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

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!

Adil Najam page

MangoJuice, I find it very useful to be able to locate pages for my Boston University, Tufts and Harvard professors here on wiki -- gives me an easy central place to find links to their work but even more interestingly a window into what they've done outside of their scholarly pursuits. I'd appreciate if you'd re-instate the Adil Najam page which I use quite a lot. You can reach me at [email protected]. Many thanks

Najam page con't

I believe you may be the referee for the Adil Najam page -- I'll verify information on the page. The page clearly passes the WP:BIO requirements. Thanks --Franz.mpls 03:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Worthy use of your new admin powers

Congratulations on your recent granting of admin powers. I would like to draw your attention to a worthy use of those powers - the closing of copyvio reports listed on WP:CP. As you'll see there are many tens of such reports that need dealing with each day, and the backlog is barely being kept under control despite a couple of us spending lots of time working on them. The process is pretty easy and sorting a few only takes a little time and with a group of people helping, we can keep the backlog under control easily - just review the article & the source to ensure it is a copy, and then delete. Any help would certainly be appreciated - any questions, ask away. Kcordina ^Talk 09:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where the notions that a) Miss Martindale invented the Aristasia concept and b) that sex is now important in Aristasia come from. As far as I can tell, the main difference (n this area) now is that discipline is much more underplayed, while sex is equally taboo. Should be interested in your verification of the contrary statement. There does seem to me to be a certain parti pris going on here. Still, I suppose it's none of my business. Karen

AMA Roll Call

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign next to your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if you could help me. I'm a relative newbie here, and I have noticed today that one of the pages I created is missing. It should be here: Edgewood Elementary (band)

Do you know of a way to trace this to learn what might have happened? I don't see it in the list of articles "Proposed for Deletion" or whatever. Thank you for your time. ShawnC

Thank you for your support!

Good evening, Mangojuice. Thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :) Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments re:Userfication

Thank you for your comments. Please forgive the length of my response, as it's grown to a full accounting.

The moves were a follow-up to discussions which arose out of disputes between WCityMike and Parsssseltongue-- which apparently has led to an RfM between the two. Each editor had been using the "essay" model to generate their own personal rules, to deal with issues they came across during heated AfD. In the case of PT, he (I'm assuming "he") created two essays which WCityMike brought up for MfD as being personal attacks on him:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Don.'t be lazy
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Don't hold a grudge

Both essays were deleted.

In the first one, I commented that, "I would be in favour of (re)moving all such essays, written by single individuals to deal with their own concerns/views/concepts, of which there has been an explosion in recent months."

WCityMike had previously created his own set of essays, including one titled, "Wikipedia:Don't Create Essays and Then Cite Them As If They Were Policy", as well as Wikipedia:Interestingness (which ironically, he has since cited multiple times in his own AfD discussions.)

He also had written an essay-form reply to PT, in his own userspace, User:WCityMike/Rebuttal_to_Don't_Be_Lazy.

Subsequently, I took the Be Bold approach-- this was not actually a case of ignore all rules, as there appears to be no "policy" per se that a personal essay (e.g. one by a single editor, based on that user's sole opinion) created in Wikipedia-space must remain there until an MfD. The Misc for Deletion page itself notes, "If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and list the redirect on WP:RFD if needed."

Regards, --Leflyman^Talk 06:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent decision

Excellent decision. Dr.K. 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiny FYI

Hi,

Just so you know, for reasons beyond my technical understanding, redirecting directly to a section of an article (eg #REDIRECT [[Foo#SectionFoo]] ) doesn't work. Redirects only go to the page proper, no matter what one does. This tip was motivated by an edit to Aristasia. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq blocking

Please see my comments on Zeq's talk: page, or on the CheckUser request page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Blocks on the Pierre Bourque (journalist)

Hello, I noticed you blocked some IPs for reverting on the Pierre Bourque (journalist) entry. IMO, it my be the same user who I had a revert war with. Please read, I hope this helps you understand that it is more than likely that the person is still reverting edits on the Pierre Bourque (journalist) entry but using a different IP. Pete Peters 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be helpful in better understanding the situation. Pete Peters 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I have added an article of Pierre Bourque as an external link. Yet, it just get's reverted. I am no violator of the 3 revert rule, but if I revert it the user will just assume another IP or log in as Arthur Ellis. I notice if an admin person reverts it, he tends to listen. Pete Peters 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Weronika Rosati

Hi, I don't understand what you meant by WP mirrors when you removed the copyvio tag. I think it still violates copyright, because the wikipedia content is directly lifted from her official website [1] and the site shows "Copyright ©Media 2000 a Max Kolonko Company.All rights reserved". Thanks for your time. -- Abid Ahmed 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WileyPublishing

I think it would be OK to unblock that account to allow participation in the debate; I've had an email saying that they want to participate in the debate but won't resume linking unless / until cleared. I don't see the name as realy inappropriate myself; they are acting for and on behalf of, not misrepresenting themselves. Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

semi on Bourque

Hi Mango, I see that you semi'd the Bourque article yesterday and then changed your mind. I've just now done so. There is a user under an indefinite block who has learned how to get his IP changed when he wants, thereby making it easy to flout the 3RR rule, which he seems to be doing (all edits on that page from 209.217.xxx.xxx and 64.26.xxx.xxx are from the same Internet Provider in Ottawa). I suggest we leave the semi in place for a couple of days until he loses interest. Bucketsofg✐ 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the semi will probably be sufficient, given that it is IPs that are the problem. As far as I'm concerned the editors can continue to revert one another undisturbed. Bucketsofg✐ 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it Mangojuice (if that is your real name) has some expertise on Canadian copyright law, or has seen the National Post freelance agreement (which I have both read and signed) that gives the Post all rights to any artricle sold to them. You take some dreadful risks in your ignorance. 64.26.147.136 19:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Got your note. So you're willing to bet Wikipedia's money on that? Because, by guessing, that is exactly what you are doing. 64.26.147.136 19:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anything. I've written on Canadian copyright law for legal journals, and I'm just telling you that your ignorance, wilful or otherwise, may leave Wikipedia open under Canadian copyright law to some legal remedy. Since I am not the National Post, there's no legal action I could take, even if I wanted to. Now, the chances of the National Post going after one of its columnists for republishing something he signed off the rights for is slim to none. With ol' Bucketsofvenom's little rip-off pages where he takes stuff from databases and republishes them on his blog, then uses them to back up his hatchet jobs, well, that's a bucketofgrewal of a different colour, as it were. I just think you, along with most Wiki types, are sloppy, careless, arrogant because of your shield of anonymity, and almost invariably working from an agenda, hidden or otherwise. Mostly undergrads or second-rate would-be scholars, the ype of people who end up teaching high school. Sad bunch, really.64.26.147.136 20:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't work that way. Canadian courts claim jurisdiction if a party in a libel case was resident in Canada when the libel was commited. Judgments from Canadian courts are collectable in the States. By your concepts of libel, the world would be bound by US law because most big Internet and media are HQ'd in the States. The rest of the woprld would never accept that. In fact, that's the reason why Google bends over for China and Yahoo got in trouble in France for carrying ads for people selling Nazi junk.64.26.147.136 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

