he was supported by some users like Tool2Die4. When I came I was antagonized by Pietru (accused of all sorts of misconduct, never proven). Tool2Die4 changed his mind, supported relevant sources and my editing.

It was inevitable.

Nobody was interested and small disputes were firstly solved than brought back to the discussing phase.

I have discussed everything, provided sources, pled, discussed on Pietru's talk page, but he just kept reverting.

Admins who protected the article for a week, two weeks, a month, were not interested in content, sources, just the stopping of the edit-war.

Then a shining ray of sun came, Mangojuice, I really thought so, he was interested in bringing the article to a solid and well-referenced state. But...

Things started to change, the RfC was split on some issues, I haven't understood it then that possibly the strategy of Mangojuice was to make us outbid each other, naturally in sources, editing, finding out the clouded history of the breed. Sadly enough Pietru was not interested in that.

The RfC did gave us some solutions, that both commentators and naturally myself accepted, but Pietru returned to his old ways, started complaining on editors and started the slow process of denial of compromises from the RfC. I will never understand why Mangojuice tryed to balance between Pietru and me, even the IP-user wrote that he thinks Maltese origin of the Maltese is fiction.

As an example of my colaborative nature I will list Andrwsc. I have succesfully edited some elaborate matters regarding Yugoslavia at the Olympics along side him. Firstly I did not even know he is an admin.

I feel that denying me from this article would be a grave injustice. I shouldn't have used Pietru's example, and I didn't allow myself to get provoked the last time he started the edit-war. Why? I knew that Mangojuice was interested and that he would not allow Pietru to stump over the compromises from the RfC.

Previously nobody cared about this article, now we have Mangojuice. I hope that he would recognize me as the user who cares about his personal integrity, properly quoting reliable sources and to the large extend unbiased editing.

Imbris (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]