User talk:Mangojuice

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

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

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I feel like I need to defend myself from what you're saying, in which case I'll reply here. Thanks!

Vertigo UTS

Hey, I was just wondering why Vertigo (UTS) was deleted in its entirety, especially without any discussion or notice? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.3.73 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

It was under Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7, as a club with no claim of notability. Mangojuice^talk 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How can a claim of notability be lodged or displayed? Vertigo is the student newspaper at my university and has a significant reputation amongst the student population there. I don't know the exact statistics, but its something like 30,000 students who are enrolled. There are also wikipedia articles covering other student newspapers across Australia, many of which don't have such a reputation in their area? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.35.148 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, a good start would be to find reliable, independent sources that discuss the student paper. If it's important enough to cover, then someone else would have written about the newspaper, and all information about the newspaper included in the article should come from independent sources like this. Mangojuice^talk 12:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Cool.. We'll I did a quick google search for "uts vertigo" (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=uts+vertigo) and the first 8 Pages were all referring to the publication (although with the occasional reference to the sickness, as you'd expect). It has been referred too in some more significant places such as the major local paper, The Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/campuses-succumb-to-corporate-world/2007/01/23/1169518709563.html - I've noticed it published in there more often when regarding student issues, but can't find digitised copies), in Academic writings (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/Aug06/Griffen-Foley%20Media.htm), Assorted online journals (http://www.reportage.uts.edu.au/stories/2005/media/leader.htm), recommended by PR people for its Promotional Opportunities (http://www.indieinitiative.com/ifShowHeadline.asp?ID=5585), but the bulk of it is filled with references from within the university departments and faculties, as you can see if you flick through the results.

I was under the impression that the original page only covered the basics such as what it was, where it was published, who writes it (the current editors names can be found in the pdf copy of their latest edition on their website, http://sa.uts.edu.au/vertigo/ ). I don't think it was included in the original article, but in looking all this stuff up I also found their readership and circulation information in their media kit too which could be put there? I don't know if thats appropriate though as its straight from their mouths, but then again all readership and circulation information comes from the magazine which publishes it lol. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.236.239 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Nice research. If you want to recreate the article, go ahead, and try to use these sources as much as possible. Sadly, having perused a couple of them, they seem to say very little about the paper: basically, that they exist, and that they have reacted to the funding cut that many student organizations have recently faced. I don't know about using Vertigo's own media material to back up claims that the paper is notable, but you can try it, it's better than not having any source. But this certainly passes the A7 test if those sources are included.. but that doesn't mean it will pass all the general inclusion guidelines; see WP:N and WP:ORG for some guidelines that are the "real" test. Basically, speedy deletion is just a set of basic simplified things that shouldn't be that hard to pass. I'm going to undelete the article, in case you want to use it as the basis for a more thorough one. Mangojuice^talk 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll see what I can do. Let me know if there's something to tighten up or whatever. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.44.187 (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I did some work on it the other day, what do you think about the article now?

motion capture

I have resisted re-listing our company information on the motion capture web pages. Could someone less biased than I am please police it. Several companies are now listing themselves including the one that first challenged me. I lose either way. I'm banned, and they aren't, and I look vindictive. Tmcsheery 06:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PrimeFan and CompositeFan

Am I the only one who thinks the names might be a little suspicious? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your historical image being deleted

Hi. I'm TechnoFaye and I'm writing this because you had a perfectly good image you uploaded marked for deletion by Abu Bidali. You should know that he does this because he thinks it's funny; he even says so on his user page. More then 20 other editors just like us are parties to several formal complaints to Wikipedia in an effort to have him banned permanently for doing just what he did to you. Others have described him on the record as a "hoodlum" and a "vandal". My testimony was that "Bidali would be just as happy breaking antennas off cars at night". After he is gone, we can repair the damage he has done to WP. If you haven't already, please consider adding your name to the lists at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Users_Who_Endorse_This_Summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Users_who_endorse_this_summary:_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Users_who_endorse_this_summary:_4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Users_who_endorse_this_summary

More DFs

Here are 20 more articles, including one that was from DF, it was just merged from one of his articles to a stub. I am on the last section, but am pretty busy IRL. Almost done with this mess though. (Then I might have time to help out LordAmeth with contributions here) Thanks! --Kuuzo 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RFC

Any reason you haven't ever given a response in your RfC? It's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali. Mangojuice^talk 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something specific you want me to reply? I don't see how I could be helpful there. There are some critics and a ton of personal attacks. The critics are welcome, but there's anything I'd like to add. And I won't take the time to reply the personal attacks, or baseless (diffless) accusations.

The whole rfd is strange from the beginning. What's exactly being disputed there? Read the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali#Statement of the dispute and try to discover, because I couldn't. Read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali#Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute and help me to find the "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute".

At some point, it turned into a place for editors dump their rant about me. And as I work mainly with image cleaning, there are a lot willing editors. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mangojuice/Trivia

I apologise for the delay in responding: I inadvertently skipped over your comment and did not actually see it until today, while archiving my talk page.

I think your change has made the essay more descriptive and significantly more informative. It defines the issue and its various manifestations, and identifies the problems it poses. It provides recommendations for addressing trivia sections and articles, but also specifies the limitations of each approach. The addition of the section regarding the danger of wading into original research while trying to transform a series of trivial facts into a general conclusion was, in my opinion, particularly prudent.

I am not sure whether I agree about your argument that plain lists are preferable to annotated ones (largely because I read the revised version just 15-20 minutes ago), but you make a good argument and it's certainly something to think about. My hesitance, so far, is this: if an item that is noteworthy enough to be listed lacks any annotation, how will a reader know what the connection is without reading the linked article?

Are you considering moving this into the Wikipedia namespace as an essay? It would be a valuable addition and a useful aid when dealing with trivial information. I think I might even supporting turning it into a guideline (as an extension of WP:TRIV, perhaps). Cheers, and kudos for your great work, Black Falcon 08:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

In my opinion we should have one page on the subject rather than two (in part of the general plan to reduce the overall byzantine confusingness of Wikispace). Thus my suggestion would be to find the consensually-accepted parts of the essay and add those to the guideline, and replace the essay with a redirect. Then again that's my opinion and there are probably some different opinions out there. >Radiant< 08:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

SCI

Hi there! I would really appreciate it if you amended your comment on the village pump, because it is misleading. Polls are not, and have never been, the means of creating guidelines. What's going on is a discussion, and the people in opposition need actual arguments rather than an opinion of dislike. >Radiant< 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanx...