Heyo, Steve Caruso here! Currently there is an Advocacy request by a new user, Dreyesbo, who needs assistance on the article Tibia (computer game). Would you be willing to take their case? Peace! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, seems like a pretty light-weight ordeal. Mangojuice^talk 19:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure that Dreyesbo will greatly appreciate it :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I appreciate it! Very much indeed. I was just explaining the case further in my talk page, when I saw Mangojuice reply! Well, then I'll explain some things about it here :^):

I've seen the reason that C3o placed, and now that I've read the External Links policy, I understand a little better. A newbie mistake. Still the advice that Mango gave me was something I didn't thought of, and will use it. I'll prepare a section about the supported fansites program, when it started, which supported fansites exist, etc... However, if it still seems unnecessary, I'll just place a link to the page where the list of supported fansites is. I have now understood the subject furthly, so no problem at all. Thanks!

And I forgot to add that I tried to make contact with him, but forgot to log in. It can be seen in his talk page, with me being 200.23.36.144.

Thanks again!

Dreyesbo 20:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mango, if this case is finished, could you set it to "closed" on the AMA Requests page? Thanks! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 01:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi there, thanks for the quick reply on my talk page. The problem is this: the PC I sometimes use for editing on the wiki has had its IP blocked - this means I can't edit even when logged in. What I want to know is if there is some way of unblocking me, even though editors on the IP are.--Bjwebb (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

thanks so much for unblocking my IP. ill try my utmost best to be productive here in wikipedia and share whatever knowledge i know to contribute to wikipedia's goals, thanks again and more power -Bloodpack 10:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Overheard discussion

Remington == NCV. — Jul. 20, '06 [14:25] <freak|talk>

NikosPolitis unblock

Hi Mangojuice, I just noticed you released NikosPolitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his "collateral" block. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that this account, though it hasn't had much opportunity of doing anything, is potentially highly disruptive. He's an obvious sockpuppet of disruptive POV-pusher and multiple revert-warrior Erdogan_Cevher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (just compare his edits: [2], [3] with those of Erdogan: [4], [5]). Moreover, his username is a clear attempt at impersonating Politis (talk · contribs) and/or NikoSilver (talk · contribs). Erdogan is a Turkish POV-pusher, Politis and Nikos are Greek editors who had opposed him on the same talk page Talk:List of unrecognized countries, where he was conducting his soapbox trolling campaign. There was a checkuser case about this (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erdogan Cevher). I had added notices to this effect to his talk page, but he kept removing them without comment. You might want to consider blocking him as an impersonator/sockpuppet account. If you have any questions or aren't satisfied with the evidence, just drop me a line. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. As I understand, the checkuser was inconclusive because the "Erdogan Cevher" account had been silent for a while before "NikoSilver" appeared. The identity of the two is really beyond doubt, based on the editing patterns (CheckUser is really not for the obvious cases, as they say.) -- Anyway, if he resumes his trolling activity, I'll come back to you. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for pornographer biographies

Hi Mangojuice I saw your comment regarding the Dora Venter article and thought you should join the WP:PORN BIO discussion since it is a guideline in progress right now. While I do not necessarily think that all adult film actors are notable at the 50 mark, I do think they should be given stronger consideration the closer they are to 100 films. (Think of it as a sliding scale.) I also think that setting a concrete barrier of 100 films is too arbitrary, as I've pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Loren. Recently I nominated two articles for deletion myself, Paul Becker and Erik Rhodes (porn star). It appears the latter one will be kept because he is with a major label despite appearing in less than a dozen films, so we have a lot to hash out with this guideline process I think. Your comments on the shaping of the notability criteria for porn bios would be appreciated. RFerreira

WP:AN

Participating in the discussion is surely inelegant and unnecessarily verbose, but I thought (ostensibly correctly) that by using that formulation I might avoid incurring the wrath of those who assume that anyone who uses vote with respect to an AfD doesn't understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy, that voting is evil, and that the project operates in pursuit of and in view of consensus (viz, that AfD is not a vote); I think, though, that your eye-rolling was, though perhaps indecorous, surely appropriate. I understand why some object stridently to the use of vote (since new users who see such usage might misunderstand the tenets of the project), and I suppose one might essay "vote" or !vote (as Deathphoenix at AN), but I don't see any problem with our using vote (for lack of a better term), and my using the longer locution ought not to be understood as an upbraiding.  :) Joe 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Smerge

I've been wondering this for a while. What is "smerge"? Mangojuice^talk 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Smerge" stand for "slight merge". "Smerge A to B" means that a sentence or two about A should be added to B, and then A deleted or redirected. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the question that everyone's afraid to ask. After months of wondering (not continuously!) I actually created Wikipedia:Smerge and shortly thereafter found the answer. As far as the project page, it's basically a substub now, but I'm hoping some expert smergers will add examples or something. Ardric47 03:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Units in Nintendo Wars

You deleted Units in Nintendo Wars per a non-existent AfD.[6] You were probably confusing it with this Afd for Units in Advance Wars. Would you mind undeleting it? --SevereTireDamage 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll do my best to help rewrite the article as encyclopedic. --SevereTireDamage 00:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you rule.

Yes, your unblock worked. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor London (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction; I've been trying to find copyright violations, but when I read that I tried to figure out what to do. Again, thanks and I'll use the prod tag in the future. --Douglas Whitaker 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read up on that, but unfortunately most of the stuff I've found hasn't been commercial in nature or has been older than 48 hours. I'll keep my eyes peeled though for opportunities to use that and try and not contribute to the backlog. --Douglas Whitaker 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do have a question about copyvios (I didn't know who to ask). I've run across some articles that I've strongly suspected of copyvio, but have been unable to actually find the source. I've been relecutant to tag them with anything. Any suggestions? (An example is Tarik Solak). Thanks. --Douglas Whitaker 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very good. Again, many thanks for the help. --Douglas Whitaker 20:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the compliment - I'm just doing what I can. And thats a good point; I'll begin using prod in addition to copyvio for those cases. Thanks for the tip. --Douglas Whitaker 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks

Cheers for the advice and info for the Cubed³ page, rest-assured that it will adhear to all guidelines and not need deletion. Thanks again.

FYI

Just so you know, I now have a new username at User:Seivad. Previously I was known as [[User::Abcdefghijklm]]. _{This message has been left for everyone who has left a message on my talk page} . Thanks for your time, Seivad 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just saying thanks

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Thanks for helping me out today and continually updating me with tips. I really appreciated it. Douglas Whitaker 03:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

O.K, thanks. Treebark (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Attack by Sarner

I have been harassed by user Sarner (see my talk page). He has repeatedly attacked me on a number of pages, for example see Bowlby, and has not placed a warning on my talk page that is: 1. Without merit. 2. Without any basis. 3. That is inflamatory and demafatory.

I don't know if this is the right place to lodge this complaint. If not, would you please direct me to the correct venue.

In any event, I'd like to see him leave me alone or be banned from Wikipedia. (As you can see he has been banned from editing the Barrettpage and "soft-banned" from editing the Bowlby page.

Thank you for your time and help. DPeterson 15:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The comments below by user sarner are further evidence of his malice. DPeterson 15:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse?

Reporting someone for vandalism is itself vandalism?

I grant that there can be disagreement, but how does being wrong about vandalism constitute vandalism. Removal of the report is certainly appropriate.

I see no "good faith" in the article to be created and I listed it for speedy deletion. As I regarded it as pure vandalism (and still do), I reported it.

Your concern for "personal attacks" is laudable, but if so concerned you should investigate the personal attacks I and others have endured from DPeterson and other sock/meat puppets of AWeidman.

I think your comments (and warning) was an abuse of administrator privilege. But I could be wrong, and I wouldn't want to "vandalize" a page by complaining about your action, so, if you can tell me where we, together, can bring your actions to the attention of someone responsible for administering administrators, we can set one or the other of us straight. Larry Sarner 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

After posting the above, I noticed the preceding section where DPeterson was complaining to you about me. Why would he communicate his complaint directly to you, do you think? Are you aware that I have not been "soft-banned" from editing the Bowlby article and that DPeterson has been informed by others of that fact? Can someone be truly considered a "good faith" actor if he tries to deceive other users, editors, and even administrators? Larry Sarner 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Thank you for your message. I apologise that you disagree with my decision. My duty as a Wikipedia administrator is, in part, to prevent contentious editing from occurring on articles; consequently, I have the authority to implement blocks and, in terms of general community precedent, specific bans - although, it is true, only article bans passed by the Arbitration Committee are binding as per policy, the alternate approach would have been to block you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing, which I could well have done (and have the specific authority to do) but thought it more reasonable merely to remove you from the Barrett article. I have done the same with OKO (talk • contribs) who is engaging in similar behaviour, as both your accounts show a specific fixation towards editing the Stephen Barrett article (in your case, that article and John Bowlby); Arbitration Committee precedent is that users who engage in disruptive, fixated editing on an article may be banned from editing that article (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair, for instance)." from Sarner talk page. ( Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)) DPeterson 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:NicholasTurnbull has also stated: "I have not, to date, banned Sarner (talk • contribs) from the Bowlby page; it was Stephen Barrett that he is banned from editing, and that article alone - if necessary, however, I can extend the ban should his disruption also be extending to this article. Regarding following the ban being "voluntary", that is partly correct in that there is nothing in place to directly stop him from making changes to the article he is banned on, but it was more of offering a more reasonable alternative to actually blocking him from editing Wikipedia - which I would do if he chose to circumvent the ban, because there would be no other means left at my disposal to stop the disruption." DPeterson 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And as you can read there, I was not "soft-banned", or any other banishment, from the Bowlby article which DPeterson erroneously claimed. Larry Sarner 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that DPeterson has now starting accusing me of vandalism for editing this very page Advocates for Children in Therapy. I chose to edit by asking for citations for the "facts" he published on the page. How can that be vandalism? It seems he can run roughshod over Wiki policy and guidelines, but any reasonable attempt to make him justify it is "vandalism". Larry Sarner 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A Question

Hello, Mangojuice. I'm curious. The article on Cryptography mentions Venezuela among the list of countries that impose legal restrictions on its use. It says: "Many countries have tight restrictions on the use of cryptography. Among the more restrictive are laws in....Venezuela ...", etc. I live in Venezuela, am an active old-timer in the computer engineering profession, and have never heard of such 'restrictions', much less about 'laws' on the use of cryptography, other than those imposed by the U.S. government's export regulations*, which may hinder the task of finding the source code for a good enclyiption algorithm. However, state-of-the-art encryption algorithms are easily found elsewhere in the international community open source sites.

My question is: do you know about those 'laws' restricting cryptography in Venezuela?

Thanks, AVM 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

* (see Export of cryptography, [[7]], and [[8]])

Kingdom of Talossa

Hey, could I see the content of the deleted page Kingdom of Talossa on my talk page, please? Kitia 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD

You are, I think, to be commended for your nominations of {{nn-bio}} and {{nn-band}}; even as it appears that some editors participating in the discussion have failed to apprehend the justification for nomination, you are altogether correct, IMHO, to have raised an ostensibly insignificant but (subtly) important issue. Joe 19:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I appreicate your advice and will follow it. Again, thanks. DPeterson 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vielen Dank!