...for Lentulo spiral. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: WP:ACID

Sorry, I fixed it and made it a nomination for Liquid ffm ✎talk 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough

• I am griping that the WP:SCI guidelines and implication are flawed, giving a relevant AfD article as an example. This seems fare, though unpopular. --Iantresman 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Correct, scientific notability is not the only notability criteria (it's not about liking it). And I see that the introduction now reflects this. --Iantresman 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for unblocking me. I see no reason for blocking other users on wikipedia. Even if it is the same IP address. ♥Chocolate♥ Munch- Crunch 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list

I have flagged this at WP:DRV, primarily since a number of participants recommended "keep" on the basis that the article was well-referenced, and those references demonstrated notability. The references have since failed to stand up to scrutiny, and at least one of them was completely false, thus I feel the participants in the debate may have been unintentionally misled. Chris cheese whine 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bikini Carwash Company

• There is a vote for deletion under way. I think you might be interested. Hektor 14:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I understand from Yamla that you may be able to give me some info. I am an admin on Wikibooks and we have just acquired a user called Darin Fidika - anything you'd care to share (here or offline)? Realising that there were issues with Nihonjoe (according to Darin) I felt it worth approaching someone else involved, hope you don't mind - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, a couple of us are watching things (& I'm CU on books so that is covered too). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Response

Oh, ok thanks for letting me know. --Yummie 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Denajua2hotmail.com (talk · contribs)

I'll take it to WP:RFCN, but I'm curious on how this is not a obvious violation of WP:U in regards to web domain names in usernames? Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 01:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Domenico Selvo

A few months ago, you helped me out in getting this article started. Now I think it is close to ready for FA nomination. If you could help me out in this peer review before I go to FAC, I would be eternally grateful. Thank you very much, JHMM13 09:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your suggestions in this peer review. I'd like to thank you very much and I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. As the Italians would say, sei un drago! Thanks a lot, and I eagerly anticipate your response. JHMM13 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded again. I've tried to move things around with the images and the quote box, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what looks good. I think the quote box is good where it is now, but that creates issues with the last image which I think is pretty important to illustrate the mosaics. The Lido painting is now on the left, but I'm unsure about how it looks considering it's right under the header. Hope you can help, JHMM13 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded and changed around the article a bunch. :-) JHMM13 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You have been a huge help :-D JHMM13 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Domenico Selvo. I hope you have a chance to check it out and I will continue carefully addressing any concern you might have. Thanks again, JHMM13 23:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

vigilantes

Ah, okay. I was already wondering why the images were "removed" in the first place. Thought the wikipedia image tags had been modified or something. Thanks for the info. ;) --WhiteShark 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anthony Minnuto

An article that you have been involved in editing, Anthony Minnuto, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Minnuto. Thank you. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PS Your here are your edits for reference:[1][2]

User:Wikitful and User:Wikifect

I had nothing to do with either of those being blocked, I merely denied unblocking. Wikitiful tried to undelete the article that Worthadonkey and his various other socks continually recreated. Wikifect I denied unblocking on the basis that he was warned even though he claimed that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. I have no idea why he was labeled a sock other than the similarity in names. IrishGuy ^talk 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of my motives for WP:ER

Mangojuice I honestly and without hostile intent of any kind must ask you if my request for a WP:ER really came off as a WP:RFC how am I supposed to get feedback about my behavior as an editor? I can't take Justanother's word for it since I believe much of what he has done for the past few weeks is out of line with what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I also can't rely on the views of editors I'm friendly with because they will most likely not want to hurt my feelings. Finally I would like to hear from more than one uninvolved party to ensure fairness and perhaps alternate views.

I am going to be requesting another WP:RFC on Justanother's behavior with Smee and a few others. We have been gathering examples of how Justanother's behavior is disruptive and deceptive, User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3.

He asked that the first WP:RFC be deleted and when no admins would, a friend of his and the same admin that advised Smee her efforts weren't sufficient to warrant the RfC deleted it. The whole point of the RfC was to get the communities opinion about whether or not Justanother's very positive view of his religion is disrupting editing on articles related to said religion.

I apologize if this sounds like the writings of someone who is in an edit war or personality conflict, I can explain why they are actually not that. Since I have been unable to pursue any aspect of Dispute Resolution with Justanother I'm left to wonder if the system is broken or if I am wrong. Usually when people say that, they are saying the system is broken. I am not that arrogant, which is why I wanted the editor review on MY behavior. Anynobody 10:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN

I edit conflicted with your close of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/John A. Robinson [3]. Feel free to revert me, but as we're making the same point it might be better if my comment stays. As you like... WjBscribe 01:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I kind of see your point about WP:DENY. Still, Misza doesn't go in for "ooh this might be too similar to a living person" kind of blocks. He blocks the obviously offensive and clear sockpuppets/vandal names. Everyone in that discussions let themselves be lead on wild goose chase because they tried to mind read the blocking admin. The RFC was started at 21:11 and Misza is first contacted at 21:18- that's ridiculous... WjBscribe 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I apolagize if the unblock stepped on your toes. In the future, please use more appropriate block descriptions. The ONLY reason I unblocked the user (and I checked first) was the block description was usernameblock. In the context of usernameblock alone, it did not appear to be a valid block. If the description has stated vandal username, or something of the sort, I would have asked first. I apolagize if the unblock was innapropriate.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad! I did not realize you were not the blocking admin. Thanks for the advice, I will ask in the future before unblocking. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/John A. Robinson

I noticed you closed it with disallow, but the consensus was clearly allow. And I stated that John Robinson is a common name, but you misteriously say it's impersonation of a vandal's name. I thought "Johnny the Vandal"'s name is very different from John Robinson. Can you explain a little bit? Thank you! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Robinson case

I agree with you that sometimes "consensus" cannot decide blocking. However, I have personally checked the category along with the vandal's checkuser, but I still cannot be convinced. The reason is follows:

1. If Johnny the Vandal only uses Robinson as the last name, it might be him, but if you look more deeply into Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Johnny the Vandal, he uses more than one common last names, like "Mayer", "Parry", "Agnew" (impersonating a former vice president?), etc. The John A. Robinson may well be a new person with the real name John A. Robinson, for example, John Alan Robinson, a mathematician.
2. The contribution history of User:John A. Robinson has nothing, not even vandalism, clearly not a vandal.
3. When an admin block someone, he might even be unaware of the block, the reason is that many admins today use automation bots or scripts with admin tools, a policy gray area that now results in an ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Typically an admin isn't supposed to use his admin account as bots, but according to the ArbCom case they certainly do it.

If you have evidence or argument that can prove he is the vandal, please state them and I might be convinced. Thank you!

-Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 02:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think myself shouldn't get involved in this. But I was worrying about if John Alan Robinson really comes to Wikipedia and get blocked right away it would be too bad, as he is a mathematician and myself is a student highly interested in math. Happy editing! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it's the lack of communication combined with the lack of shared common knowledge - it is not necessarily a lack of common sense. If the block had mentioned "known sockpuppet pattern" or anything besides merely 'UsernameBlock', then people would not have been so confused. Explanation as you provided cleared up a lot for me. I could have suspected something along those lines even with just a hint 'sockpuppet' in the block note. Maybe the same importance given to edit summaries would apply? Shenme 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said I was only worried that if it was indeed J. Alan Robinson the mathematician we would have lost a potential expert editor. As a student interested in math I feel in heart that we need more mathematicians on Wikipedia. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, WJB explained it to me. Happy editing! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Which box template?