Thank you so much for unblocking me. I appreciate it. Cheers! CarlosTheDwarf 02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism "charge"

I considered it vandalism when sarner put a [citation needed] next to nearly every sentence (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=65289252 ) I thought that fell under the definition since it needlessly cluttered up the page. However, if I was/am mistaken, I'd appreciate your letting me know so that I don't continue under a false assumption. Thanks. DPeterson 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Rudy Colombini

Hi, I wonder if you'd mind restoring that page to my userspace. The guy has left other spam around that I'm still trying to chase down. Thanks. Phr (talk)

Republic/Kingdom of Talossa

The Republic and Kingdom of Talossa are two different micronations, just to let you know. Do not mix them up. By the way, thanks for creating that subpage for me. That's why your one o my favorite admins. Kitia 13:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Process

Hi there Mangojuice, Thanks for your message and Welcome notice! (I wondered when one would arrive and felt kinda naked without one!) You commented that I'd done an incorrect speedy delete. I put a response on my talk page, but obviously you're not likely to notice so I thought I'd reply here too so I can get some useful feedback...

"... [this case] makes me wonder what makes [speedy deletion] appropriate or inappropriate? It was apparent that this article is the beginning of a blog or personal essay. It doesn't cover any Wikipedia type content. It's not the sort of essay which could be easily renamed, moved to another section or edited to be made better, because it'd still be a blog. So ultimately I expect it's probably still going to go. Don't get the wrong idea though - I'm not trying to make a case for its deletion, but trying to understand the process (and particularly the thought process) better."--Neilajh 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

more deletion process

Your interpretation of WP:PROD seems rather counter-productive. Common sense would suggest that a user replacing a prod tag with a speedy delete tag is not interested in a week of discussion. I feel like you're putting words in my mouth. --CharlotteWebb 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

banana slug pic

why not?

then you should take it off as an option

Qrc2006 03:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

sure, you can have it. i doubt id of gotten rich off it hahah.

i do have to note somthing the metadat is wrong, it says the picture was taken in 2005 which is impossible because i took the picture last weekend in vancouver, is there anyway to fix that. my cleopatra pic has the same problemo. look at the cleopatra article to see it, i think i also have a liscencing problem with that pic. its one of her at the victoria wax museum bathing in the bathing article and cleopatra article. any thoughts? whats GNFD anyways ? Qrc2006 04:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Eric Lerner mediation

I was wondering whether you would help mediate the Eric Lerner article which appears to have suffered from meltdown shortly after your contribution. --Iantresman 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

GFDL on teamgeist_gallery.jpg

Hi Mangojuice. Thanks for the welcome! I am fine with the image being licensed by the GFDL, but wasn't sure how to change this after i'd uploaded it and realised my mistake, so i re-uploaded it as teamgeistgallery.jpg (see 5th photo on teamgeist page). This image can therefore be deleted. As you may have gathered, i am new to wikipedia and this is a mistake i shan't be repeating! Will851 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

user:TTPN

Thanks for sorting that out. So I can just redirect user:TTPN to user:Ttpn now?

Strange thing is, the content on that page was a link to my site (thetechnicalplace.com which is ttpn.net). There is a remote possibility that is was an older account of mine that I totally forgot about.

Brilliant, thank you. I'm sticking with this one and leaving the other one to redirect. Thanks for your help. Gerard

Image

How do I prove that I have permission from the individual. -PhattyFatt 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

db-noncom images

FYI, I have replied to your message on my talk page and have reverted to the {{db-noncom}} tag on the image in question. --BigDT 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tango Magazine

It seemed a bit of a joke ("available in drug stores") etc. -Wser 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... Why is Absurdistan up for proposed deletion? I'm talking about a book by Gary Shteyngart, not making up some country as nonsense.

Ian Harold Brown

Hi, you recently removed the speedy deletion tag from an image of this person. I think the article Ian Harold Brown and all associated images are some sort of joke, there's nothing verifiable about any of them and really they ought to be removed from wikipedia as soon as possible. It came to my attention after User:Bad roo started haphazardly adding the pic to other articles. - Mcasey666 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian Harold Brown

Strange as it may seem to you, Ian Harold Brown is the real-deal.

He is a figure with a small popular following and deserves to have an entry on Wikipedia.

Your desire to delete the entry is perhaps over-zealous and ill-informed. By waiting to see what additional interest the article generates, you may be better placed to decide on its efficacy.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrega (talk • contribs)

I miss the Ian Harold Brown entry. I don't think Wikipedia should be celebrity-led. Unsung heroes who hold world records also have their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UHandpump (talk • contribs)

Closing of AfD Smosh

• Well, while I do not agree with the outcome, after reviewing the final discussion, I think I can understand it. While some of the votes contributions were by IPs or possibly WP:SPAs (see [9] and [10], I do not think that in itself warrants WP:DRV at this time. WP:N is always a moving target and I don't think the lack thereof was flushed out in the AfD discussion. Obviously, I'll keep the article on my radar and hopefully it will improve. Thx. — MrDolomite | Talk 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Quackpotwatch

Maybe I did my math wrong, but how does 10 keeps and 11 deletes equal a delete? What are the rules about deciding on the outcome of a VfD? -- Stbalbach 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocates for Children in Therapy page needs your help

Mr. Sarner is peppering the article with notations when there are already references to support various facts. I'd really appreciate your advice and if you could comment on my talk page I'd appreciate it. In addition, if you can intervene here it would help. There have been problems in the past with Mr. Sarner on the Barrett page (banned/blocked from that) and the Bowlby page. Thank you. RalphLender 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Macrons in titles

Thank you for your note. In fact I do believe macrons should be in titles: I had misread the Manual of Style, a careless mistake on my part, and have since been trying to remedy the situation by requesting page moves. Θεοδωρος יִרְמְיָהוּ Nizarck 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mirage Networks Deletion

Mirage Networks should not have been deleted. Consentry Networks is in the listings so Mirage Networks should be allowed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeltier (talk • contribs)

Ismael Camacho

Hi mango Juice Thanks for the advice about my father's page. I have an agent here in England, who wants to republish his book. Move the article to my user page if you want to. I'll keep you informed of what happens with the book. It might be a new best seller, and then my father might appear in Wikipedia. Maria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Camacho (talk • contribs)

RE: List of pop punk bands and List of straight edge groups

Fair enough; I'll get on this sometime tomorrow. I think there are already a number of categories which might work for at least the first list, and the second one shouldn't be too difficult either. One of these days I'm going to get off my lazy butt and figure out how to program some bots to do the dirty work in cases like these.... -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• All of the correctly-linked bluelinked entries in these lists have been categorized appropriately. They should both be ready for deletion. Cheers! -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Candace Newmaker page could use your intervention