Hello Mangojuice. In this edit in WT:SCI you boxed up part of a discussion, and I'm wondering if you used a template, and which one it was. I've been using {{hat}} and {{hab}} but they don't give much room for a descriptive comment. EdJohnston 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:U

Good edit at WP:U, that was a badly needed clarification. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark anthony royle

Thanks for your action on that. Right in the middle of the RFCN process I was thinking I should take it to AIV. --EarthPerson 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement

Would you be willing to look in again at Traditional marriage movement? Your contributions there in the past were greatly appreciated! Sdsds 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional self-harmers

The AfD you linked to in the deletion log shows a "no consensus" result. Why did you delete the article? Is there a newer AfD with a "delete" result archived somewhere? If so, where? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 14:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Scotts33

Hi Mangojuice. I was just responding to your dealing with the situation at Scotts33. I think retrospectively I probably jumped the gun on reporting the user. What would your advice be regarding users blanking warning templates? I'm keen to stamp out vandalism and to ensure that fellow patrollers are aware if a user has caused trouble in the past but at the same time not wanting to go OTT. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

MJ, please reconsider your block of User:Ronbo76. He was reverting the removal of vandalism warnings, which is at least arguably vandalism itself. 3RR does not normally apply to reversion of vandalism. He may have been injudicious, but I don't think a block is needed. DES ^(talk) 05:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I replied more fully below, this user went way over the line, even if the exception applied in an unambiguous way. Mangojuice^talk 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response Mangojuice. That and what you have written here clears things up more than the policy pages do. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A small bit of advocacy

I noticed you blocked User:Ronbo76 for repeatedly restoring warnings to a user talk page. You are correct, of course. However, I have also noticed that there is fairly widespread misunderstanding on this issue and many editors think that removing legitimate warnings is vandalism and thus exempt from 3RR. We probably need to do more to clarify this issue. I point this out only because I think Ronbo76 was acting in good faith, though without understanding the consensus on this issue.--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is related to my question above, being that it deals with the same talkpage. Agreed that User:Ronbo76 was acting in good faith. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for being resonable

Everyone learns that removing warnings isn't clear vandalism at some point. Perhaps Ronbo76 was learning the hard way, but JEEZ - I count over 10 reverts within a few hours, by that point common sense should really have kicked in. Although reverting vandalism (if it is truly blatant and obvious) is an "exception" to the 3RR, WP:3RR makes very clear that reverts of vandalism alone are not the best solution. In any case, it massively escalated a situation that really wasn't that big a deal in the first place. It struck me also that Ronbo and the others were putting the "rule" against removing warnings over common sense. The reason for that rule (which isn't even fully accepted anyway) is to prevent problem accounts from hiding previous warnings about their behavior. But when I looked at this situation I could tell right away that Scotts33 wan't removng the warnings for that purpose but was embarassed about the warning and wanted to be left alone, which in the end, is a reasonable request. Mangojuice^talk 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis. Thank you for taking another look at it.--Kubigula (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How to do it?

If the person is a internet troll, how i am to describe them?

ScienceApologist (aka. Joshuaschroeder) has intentionally posted derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about me (and, inaddition, other things and people) in an established online community (aka., Wikipedia) to bait me (and others) into edit wars, etc ... not to mention, there has been computer attacks and other negative things originating from his computer system J. D. Redding 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Any comment? J. D. Redding 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just passing by to leave another message, but does he use his full name on WP? DGG 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GF Effort

What do you mean by no good faith effort was made. I responded that I have already been queried and pointed to the response. If you would like further discussion please advise. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

Just wanted to say a big thankyou for your help on RFCN and the reform, it's certainly important that we get a neutral view, your proposals and active closure of discussions will certainly help steer RFCN in the right direction Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Domenico Selvo

-D. Two and a half months is all it took! Thanks for the congrats...I'm very happy! JHMM13 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Darin Fidika is back

See Tathagata Buddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just thought you might be interested to know. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think a block is a good idea on this one? Since Darin Fidika is blocked indefinitely and has obviously come back under another account? As far as I can tell, the new account hasn't caused problems, but... ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD vote

Hi. You previously voted in an AfD for Tim Bowles. Would you please pop over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination) and give us your input again? Thanks. --Justanother 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

PROF

Replaced it with underdiscussion, for now. Still seems in dispute to me (that I've seen, the sub-guidelines have all fallen under a pretty good amount of dispute recently), but maybe that'll attract a few more people to the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a good time to have a respite from N discussions (smile)DGG 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Had no idea. (Ibaranoff24 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

Adventure Log

I'm one of the administrators of the FFXIclopedia website. It was you who ultimately deleted our Wikipedia entry here on this site. I only mention that as an intro because that is why I'm posting here (this has nothing to do with that old debate).

I still patrol the Final Fantasy XI article, and I came across a new edit that I think needs to be reviewed: Adventure Log. I read the rules for Articles for Deletion, and I'm still confused about all that I need to do to nominate an article. However, I am certain that that Adventure Log fails both WP:NOT and WP:WEB. Adventure Log is a webcomic that has one, (yes, just one) comic published so far. Although it is commissioned by Square Enix, the developers of Final Fantasy XI, that does not make the webcomic notable. I checked the web and I've seen only one other announcement about the webcomic that is not a forum.

I was wondering if, after having reviewed it yourself, whether you'd would agree with my assessment and nominate it for me. Any help you may offer is appreciated. --Rolks 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Dates

If every AfD close was that detailed and clear, things would be a lot better off around here. Good job. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In such a heavily contested debate, I feel it's important to come to a conclusion ...

Oh, please give me hope, that you are a manager in some company/organization, and some small portion of humanity is blessed with conclusions, rather than the drawn-out disasters usually seen. (Thank you) Shenme 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I really should be. But I'm not. Ah well, if this academia thing doesn't work out, perhaps. Mangojuice^talk 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

question

hi - thanks for blocking 209.200.250.80 - the account made many more vandalizing edits than are showing on contributions - any idea how? the ones I'm aware of thanks - seems weird Tvoz |talk 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello Mangojuice, can you tell me why you think the result of this discussion was to merge? By my count, it was a three-way tie (no consensus). Appleseed (Talk) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD etc.

Mango, we lost momentum on our last thread at the TfD. Do we share any concerns about at unchecked growth of guideline pages? Is continuity important to you in perhaps a lesser degree in your hierarchy of concerns?

I'm not absolutely wedded to the template nor am I an absolute advocate for abolition of all sub-guidelines in the notability infrastructure. I just seek reasonable simplicity.

Your choice of forums was excellent! The XfD format keeps the pontification to a minimum, so the discussion remains more on target. I invited a wide range of participants to the TfD discussion, many of whom are my seemingly constant opponents, and I am really impressed with the discussion relative to what usually happens. This evening I’ve asked a few of the marginal contributors to reconsider their positions. I want my recruiting and lobbying to very above-board and transparent to you.

Can we close ranks to achieve the superior outcome for the benefit of WP? My count has your nomination receiving numerical support, though the arguments range from opposition to the template, to opposition to the message (in both directions), to opposition to my aggressive tactics; perhaps an unholy alliance as are so many coalitions. Let's not seek a pyrrhic victory for either "side," while we have such a diverse group poised to do a perhaps higher good for WP. Is there a common ground upon which we might agree? --Kevin Murray 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I took some time to read your user page and especially User:Mangojuice/delete. We are merely taking different routes toward the same goal. Why am I on the wrong side here? --Kevin Murray 05:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses

1. No, I'm not particularly concerned with the "unchecked growth of guideline pages," now that you mention it. From the point of view of what effect it would have on the encyclopedia, I just can't see it as anything remotely approaching a big deal. This is the appropriate perspective to have here: see WP:PPP for further explanation. I'm much more concerned that the guideline pages we do have are right: that they draw lines at reasonable places and are supported by community consensus. And it seems to me that you haven't been concerned with this, which really bothers me, because that does have an actual effect on the encyclopedia. I suppose that reducing instruction creep does fit into my priorities somewhere, but I have come to accept that (1) Wikipedia has a learning curve and always will, (2) the actual practices cannot be summed up succinctly, and (3) in the end, people in the debates use common sense and won't be distracted by minor details (if they are even aware of them). That said, there is no reason not to try to make the guidelines clearly explained and avoid them contradicting one another, and make it easy for users to navigate them.