I see that Mr. Larry Sarner has moved his attentions from Barrett to Bowlby to Attachment Therapy to Advocates for Children in Therapy and now to Candace Newmaker where he is continuing to edit as he has in the past (reverts, etc.). I think having an administrator monitor this page may prevent the sort of actions that were seen on the first two pages. Thanks. SamDavidson 15:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

PhaseSpace

I'll be winding through the process for having PhaseSpace brought back. I started to list the references in response to the complaints, and it was deleted. I recreated it and listed new and different references and it was deleted with no discussion. This is annoying and unfair. I'll push through the process and see what happens. Let me know if you care to be keep informed. Tmcsheery 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage limitation

The IP in question is already unblocked at this point. Mangojuice^talk 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks - blocking an IP used by thousands also means administrators will be bombarded by multiple unblock requests on different user pages - solution - put pressure on administrators not to block these IPs except for anonymous users.Winstonwolfe 03:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of straight edge groups

I wondering if you will reconsider your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of straight edge groups. The "Keeps" made the very valid point that this list is full of red links. Red links are a very long-standing reason to have a list instead of an category. Consensus isn't just counting up "votes", it is making sense of them, and this may be one of those cases where the closer should add their own judgement even if it is contrary to the majority. -- Samuel Wantman 07:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

concerning User:63.185.26.89

Hello, sorry to butt in like that, but I came across this message from you on the pertaining talk-page:Hey -- the block of User:Cukee Monster was totally justified. Unfortunately, there's no way for me to unblock you without undoing that block, so you'll have to wait until autoblocking expires. If Cukee Monster comes back, though, you'll be autoblocked again. Wait for 24 hours without making any edits, then you should be able to edit after that.

Are you sure about this? AFAIK, there is a way to undo the autoblock without unblocking the blocked user. It's via the IP-blocklist which can be reached from the special:log/block page; just look for the blocking admin, and usually, if autoblocks have been created, they are listed there also. Cheers. Lectonar 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's how I understand it also; but in the case mentioned I found the autoblock. Everything cleared up now, move along. Thanks and happy editing. Lectonar 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for undoing the collateral block affecting me! ><Richard0612 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

List of straight edge groups on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of straight edge groups. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. I understand your reasons, but I think it is worth discussing at DRV.

Nothing personal, but I'm listing this because I'd like to encourage admins to be bolder when closing discussion, weighing the arguments and using their own best judgement. -- Samuel Wantman 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My conduct

1st, continually reverting against consensus to introduce POV is vandalism. 2nd I did not call any editor stupid, I said his behaviour was stupid, which it was. If you note he is now on his second block for this. I would appreciate a bit more research before you threaten to block me. Xtra 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is no rule that says that I may not remove stupid edits from disruptive editors from my page. I would like to know what your motivation is in your baseless accusations. I would also like you to remove that rediculous warning. Xtra 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

By the wat. Did you even look into Margana's conduct which I was responding to? Deliberately trying to avoid 3RR while still trying to continually revert as often as possible, using the edit summary "rvv" at least five times when editting against numerous other respected editors, accusing Australian's of having a conspiracy against him. All this more than justifies anything I have written. Xtra 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User CaptainSurrey

I'd just like to point out to you that User:CaptainSurrey, who you previously blocked for trolling and personal attacks on the talk page of Jafaican, changed your signature you left on his talk page to read (and link to) "manjuice" instead of "mangojuice", supposedly a suggestion that you are homosexual(?). [11]. For other reasons (ie further personal attacks against me) I've once again put his name up on Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard, if you have time to take a look or whatever, feel free to. Mackan 17:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User HNIC

Hi, I'm curious about this edit you made. What was unclear? —Mira 19:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the one I untagged, it was because G6 is supposed to be for uncontroversial maintenance that requires deletion. It wasn't clear from the tag what the uncontroversial maintenance was supposed to be, and I couldn't figure it out, so I just removed the tag. Mangojuice^talk 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the maintenance was removing an unused (soft) redirect to user space from template space. —Mira 23:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Why was the unblock request not reviewed during the 48 hour period of the block? Thanks. - MSTCrow 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot-confusion

I have concidered changing my name in the past; this conversation has come up before. My handle was originally suppost to read "Somnambulist". Somehow, there seems to have been some confusion in the name selection process. Anyway, is there a standard "Not-A-Bot" disclaimer template? Many thanks, Somnabot 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to learn how. Lead the way. Somnabot 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. I put it up at the top of my page. Somnabot 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Lee Flores

Hi. Just to echo that I think that there is alot sockpuppetry that is going on. I also have issues on the accusations of "bias" on very reasonable arguments based on policy. Something is fishy. :) --Noypi380 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

PRODing copyvios

I have proposed adding an explicit statement about using PROD alongside copyvios, which is something you mentioned previously. See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#PRODing copyvios and also the mention at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#PRODing copyvios. I am not sure about the right wording. —Centrx→talk • 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Counterarguement for Speedy Deletion

On July 6, you deleted the A Girl Named Craig article citing that it was an unnoteworthy group. Although I can understand why you think this article was eligible for deletion, I also believe that I failed to put enough information in the article to prove that it was, in fact, noteworthy, and for that I take blame. They have had, however, articles written about them in local papers and were running champions on a Chicago radio show (Q101's Cagematch) for a long duration (to the point that they did not continue in the competion because of their extended streak). With your permission to recreate the article, I will be sure to include this information, proving it's noteworthyness. I can understand your reasons for deletion, but I think that providing this information would make the article more conform to Wikipedia's policies. Can I get a second chance at this one? (I'm asking first so I don't get marked against for recreating deleted content.) --Fumo7887 21:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - Glad I asked as I didn't know there was a page set up for notability deffinitions. Now that I've looked that over, I agree that it doesn't meet the requirements. --Fumo7887 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I did take your User:Mangojuice/Dates in Baseball and modified it slightly and used that. Rather than hiding it behind a link I just moved it to the bottom of the page, whether that's better or not I can't say. Anyway the baseball wiki people can change it to whatever they like, they should be way glad to have all this info. Thanks again! Herostratus 03:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the welcome!

Regarding Alan Macfarlane, you are right. But it would be hard for someone who does not specialize in history or anthropology to determine from the article that Macfarlane is a notable figure. Out of the 10 paragraphs which constitute the article, only two sentences explain why Macfarlane is notable. Namely, "Macfarlane was invited to lecture in Japan" and "Macfarlane’s work is widely admired and oft referenced among English scholars". The rest of the article is simply a catalog of Macfarlane's research and interests.

In order to adhere to WP:BIO and WP:PROF, someone should include more evidence about why Macfarlane is important. Perhaps include references to lectures he has given or statistics reflecting the popularity of his books.

I am neither a historian nor an anthropologist and so will not attempt to do this. For now, I will just format the article and add a "citation needed" tag (the second of the two sentences I cited above makes a lofty claim which I think needs citation). Jay Gatsby^(talk) 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Oh, sorry, I didnt realise that, this is my thoughts: I thought I need to select a specific tag that I should include on the image page from the fair use page. So, as its a promotional image (guitar photo), I reckon I have to use that. Is deletion only the option? What can I do to make these images not to be deleted? Can you reply on my talkpage please, so I'll notice it. Thanks very much. Imoeng 09:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Warring Factions on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Warring Factions. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Paging Mangojuice to the deletion review. ;-)

List of pop punk bands

Mangojuice, please respond to the comments I made concerning the List of pop punk bands. My main points were that we can have both lists and categories and they both need to be developed. The list is a good place for people not accustomed to the wikipedia way of doing things to add new information. These new bands might be erroneous, but my philosphy is that those new entries would be considered and looked into and infact they might appropriately apply. Anyway read the comments and let me know what you think, and eventually we can adjust the article accordingly. Thanks. Xsxex 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Salil Chowdhury File Deletion Rationale

Hello MJ - I have reloaded the image file SalilChowdhury1002.jpg for the home page with appropriate tags. Self-GFDL etc. This picture is from a scanned photo from my personal family collection, I would like to make this available for use on the Wikipedia site. I guess I don't fully understand the reasons for deletions - please advice. Thanks in advance.

Bobby Chowdhury

Salil Chowdhury Image - Continued

Dear MJ - Thanks for your note. Couple questions - since my family holds the copyright, how would you recommend that I assign the license for use? or is it just easier to assign as 'fair use'?? Pardon my naivety, I am a new wiki user. Or should I upload this file to the wikiCommons and reference it from there? I seem to be getting caught up in a spiral here ;) thanks in advance Bobbychowdhury 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing cases

Hey Mango, it's Steve from the AMA. What's the status of the case you took with DPeterson (talk) on the 23rd of last month? If it's finished, could you set it to (closed) for me so I know to archive it? Thanks! (PS: In other news, the gentleman who you helped, DPeterson, has joined the AMA!) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol :-) I didn't realize you didn't know about it. When I went over to the user's talk page I saw you on there and figured you were already helpin' him out. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Help??

Hi!! I'm was new and when i looked at some user pages i thought they were REALLY neat but I don't know how to do any of that!! :-( Can you help me?? --Red Pooka 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Unscientific POV pushing

MangoJuice, I'd appreciate your input on some issues with the article on Redshift quantization. summarised in the talk section "Unscientific POV pushing". --Iantresman 20:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture deletion

I was adding a picture for the subject of an entry I was ammending.. its been deleted twice - could you give me some pointers as to how to submit something that will stay for more than 24 hours ;-)

I've spoken to Eugenia and she has provided me the following alternate picture with her blessing:

http://www.osnews.com/images/eugenia-lq.jpg

Original offending item was: Picture was Eugenia-2003.jpg, page was Eugenia Loli-Queru

Ta, Memsom

Speedy deletion for Image:Matty T eating fist.jpg

Hi, I was wondering why you removed the badlicense tag from Image:Matty T eating fist.jpg. It clearly is not a screenshot of a music video and it is also not used (and was not uploaded) "for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question". Thanks in advance, HarryCane 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. But I know it is not from the music video in question, because I've seen it. The photograph was taken at the video shoot, but it's not a screenshot per se. Hence, it is tagged incorrectly. But I see your point, since it's not entirely unrelated. Thanks again. --HarryCane 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

William Collinson Sawyer

You removed the speedy tag with the comment "Bishop of Canterbury = no claim of notability??". If you look closely at the article, he wasn't the bishop of Canterbury, rather, he went to Canterbury where he was ordained as a bishop then served as bishop at Grafton and Armidale in South Wales. From what I understand, this is not on the level of being bishop of Canterbury (which would actually be Archbishop I think) nor is it like being the Archbishop of Wales. I don't know if that changes your mind on notability or not, but that's the reason I tagged it. Metros232 14:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

130th Glasgow Company, The Boys' Brigade

Hi.

I noticed you have deleted a page that I created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/130th_Glasgow_Company%2C_The_Boys%27_Brigade

I saw that the reason given was that it broke copyright rules. The content of the page belongs to the organisation, of which I am a leader. I'm also in charge of our website which contains a history text very similar to the one that I placed on wikipedia.

I went to great lengths to ensure I had complied with all the rules on wikipedia before placing the article on the site and I also consulted more knowledgeable users than myself.

The content that I placed on wikipedia contravenes no copyright rules as the text belongs to myself. If you could get back to me and confirm the reasons for deletion and if the page can be restored then I'd be very grateful.

Thanks Gary.

User:ElCapitano

Node.london and User:Artlondon

Would you mind take a look into what's going on at this article and with this user? Have I behaved in an inappropriate way or do you suggest I do something differently? I'm just asking because this is the second time in the last day that I've been engaged with a user like this and the first one led to the member User:Bearly541 leaving Wikipedia which is something I'm not particularly proud of. I'd just like someone to look at what I've done and make sure I'm not doing something wrong with this article and this user. Thanks, Metros232 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at everything. Bearly541 was actually welcomed on July 20th. S/he was obviously experienced and knowing enough of some aspects of Wikipedia as the user was able to amass over 1000 edits and was given a VandalProof account. And that is possibly the catalyst of this, overzealous use of the VandalProof tool. I went back a second time with my question about his user page only because I didn't know if he had just blanked it in error or he was actually deleting it to be rude (I've never really run into people like that aside from blatant vandals so I wasn't sure what the case was). I wish it had never occured because it was pretty bizarre and stressful (he had reported me a AIV at one point for vandalism and numerous other things occured that just made me wonder what the heck was going on). Thanks again for reviewing everything. Metros232 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge ?