2. Reasonable simplicity is not the actual practice in deletion debates. You need to get involved in them more, and then you'll see this.

I try to stay involved in XfD as I have time, but have been distracted lately. I try to limit my participation to one broad field which is biographic material, and limit my participation in AfD's where the outcome to delete is obvious (avoiding pile-on). I try to make my participation in-depth rather than drive-by and dedicate some time to most marginal articles trying to improve them and/or do more research. Since I do not take my participation lightly, my efforts at AfD while less numerous are quite time consuming.

Another favorite of mine is working in the clean-up pile, trying to turnaround problem articles. --Kevin Murray 16:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

3. The XfD process is a good process, yes. However, as I was worried would happen, the debate didn't stay focussed on the issue of the template, so I think it will be difficult for an outcome to be determined, which is too bad. As to your "recruiting and lobbying", it is borderline inappropriate per WP:CANVAS. I'm glad you've come clean to me, but you should come clean where it really matters: in the debate itself, and while you're at it you should mention that you advertised the debate widely in the first place, and explain your reasons for it. That will achieve real transparency.

• I'm happy to do as you say. But I disagree that an unbiased and systematic broadcast of the XfD notice is canvassing in violation of the spirit of the rules, but I will look at them more closely. My method was to include everyone who has been involved in the discussion at WP:N back through March, and at the other pages where the template was inserted. --Kevin Murray 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that was okay: I'm less convinced it's okay to solicit people to change their votes. But at least you're doing it in good faith, and in the open. Mangojuice^talk 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

4. If you can agree that the goal is not to change the guidelines but to merely change their presentation, then I can agree, but that really doesn't seem to be your goal...but broad teamwork is not really required for that. I am not opposed to changing the guidelines when they're wrong but I am dead-set against changing them just because they are complicated. I can agree that in some cases, consolidation may be possible. I can also agree that we could do more to make the overall state of notability guidelines easier to access. Part of the problem you've been facing is building consensus for change to official guidelines. That's VERY hard to get, and for good reason: the guidelines are meant to reflect actual practice, so a strong consensus is needed to try to change practice by changing a guideline (see WP:PG). I'm not willing to do that unless there's a convincing case that the guidelines need changing - and for me, you'll have to do better than that they might confuse new users to convince me that change is necessary.

5. If you read my delete page, but think it has anything to do with simplifying guidelines, you need to read it again: the point there is to not forget that (1) deletion doesn't actually build anything, and (2) we should remember that deleting someone's work can cause hurt feelings, so people should be polite and sensitive in the process. Mangojuice^talk 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• My point about your delete page is that it refects my broader philosophy. While we clearly disagree on tactics and the structure of the rules etc. I think that I agrre with your overall vision of where the project should go. --Kevin Murray 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Answers to deletion of Court Fields Gamers Club page?

I was wondering how come both my Court Fields Gamers Club pages have been deleted? You are down for the deletion of the page @ 20:52, on 20 April 2007.
Ben-Parslow

Could you help me write this article?

Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Hey - thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page earlier. Much appreciated. Will (aka Wimt) 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox church

You removed the copyvio tags on several pages copied from Orthodoxwiki, probably using their "Most OrthodoxWiki content may, unless otherwise noted, be freely used under the GFDL." I agree that is the apparently correct interpretation of it--Was this what you had in mind? Some of the pages seem to need renaming: List of American monasteries List of American saints List of American writers I left a note on the relevant talk pages. Is this the right way to do it? If not, please correct. Thanks, DGG 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Wiki

Thanks for directing me to the conversation at the WikiProject. Sorry I wasn't around early to help revert my tagging. I apologize if I was hasty, but I was acting on the best information I had at the time, a copyright page on OrthodoxWiki that specifically said copying to Wikipedia was a violation. I posted a little bit of a rant over at the WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy talk page that you may or may not want to read. I was also wondering if you could comment on LoveMonkey's possibly uncivil comments to me on my talk page. For background you may want to read User talk:LoveMonkey#Personal issues with me, but if you are busy or don't want to get involved, I understand. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Thanks Mangojuice will do. LoveMonkey 02:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
HEY you've got a DR in philosophy. Man help me with the demiurge page. PLEASE. Also I have been trying to brush up on the neoplatonism page and also create a page for Kenneth Guthrie and how about a page for Richard Wallid. I would love to do more for Proclus and also like to post from the Life of Plotinus about his exchanges with Origen. LoveMonkey 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To the first point ah man! To the second not a problem will do. LoveMonkey 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Mango, many thanks for stepping in and clearing things up in the copyright discussion about the material from the orthodox wiki. I apologize for muddying the waters - I was trying to keep us copyright compliant, based on what was on the orthodox wiki copyright page at the time. AGain, I thank you for all of your hard work to clean up my mess. -- Pastordavid 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist yet again

• User:ScienceApologist has added a "pseudophysics" category tag to the article on Non-standard cosmology with the bold claim that "parts of Arp and Alfven are considered pseudophysics."[4]. *This is news to me, so I removed it, and noted that this is "unsubstantiated, unverifiable, uncited".[5]
• An editor of User:ScienceApologist's experience knows that WP:V is FUNDAMENTAL to Wikipedia. But I now find that not only has User:ScienceApologist reverted the tag,[6], he's accused me of "POV pushing".
• This is getting on my bloody tits. (a) Including unverified tags (b) Reverting edits (c) Accusation of POV pushing.
• This does not make for a good editing environment, where editors assert their edits without justification, and make accusatory remarks instead of discussion. --Iantresman 08:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organised persecution of ethnic Poles

I see that the result was

• Delete 4
• Merge 4
• Keep 5

How do you know the result was Merge?Xx236 11:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, I may misunderstands something. I understand the result of the disussion as Keep, numbers are numbers. I don't know the procedure, maybe you are right, but I the moment it seems strange to me. Xx236 11:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

hey

whats up? havent seen you in a while

Music

It seems that music has fallen back to an edit war. I put together Wikipedia:Notability (music)/rewriteas an example of a what I would like to see, and hope to get some feedback from all sides. I've included a general criterion which is a hybrid of a proposal at WP:N yesterday and a highly modified version of the exapmle at BIO. I respect your opinion; can I get some feedback? --Kevin Murray 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mango, thanks. You are right that it didn't change all that much except for subtle formatting changes, and creating a common area to avoid redundant listings between the types of musicians: performers, composers and others. It seemed like oncew this was done the "others" category could be eliminated. I tried not to eliminate any criteria line-items in this first attempt, but I think that there are many which are overly specific and thus semi-redundant. --Kevin Murray 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Username reports

I didn't know to report random letters to AIV, I will in the future. And the bot one, I didn't know it was a real last name. I didn't think it was a bot, but the username policy says having "bot" in the username is bad. I'm new to that area of Wikipedia so I was trying it out and made some learning errors. Thanks for the feedback. MECU≈talk 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Username Change

Hello my venerable wikipedian, Mangojuice. I have chosen to reattain the username "Darin Fidika" instead of "Tathagata Buddha". The account that I am currently using at this moment had been created solely to tell you this (since Tathagata Buddha had been blocked as well). None the less, I truly appreciate your descision on this matter; for I only wish to contribute the greatest of articles towards Wikipedia's cause. User:Darin Fidika (temp), April 27th (EST)

User talk:204.39.78.33

Just wondering why you blocked this user, if he hadn't vandalized after the last warning. I'm a new admin, so I'm a bit confused... · AndonicO ^Talk 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for explaining. · AndonicO ^Talk 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Mangojuice, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideas (retailer)

Your speedy deletion of Ideas (retailer) was uncalled for and I do plan on recreating the article. There should have at the very least been a change to proposed deletion with a chance for discussion. Very poor judgement.

Thank you

Thank you for your welcome message. That’s really nice of you. Elimerl 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Handling trivia

Is not part of the MOS. You may be thinking of Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. >Radiant< 12:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• The page is instructive (it tells people how to do things, i.e. a "help" page) as opposed to e.g. the manual of style, which is descriptive (it tells people what the standards are). I disagree that the help namespace is mainly limited to technical topics; judging by Allpages it contains any number of how-tos. To my knowledge that is the intent of that namespace. >Radiant< 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reverted by your request. I fail to see what the "essay" tag has to do with anything; the only real purpose of that tag is to indicate that certain pages in the Wikipedia namespace aren't guidelines or policy. It does not follow that anything without a tag is automatically "uncontroversial guidance" or anything. >Radiant< 13:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • beat me to it :) >Radiant< 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ilovemenwithhairybacks

Can you explain to me how this is an attack username, or in which way it violates the username policy? I don't see it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And why was his user page deleted? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And why did you block account creation for a username block? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I see it, good call, thanks for explaining. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD guidelines?

I saw a RfA where you wrote "Suppose you looking around for XfD debates to close and you come across one that has, say 6 favoring deletion and 2 favoring keeping, and you think the article is rescuable from the unsourced/nn/possibly promotional state it is currently in. Under what circumstances would you not close the debate as a delete?"

I have seen 2 articles with a lot of potential on AfD but were very poorly written stubs. I then went on a furious effort to rewrite it immediately so that subsequent voters could see that the article was clearly suitable for retention (and others saw it and then voted to keep). Other times, I'm too busy to write a good article with references on the spur of the moment (as the AfD clock ticks). From your standpoint, under what circumstances would you not close the debate as a delete? Thanks in advance for your comments.VK35 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I do not believe that I was vandalising any page at all, becuase I considered that image quite distasteful. The only problem with it was it did not have a domain of it's own

Thank you (and a request)

Thanks for taking care of User:Michael_Layton. Can you remove his comments on my talk page? (blocked here at school for "banned word") Thanks! --Pupster21 Talk To Me 14:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!

Great work! Keep it up. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Our "friend" is back

Hi, you recently banned a sockpuppet of User:Englot (Refna). I'm afraid he is now back again under the user name of "Mekang", editing the same sorts of articles (e.g. Wild Swans). Can you please ban as sockpuppet again, but is there anything you can do like ban his IP or (I guess he's on a floating one) ban a wider-range of IP numbers based on what he's using? John Smith's 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if there is no way to block a range of IP addresses, could you extend Englot's block to indefinite unless he requests it be unblocked? John Smith's 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mango. I just don't have the time and experience to file reports like that. From what I see this guy isn't stopping - if you could file a report I would appreciate it. John Smith's 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

8 years...

I left a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Expired_long-term_block. I've no issue with your issued block, but I didn't see anything in the block log to indicate that you had actually done so. Did I miss something? — Scientizzle 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebub in popular culture

You completely erased the content of Beelzebub in popular culture and claimed that you were "merging" with Beelzebub and then redirected, yet no merge ever took place. That was highly deceptive, and also not a good plan as the vote to delete failed.

Furthermore, if you've looked around Wikipedia at all you would see that it is an extremely common practice to have "in popular culture" or "in fiction" articles spring off of a great number of articles to prevent the main articles from being filled with fictional references that are not overall notable to the main topic but which many people hav an interest in. Redirecting the in popular culture page to the main article completely flies in the face of longstanding practice here, and was a clear example of cowboy editing, as it also ignored the results of a vote on the topic. Please try to work within the standard practices of this project. DreamGuy 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First, WP:AGF. Second, don't insult me by acting like I don't know how things are done. Yes, people often make the horrible mistake of thinking that complete cruft like Beelzebub in popular culture should continue to exist, and pushing into a trash-heap article so they don't have to deal with it. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. It's a bad idea. That said, I care more for your opinion as an actual editor of one of the articles than for any of the "keep" opinions from editors who have never had any intention of cleaning up the crap. Here's the question: are you going to be watching the pop culture article and removing the crap? As long as crap gets removed, I don't care which article it's from. Third - why must Beelzebub (disambiguation) point to the pop culture article which isn't a disambig page, when Lord of the Flies (disambiguation) exists? Mangojuice^talk 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You say not to talk down to you after your colossal mistake of forcing a redirect and deleting the article against consensus and insist that *I* clean up the "in popular culture" page if I want it there? No, sorry, doesn't work that way... But as the person who created Template:fictionlist and Template:fictioncruft I do go through and try to take care of lots of pages like that. Check my edit history, if nothing else. The creation of the "in popular culture" articles was a compromis move to keep nonsense off of the main article when so many people want to contribute but have nothing to contribute except crap. I agree that the crap should be cleared out if at posible, but we all know the great unwashed maases spend more time adding crap than good people have time to get rid of it. At least containing the pages saves the main articles from being destroyed. On a site where anyone and everyone can contribute without knowing anything about anything that may be the best we can hope for. DreamGuy 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in defense of that action, I did merge everything that was souced and worth merging (ie, nothing), and didn't delete anything. Creating "in popular culture" articles is not a compromise, it's giving up on patrolling, and that's not acceptable. It's really not the best we can hope for - we stick around, those editors don't: if we're vigilant about removing cruft, it will be removed. Over and over, but it will be removed. To my mind, that's the only way we can go if the goal is to make the encyclopedia better. Plus, the argument that a page should exist only because people don't want to deal with it has been rejected in deletion debates many times (although, in this case, the debate was shot down by overly idealistic editors who had, apparently, no intention of actually helping). Mangojuice^talk 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dislodged, deletion war and Super Mario Bros 3...

I guess but do not know if you are an extensive user of wikipedia and thus know about that which I do not... I hope you do... Why? Well, having changed computers quite often lately and much more before that, long time ago, I had to take an account but that was short-lived, it took firefox to loose my session for I to neglect going back to my former account... After all most of my edits are small as I rarely stay in an article for too much... All I remember but which the computer seems to show as false is that my account was "Herle King", any variant could be but the "send password" has failed to let me try all the possible variants (Herle's King, HerleKing, HarleKing, Harle's King, Harle King)... Being a minor editor I wouldn't care much about this but... There's always such a butt... NTT goes all bully about deleting data from the Super Mario Bros 3 without even going to the talk page to speak about that... While he is the only one who both seems to care that the data he deletes is there, and he's the only one who wants it out (others even contribute to it, unlike him). I like the game and recognizee its importance in the videogame industry (wouldn't it be great working like Miyamoto?) but I really find this war futile...