Have you merged the content ? Zeq 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! Zeq 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Order Status

I see that you have merge the article to the iTunes Music Store. Couldn't the list of albums featured be included as the T. V. shows are?? Toosmart215 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Warning

Hi,

I just added a URL I believed to be a shock site. I didn't delete or otherwise vandalize anything, just trying to contribute.

Lea Hall AfD

Thanks for sorting that one out. I'm glad you decided to keep Lea Hall and Tile Cross, especially as I'd bothered to clean them up! Regards, RFBailey 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Constitutional republic

It appears that the talk for Constitutional republic may have been deleted, since it has only one edit (yesterday). I've noticed that this happens occasionally on AfD articles, and was wondering if you could see if there was any previous content in the talk page - and restore it if there was? Thanks a lot --Tim4christ17 16:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.  :) --Tim4christ17 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on EDM in Space deletion.

I disagree with the decision to delete Electrical Discharge Machining in Space.

More specifically, I strongly disagree with the casual statement This article badly fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV and will never meet them.

To say that it will never meet them is simply incorrect. It could meet them if the article were worked on to removed biased statements, and if references were requested and provided for specific points of contention (which I asked for, but nobody was in a particulary helpful mood around here =o\ ).

I'm becoming increasingly annoyed by deletionists policies of not trying to assist people with writing better articles (especially when they specifically request help *!*). Firstly, we were still in a civil discussion about the merits of the article. Secondly, I note that nobody was assisting in marking up the page as to what specific points were in question and needing references. How can people say it's not NPOV whne I specifically ask for examples and nobody provides them? They just make vague allusions to it being POV. A belief system is POV from the point of the believer. And wikipedia includes belief systems from all over the place, christianity, big bang cosmology, norse mythology, greek mythology, etc.

I strongly believe that this DELETION is POV: information suppression (IE, someone doesn't agree with it, so it is deleted out of hand, despite the fact that the article was in the process of being improved and the author was attempting to work out NPOV issue, etc.). Wikipedia says it doesn't care what you THINK about a belief or an opinion, only that the belief system or opinion is presented neutrally. If there was a problem with neutrality or phrasing, someone should have specifically pointed out where the problem lies so that the issue can be corrected and the article brought into conformity. I had asked specifically where the problems were, and for people to mark up what needed correction, as I recall. I wanted to get the article into conformance with policy, and have been working to do so over the last week (if you'll note all the edits, references, and alternate points of view). I did so because I believe the article is worthwhile in the discussion of the cosmology (understanding of humans place in the universe, and of the working of the universe) of the Electric Universe model. This is no better or worse than discussing the beliefs of Scientology, Norse Mythology, Christianity, Cargo Cults, etc.

Obviously Zowie was on one side and I was on the other, and not many other people even knew about the debate or were weighing in.

BlueValour appeared to understand my stance on notability as a central tenet of belief (cultural anthropology). In that regard, it is a notable article within the EU belief system, one of the core tenets and noted repeatedly on a few different sites relating to the EU model, as presented by proponents (mostly physicists, but with laity support).

No doubt this won't change your mind. But hopefully you'll at least stop to consider your actions and consider the following in the future:

How does wikipedia treat the "belief system" or "core tenets of belief" for a group? I'm not talking specifically about EU, since your position is obviously clear on that one, since you deleted a budding article without trying to help improve it first.

Getting back to my point: How does wikipedia treat beliefs? Are they considered POV, or NPOV? IE, the World Tree, Jormungand, the Virgin Mary, the Big Bang, etc?

Obviously the beliefs are from the Point Of View of the believers in said things. Thus they are POV. So, why are they allowed to remain in wikipedia? We're not required to PROVE that the Virgin Mary was actually a virgin, or that there's actually a giant serpent that circles the world (in the case of Jormungand from Norse mythology) in order to include these beliefs in wikipedia. Wikipedia actually appears to say the opposite, we're not supposed to offer opinions on the belief system (whether or not the premise is true), just notable resources saying what the belief is and who believes it. And where sources are controversial, they can/should be outed to try to reduce bias and "take things with a grain of salt." This was done, as well as offering the other side of the coin from a traditional point of view, to satisfy the "physical traditionalist.s

One could say it's because people want to know more about them. People want to understand the core tenets of a specific group of people's belief system. So, how is it that these articles which talk about a specific point of view are allowed to remain, but other articles that people "disagree with" (contentious articles, if you will) get summarily deleted without any assistance? Does this not violate wikipedia's NPOV clause as well?

I mean seriously, if I disagree with the Virgin Mary ever having existed, or that a woman could give birth to a child without an actual physical human father having impregnated her, does that give me the right to say that the article is POV on the part of Christians, lacks physical evidence (nobody has been able to reproduce the virgin birth scientifically), and thus delete the article with impunity? I don't think so. If I tried it, the Christian community would cry foul or cry "deletionist." Why is the EU model not granted this same privilege of having its tenets and beliefs treated with the same civility as the Virgin Mary? Or with Big Bang cosmology? Plasma Cosmology (as recently noted in numerous NOTABLE articles I just posted) has been discussed in various forms in reputable journals since at LEAST the early 80's probably earlier. So, why is it that it is treated as LESS notable than other sources? Is it simply because Big Bang cosmologist are more vocal?

Does vocality rule over notability? Or over equal treatment of ALL belief systems (assuming it can be established who believes them, who the authoritative sources of the belief system are, what the specific belief is, where it is stated, what the sources are, etc)?

Again, I don't mean this as a request to overturn the deletion action (though if it sways you, so be it), or as a complete gripe session. Simply as a thought experiment regarding beliefs and their place on wikipedia. Are beliefs inherently POV (I think so)? If so, how is this overcome to make the article "non-controversial"? Is it simply vocality (IE, mindshare?), or is it neutral presentation of the material such that whoever wants to KNOW the information has a resource to come and READ the information, and make up their own minds?