After sending you this message I will go to revert his deletion on the foundation that he deletes data about the game that other videogames and similiar works of fiction include ("differentional categories" i.e. categories that do not overlap, not even by mistake, because their distinctive nature makes them what they are; like evil and good in dualism vision or the twelve animals of the chinese zodiac, the houses of the horoscope, the five chinese elements, the four classical elements, and such; in the game it is represented by the difference between the levels of the game, each one with a distinctive feel, boss and king transformation, thus each level being a category of this kind; just like the animals of Jackie Chang's animated adventures to name another fictional example or the races and even the heroes from AD&D and comics' groups respectively). Furthermore he deletes data that augments the reader knowledge on the matter by compairing subtle and less-than-subtle differences between the closest variants...

But you might ask yourself why I'm telling you all this... Well, he bullies around that "you are not a registered user, I wont respect what you have to say" while he is the one who is braking Wikipedia's policies... And wont even talk this, just make all that ado about nothing, reverting back and forth... Deleting, I rather say... That's why I had intended to go on from the username I had neglected after little effor to recover it but realizing I couldn't do so I just hopped over that step and hoped you could help... I'm off to revert right now so what he has deleted will come back... I would also apreciate help in the recovery of my former account, I bet there's some edit somewhere under the name I chose, I just can't remember where for I can't even remember when and how much it lasted... So, if you can help me, thanks in advance, otherwise... Well, thanks for reading, thanks for trying... Herle King 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:200.121.147.175. If that doesn't help, feel free to email me, with the "E-mail this user" link on the left. Mangojuice^talk 11:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron Liebman

User:Ron liebman is not the actor Ron Liebman. In fact, several of us are pretty sure he's not the researcher Ron Liebman, either, but an impersonator. He's got several sockpuppets and is being dealth with by an admin. Wahkeenah 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Committed identity

Hi Mango, just a quick note of thanks for this great idea. Nice and simple to implement for those of us who are a bit PGP-challenged or PGP-phobic :) Probably merits some sort of crypto-barnstar if such a beast exists. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to use something stronger than SHA-1, with reports now that it may be broken. -- Avi 18:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

==Rend al-Rahim Francke Image==

I wish to talk to you about the use of an image of a living person. One has to consider why it is that there is a difference between obtaining an image of a living person versus an image of a dead person. The reason given is that a dead person is dead, and thus one can no longer obtain a photograph of them. However, when we talk about the difficulty of obtaining a photograph, it is relative. It may be that there is somewhere a public domain of a dead person that we are not aware of, and that if we just tried, searching harder, we would find it. It may also be that an individual has some photograph of the dead person and that in the future they may decide to make the photograph public domain. However, we ignore these arguments because practically it's just too difficult.

For the similar reason, US educational institutions are allowed under federal law to make copies of both images and newspaper articles, and distribute them each semester. They may even distribute different articles each semester, providing each new set of students with more variety. Of course, they could pay the newspaper for the rights each time, but it would simply make education too expensive and be too difficult and, in the end, because of this hardship, the article would not be obtained. Similarly, it is possible for me to fly over to wherever Rend al-Rahim lives, and take a photograph of her myself, if she gives me permission. But it's such a hardship that it's asking too much, and practically I can't do it.

Thus, the distinction between dead and alive people is based on a reason of difficulty of obtaining an image. It is not written in stone. If the very reason for the distinction between dead and alive people does not apply here, because obtaining the image of the alive person is also extremely difficult, then it is appropriate to allow fair use. I have taken reasonable steps to try and find public domain photographs of her, by searching online in all the directories of public domain photographs, as well as going to the library and searching there. I do not have infinite resources. For the same reason as above, it should be quite appropriate to take a small image of her from a PBS program. This in no way competes with PBS and it does illustrate the article. I think it would be instructive if you search around for pictures of famous people online in Wikipedia; you will find that various famous people who are not in government have a non-public domain photograph displayed on the page. Bill O'Reilly is an example of a page with two copyright photos because a public domain photograph of him simply is too difficult to obtain. I should note that sometimes this problem is worse with someone who is semi-famous, like my subject. Some people, like a rock star are so famous, and have been to so many events, that it's actually not too difficult to obtain a photograph of them. But others, who are famous but not knownworldwide and constantly walking out of rock concerts, may have a public face but only on a TV show, for example, or at a press conference. I do not believe that this is purely by accident. Others also agree that fair use can be applied to a famous person if a free image is simply not available.

I think it's important to note that courts have always looked upon nonprofit scholarly work with a much more lenient eye. The purpose of this work is to provide a benefit for the whole world. There is no source of information on persons such as Rend al-Rahim out there, other than in Wikipedia. It provides a significant benefit to the community to understand who this public figure is, and where they are coming from, so as to understand their political statements in context. Indeed, this is necessary to the functioning of civil society, another major public good. By researching the subject, and by searching through the archives of newspapers and magazines, I have attempted to do this for them. This is an enormous service to the community and is not something that the courts ignore. They weigh this heavily into the balance.

Finally, I believe I have made a coherent argument. If you still disagree, and contend that I should spend money and significant resources obtaining a picture of Rend al-Rahim, please show me a binding decision from a US court that says so. Such a decision, to the best of my knowledge, does not exist. [Of course, I may be mistaken and if so, seek enlightenment on the subject.] May I also humbly ask that you go back to original US case law and look very carefully at the fair use doctrine as defined by the courts, as opposed to just going through the words of the Wikipedia guidelines with a fine-toothed comb. The guidelines are based on US law and I believe it would be more appropriate to go to the primary source, in this case.

I will be more than happy to be enlightened on this subject, as reading case law on major subjects from primary documents is a hobby of mine. Thanks for reading.Custodiet ipsos custodes 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update on Image and Trying to et Permission

I wrote to United States Institute for Peace and asked them for permission to use the photo from their website. If they allow it, then all well and good. If that does not work I will try to contact Rand Francke myself. Either way I will be happy to document their reply if asked.

People often claim that a free image is available but are not willing to actually provide one. However if trying to obtain permisions fail then the onus will be on those who want to delete the image to prove that a free image is available. If you think that a free image is available and I can demonstrate that I have contacted organizations and gotten refusals for permission, the burden is on you to prove that a free image is available.

Why not compromise for now?

I have written to the USIP. If they allow us to use the image then I will take down the current image and replace it. It Rand Frank agrees to provide one, the same thing applies. If you can find a free alternative then you are welcome to switch out the current photo. But you cannot just presuppose that somewhere there is a free photo which is practically accessible without providing evidence.Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I got permission

I uploaded a new pic [Rend al-Rahim Francke] that we have permission for and took down the old one. So for this pic all is good.Custodiet ipsos custodes 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sequel trilogy (Star Wars) AFD

Hello! I'm writing to talk about your decision to close the AfD debate on the Star Wars sequel trilogy. Let me say a few things first:

1) I read your policy on deletion and I agree with it.

2) I really think you took a good and fair look at the discussion.

Nonetheless, I kind of feel like this is exactly the sort of article that should be deleted per WP:NOT#CBALL. I feel like the article sticking around is affirmation that articles that violate WP:NOT can stay, as long as they're well-sourced. Here are my points:

Your analysis said that "this is not, (the Keep !votes) say, a topic about a hypothetical future event, but a topic about a movie project that has never gotten off the ground." My biggest disagreement with this statement is that the article isn't about a movie project, it's about an idea - one man's idea, to be specific. Bighole, myself, and even the Keep-supporting JulesH all agreed with that point in the AfD. The "sequel trilogy" isn't a project that never got off the ground - it never was a project to begin with.

The problem with an article about one man's idea, when the idea has never come to fruition, is the only reliable sources are A.) statements by that one man about the idea, B.) things he's written down about the idea, and C.) analysis about the idea from third-party sources.

Lucas, however, has been extremely tight-lipped about this idea. He hasn't really said much at all. Sources of type "A" above are the only ones we have - "B" and "C" don't exist.

There are many sources about this, yes. But there's nothing there other than acknowledgment of the existence of the idea, and acknowledgment of how the idea has changed over time. This means that, after the article is "cleaned up", the only things that can remain are simply a series of "he said she said" quotes (as Bighole pointed out) from Lucas about his different ideas for the length of the Star Wars saga at different times. There's nothing else out there besides Lucas quotes, and the occasional Mark Hamill quotes (which are really hearsay).

Simply put: I don't see how an article cataloging George Lucas changing his mind about the number of Star Wars movies to make is appropriate for Wikipedia. And anything else on this topic is speculation.

I hope you take another look at the discussion. I don't want to send this to DRV because I don't think you made a bad call - I just don't think you made the best possible call. Cheers, Chardish 07:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• True, but my issue wasn't really with the sources. The Lucas quotes are reliable sources, yeah - but those are the only reliable sources we have on this topic. The article isn't about a "sequel trilogy" because it doesn't exist - it's about "What Lucas Has Said In The Past About How Many Star Wars Movies There Will Be." And I'm not trying to be a juggler of semantics, but the quote from WP:NOT#CRYSTAL doesn't apply - that's talking about articles about anticipated events (like the 2008 Olympics, or an upcoming national election) - the "sequel trilogy" is not anticipated, it was once rumored; and it's not an event, it's currently an idea. I don't feel like it applies. Cheers! Chardish 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for voluntaring to help with the conversation. It was much appreciated. We were reaching a deadlock. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES ^(talk) 00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

God's Graveyard

I just wanted to let you know that it is listed under user name policy. Offensive usernames Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.) Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganan (talk · contribs)

Need help rolling back this users contribs. User has been indef blocked. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pwnz0r1377 (talk · contribs)

If you could have a look at this users use of the warning template (the words contained in it) here I would appreciate it. Im not going to bite the newbe about his name being in the format of leet speek. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Found replacement image for the one you didnt like

I found a replacement photo from the Movement For Democratic Change with Attribution 2.5 permission. So you can go ahead and delete Image:Morgan_Tsvangirai.jpg The new pic is Image:MorganTsvangirai new.jpg. Whenever I can find a public domain pic or a pic with full permission I will use it.  :) Custodiet ipsos custodes 06:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The source, the whole source and nothing but the source

I know this debate has raged overnight, and I honestly didn't think it would get so heated, but I'd just like to say that sources have a major importance beyond copyright, so I don't agree with adding a qualifying statement to the policy in this way as it goes against the rest of WP:IUP which is pretty clear on the need for sources. By referencing the source of an image you are providing a citation, just as you would with a fact in an article. Without a source, in essence, the image could be anything as there is no way of checking it out. The uploader may say it is Baron von Munchausen or a Mayan vase but Wikipedia doesn't work on trust, it works on verification - (WP:V) this applies to images as much as to articles. Although in practice we may not want unsourced PD images deleted, we should still strive to have everything sourced! So a less threatening PD-source tag seems the way to go, not qualifying the policy. Madmedea 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

U2 FAC...

What sort of information should be removed from U2? A lot of extra info went into it following the previous failed FAC, which as you might recall, quite rightly pointed out that it was big on statistic, dates, awards, singles, etc but not much on context, colour or themes. Once again though, i find myself defending a 'drive-by' FAC nomination - the nominator has never touched the article, nor appeared at the FAC since he nominated it. I know it wasn't ready, but it is frustrating nonetheless. I've put a few suggestions. I'd appreciate it if you watched the FAC and the article. Is it likely pass with improvements this time? Or should we just pull it and spend time on it - i fear that rushing changes (like I just started) will be detrimental. Merbabu 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC) PS, the only reason I'm reluctant to remove the FAC and work on it in a less rushed manner, is that an FAC is the best way to get feedback. IN my experience, peer reviews are fairly useless. Merbabu 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

wow - thanks for the comprehensive reply. I go back and read it a few more times and see what can be done. And I'll probably end up posting it on Talk:U2 if you don't mind. Merbabu 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That "secret string" thing in the Wikipedia Signpost

Hi Mangojuice. You'll have to forgive me for asking what is probably a really dumb question, but I don't know much about computers and codes. The article says that anyone who uses this method to identify themselves "shouldn't lose the secret string". The string here is the plaintext, right, not the alphanumeric gibberish that the site throws up in response? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Committed Identity

MJ, Would you check my user page here and see if I have done the identity thing correctly? I use PGP and the SHA-2 hash. I have added the ID number which could be checked against a PGP keyserver for verification. I notice yours is much longer. JodyB _talk 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check, but I changed to a SHA-256 from one of the websites. My PGP fingerprint is also posted. JodyB _talk 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think deleting the history is needed. What I did was load my PGP generated ID into the template. It is short by design and not really for security purposes. I entered the hash incorrectly. What is there now is completely different and is the full SHA256 I generated from the website. I've had the PGP key for a while but mostly use it internally. Anyway, I think I can verify I yam who I yam now. I expect to seek an RfA in the future and now I can answer that last question strongly. Thanks again for looking. JodyB _talk 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Could use your help on Attachment Therapy

There is, again, a raging dispute on this page involving several editors...I filed a request for admin action [[7]], but am not sure that is the right place or step. If you could look at this and make a suggestion or two, it would be really helpful.

Thanks. RalphLender^talk 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, help!

The Duquesne Spy Ring article we have been discussing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography and on the Village Pump (policy) has been unfairly tagged for deletion --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duquesne Spy Ring.

In advance, many thanks for your support! Ctatkinson 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of user:heatedissuepuppet

Thank you for your comment. I made a list of the actions of the user since the account was made here: [8]. It started with the editor placing notability tags on pages that have already survived AFD, and continuing to do so even after being asked to discuss the issue on a talk page and repeatedly posting poorly-sourced libelous information about a company. The user made no constructive edits, only attacks. Please also note that the reason the user was originally blocked was for disruptive edits regarding the closing of a merge discussion (a merge which was bogus to begin with). When he repeatedly reverted a tag placed on a talk page saying "no merge" I called for assistance. My original request is here: [9]. Go back through these diffs and you'll see it clearly [10].

I was very surprised that given this history that the user was allowed to be unblocked. Several other editors have voiced support of the block. Then the unblocking admin told us he did not even read the original block request. He simply accepted that the user had a "legitimate use of his sockpuppet". It has been pointed out that the policy aims only to protect editors from attacks on their real identity, not to allow editors to attack using a puppet, while keeping their main account clean. Note that the editors first action upon unblock was to attack me through a CoI. Not to try to improve sources on the article, not to constructively edit it, but to attack the editor. Sorry to go on, but I had thought that admins in general would be more sympathetic to this kind of disruption. Sparkzilla 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not be interested in this perfect example of "attack the user, not the article" [11] Cheers! Sparkzilla 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I have updated the text on COI/N by adding rebutal of the removed sources. Basically, the user was adding defamatory sources that did not actually exist. If you would like more information, please let me know. Sparkzilla 18:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, outlining CoI issues. I think your comment is fair, and I am not going to debate the issue. Would you mind if I stayed in contact over the next few weeks to discuss edits that are made by other users as a result of the CoI? Some of these are not contentious, such as this, [12] but I think this is more boderline (the user is changing a fact into a claim) [13]. How should I approach these edits?

I will say all along that I have mainly been acting not to overtly promote Metropolis, but 1. to stop defamations about Metropolis and Crisscross appearing on WP and 2. to stop POV pushing by the Justice for Nick Baker group in the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article. The article until recently was bascially a promotional item for the group's aims. I think I have created more of a balance, but I am concerned now that Baker's supporters will now use the CoI to trump any notion of notability. I specifically created an RFC to deal with issues of notability and about sources in this article. [14] Perhaps you could comment on the RFC, including the CoI issue. Best regards. Sparkzilla 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(I originally posted this on my talk page) Thank you for your assessment, Mangojuice. I agree with it by large, except for the reservations I have posted beneath your post on the noticeboard. I think you've made a fair and balanced description of the situation, but I do personally think you are too lenient on Sparkzilla. That said, I'm not asking for him to be blocked/banned, I just think he should make a promise not to touch any of the disputed articles and to not write about himself/his company/his products in any article. He should of course be perfectly free to post concerns/suggestions on talk pages if he thinks a link or mention to himself/Metropolis/etc should be added, or if he thinks a poorly sourced edit should be reverted, where editors free of CoI could decide whether or not to implement them in the article. Also, I wouldn't mind if somebody could warn him for his lack of civility, he has referred to me as a troll several times now, and frankly, I don't think I have done anything to merit it.Heatedissuepuppet 12:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're probably right on the civility thing, I'll drop it.Heatedissuepuppet 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR/ANI etc

Can you tell me please how you know if someones filed a 3RR or ANI against you or naming you? Fainites 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know it did that. It doesn't show you though that someones named you in an ANI etc that's ostensibly about someone else. Fainites 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sethdoe92

Hey, is there any chance you could re-evaluate your block of Sethoe92? I'm certainly not questioning it, I just feel the block is now punitive as he is willing to appologise to User:TTN and explained that it was in the heat of the moment. If he makes any threats again we can shoot him down like there's no tomorrow! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I've unblocked him with a firm warning that if this happens again it is likely to lead to an indef block. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mangojuice

You have been a voice of sanity throughout this whole affair. I hope you don't think any worse of me for my (very rapidly regretted) wheel warring/incivility. It angers me to see the communitie's will trodden on like that. Thanks for staying sane :) Viridae^Talk 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration comment

You refer to "some very unfortunate wheel warring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3" which led to your protecting the page. I think you mean edit warring in this case. No use of administrator tools was involved in that particular squabble. --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You are number 666. Not weird at all.

Not weird. You have recently proposed a method that editors can use to identify themselves in case their account is hijacked, but you are not banned by the arbcom! Unlike to what they did to poor User:Faethon. Juicemango 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Have followed guidelines, what now please?

Dear Mangojuice Thanks for guidelines and encouragement. I've completely revised article since I got back to England, giving independent sources etc. It now resides on the page you suggested <User:Bee Redding/Alan Davidson(author)> but I don't know how to submit it, can you do this for me? There are other aspects of British children's fiction I'd like to write about, where I see Wiki has gaps, but will see how this one goes as it's quite a lot of work. Thank you for being so welcoming. Bee Redding 09:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Solomon Joseph Solomon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected moves

Nope. Doesn't work. I tried :) - Cooties 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• It actually comes up with the move page again, with the word "Protected" in large font. I can get ya a screenshot if you need it - Cooties 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

John Luke

John Luke was a legit article which was being heavily vandalized. Why was it deleted? It should have just been reverted to the earlier correct version. --Evb-wiki 15:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Much appreciated --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Truce

Well, I am glad you like the image. While it might be BJAODN worthy, it is a real flag you know :) Thanks again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Magnum

Have we learned nothing from the last few weeks? After two days, and you're endorsing a redirect to boot? This is a horrible close, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is so horrible about the result of the articles being merged? No one, including you, gave any reason why it would be bad. You didn't like the way the original decision was made - and neither did a lot of others, and that was reflected in my close. Mangojuice^talk 13:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a well reasoned close. Personally I originally had nothing agaisnt the article to start with, but several arguments got me to change my mind. However the way it was deleted was well out of policy so I think that was a good close. As someone has probobly pointed out, we dont really need a bio on her, her involvement in the rape case can be sufficiently covered as part of the main article, being that she is only notable as a result of that. Should she do something else spectacularly stupid again then perhaps she will warrant a bio, but for now I would like to show my support for a well reasoned close of a contentious debate. Viridae^Talk 13:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Because we weren't talking about a possible merge. That's done at the page of the article, or perhaps at the inevitable AfD. If this is indeed the case, you should unprotect the redirect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you can't dismiss the opinions of 2 dozen plus editors who were talking about the merge/redirect solution just because you weren't, or because you didn't want the debate to be about that. As for unprotection: no, there has been edit warring and there's a big dispute going on. Now is not a good time to unprotect. Mangojuice^talk 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we're ignoring the two dozen plus editors who were not talking about the merge/redirect "solution." That's more the point that seems to be missed here, and since you closed the discussion three days early, it's not as if we can continue the discussion where everyone's looking anyway. So you've essentially closed a decision early with a result that only partially reflects consensus. There's major problems in that. Is there a timer on the protection? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I took into consideration everyone who was talking about the ultimate fate of the article, not just people who specifically addressed the redirect: that includes people who wanted a full undeletion. Go back and reread the "undelete" arguments, because a good number of them actually wanted the redirect. There was no argument at all against the redirect, although some expressed a preference against it. This is not to be totally discounted, but when there were more people who felt the opposite way, and when they have the weight of argument on their side, it's clear which side is winning the debate. The protection timer is currently indefinite, and I think that's okay: when the time is right it can be unprotected through WP:RFP. I have a hard time saying exactly when it will be okay to edit at this point. Mangojuice^talk 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I strongly suggest reopening the discussion, which you closed very early, with a note that you're considering more than what the scope of DRV typically entails, thus ensuring we get a proper range of responses. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, DRVs normally run 5 to 7 days, therefore this is an early close. It looks like all the main deletionists got in their arguments already. Also, this is supposed to be about process. The argument that this was not really a deletion, but an editorial decision, is wrong for two reasons: first, everyone involved initially treated this as a deletion, and second, editorial decisions are not enforced by indefinite full protection. Correct process would be to restore and go to AfD, and if this had been an AfD, it would have closed as no consensus, meaning keep. The way, the truth, and the light 15:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record (and in case there's any doubt) I fully endorse this close. You'll notice that it simply confirms my edit to create a redirect in the first place. </smug preening> --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:David Lyons COI

Thank you for your comments regarding the COI above. I would like to ask your opinion on opening a COI on User:David Lyons regarding the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article. It is clear from his long history of edits on the article (which have mainly been involved in removing negative information about Baker, and pushing the POV that Baker is innocent, and that his cause is well-supported) that David Lyons is a member of the Justice for Nick Baker support group. Note that any other articles David Lyons has edited (National Union of Workers) were only edited to attack Metropolis magazine. Frankly, no-one else in the world could be bothered supporting Baker to that extent.

As an example, please note that the recently edited section "Before arrest" makes it appear as though Baker's actions before his arrest are facts, when in fact they are Baker's version of events. I have pointed out these here: [15].

I think it is only fair that if I am not allowed to post on that article due to COI that David Lyons is not allowed to either. I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 13:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)