Again, I also disput the NOR claim against the article, since it has been talked about by EU theorists for quite some time, and Plasma Cosmology has been talked about since at least the early 80's , probably earlier. I didn't just make this up out of my head. This concept has been in the EU model for quite a while. I simply felt that there was not a sufficiently descriptive article about this belief in wikipedia, and my preference would be that the EU article and the EDM in Space article be separate so that 90% of the EU article isn't dominated by a deiscussion of EDM in Space. But if necessary, the EDM in space info could be compressed WAY down and integrated into the EU model page, though I had hoped not to have to do that. But I had suggested that notion as well in the talk page for deletion. But I see nobody even considered that possibility before deletion.

Such is life. Anyway, I hope I wasn't too bitchy. I just think that it's unfair to delete without first giving CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and a chance to fully improve the article. Seeing as I HAD requested specific examples and notation of what needed to be fixed or cited or whatever, so it could be remedied. I guess that's my 2c. Mgmirkin 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your opinion on the POV/NPOV issue of belief systems. Not specifically the EU belief system, justin general. I realize that EU is "contentious." So I simply want clarification on how the Wikipedia community regards cultural beliefs in general (IE, cultural antrhopology, who believes what and why?). And why are some "beliefs" or opinion okay to publish and others are "suppressed." Is it simply vocality? If so, I can round up some EU colleagues and they can state a protest. (I'm only kidding, just illustrating a point. If it's just a subjective measure of how many poeple you "think" believe in something, the subjectivity, I'd say, violates NPOV. IE, YOU THINK that nobody knows or believes in it. That doesn't make it a FACT that nobody believes it. That makes it YOR OPINION, which is prohibited. And suppression based on opinion is just as bad as inclusion of opinion about a specific thing, be it fact, belief system, etc.) Mgmirkin 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I need some help in determining what to do

Does WP:SOFTWARE apply, since it is a "proposed policy"? I am having trouble convincing an author that he has to provide reference citations. He says that because it is/was an Apple product it is ridiculous for him to have to provide citations. The article in question is AppleSearch. The article itself appears to be OR. Would you look at it and give an opinion? Or refer me to someone who will? Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! The AppleSearch guy is adamant that he has given enough references with the links at the bottom. I never have experienced someone so absolutely resistant. Usually when a person gets a warning tag, they either get busy getting the references or ask for help or something. Never has someone said: I'm not going to pay any attention to you because I've decided your claims for citations are frivilous -- not his words but his basic message. Now I have sprinkled his page with citation needed statements. I'm wondering what to do if he continues to ignore the issue. Mattisse(talk) 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing of Kelley Limp AFD

Could you please change the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelley Limp to "Merge"? That was certainly the consensus expressed by those who commented on the nomination, and there's nothing wrong with an article having a merge tag pointing to a redlink. Thanks. NatusRoma | Talk 01:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I was talking about putting a redlink in a {{mergeto}} template (which I have done), not a redirect. This reflects the consensus of the discussion, and serves as a reminder to so-interested users to implement that consensus. NatusRoma | Talk 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan Election Pages

• Hey mango! I need some help at the Vaughan_municipal_election,_2006 as user:pm_shef is not acknowledging my arguments and is removing valid information. ED209 23:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh give me a break. We were in the middle of a discussion on the Talk page when ED decided that what he says is automatically the law, and he added the content in question. He hasn't made any arguments, and when presented with evidence that the issue is not relevant, he simply ignores it and re-adds the content. This is ludicrous. -- pm_shef 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not force this discussion on Mango's talk page. We are having it on the election talk page. Sorry Mango. ED209 23:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godai Tomoyoshi

The author of that article created tons of similar stubs (under Category:Samurai stubs), either from the mentioned website or from a book on samurais. I suspect massive copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hostility, incivility, and other bad behaviour

I read the message you left on my talk page. I realise my last comment on Asmodeus' talk page was perhaps a little over the thin green line of civility. I can assure you it is the first time I have deliberately turned up the heat in what I wrote. This is because I have now sustained over a month of thinly-veiled assaults on my intelligence and my character from Asmodeus, much of which is so obscured amongst lengthy rants that it is sometimes hard to spot, for someone who has not been following the saga from the beginning; and none which of is based on any objective fact. The first time I "officially" complained about him was yesterday: so I am not being oversensitive or vexatious, but finally felt that enough was enough. Asmodeus was only warned. I find that extremely disappointing, when it is perfectly clear he knows all about the various policies, having been blocked for violating them before, and warned by myself prior to posting my complaint.

The thing is, if the system here at Wikipedia is unable or unwilling to protect me, then I am afraid I am going to have to defend myself. It is not something I relish doing, but I refuse to take any more abuse. I do not see why I should have to bear the brunt of Asmodeus' foul accusations about me, and snide remarks designed only to upset me (and not only me: other users have been similarly ripped into, but I have a special position, because I nominated the article for deletion). If he wants to play dirty, I will indulge; I am not going to sit back any longer and passively absorb his comments: and nine out of ten of his comments contain some form of oblique attack on me. (Do note, though, that I commented on the article and its subject as far as possible: since Asmodeus will not admit to being that person IRL, I am not actually attacking him; that seems to be a game Asmodeus plays very well, so it's ironic, now, that he objects to me doing it).

Please, do not misinterpret what I am saying here. I do appreciate your intervention, and think you make some fair points. I understand that Asmodeus is angry, and this must be compounded by bitter humiliation if he is indeed the subject of the article: a very unfortunate situation. But that doesn't give him the right to retaliate as he is. So yes, dispute resolution of a "serious" nature (no more mediation cabal) is a distinct possibility. I am considering pursuing a RfC (user conduct) on Asmodeus, and Hell, I can see this fiasco possibly ending up at ArbCom if matters continue as they do.

But in the meantime, if Asmodeus continues to insult me (or anyone else, for that matter), whether or not it is dressed up in polysyllables and sarcasm (and yes, objectively I do chuckle at his comments sometimes), if the powers-that-be cannot act on his conduct, then I am forced to do it myself. I am sorry. Byrgenwulf 07:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Archer

Thanks for realizing that I was unfairly blocked and labelled as a Sockpuppet. I appreciate your help in getting the block on me cleared. The Archer 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

re: unblock request

The user made an inappropriate congratulatory comment on the talk page of another indefinitely blocked user. The latter user's talk page has been deleted and protected blank. If you are familiar with the situation I am describing, you can find the edit easily enough yourself. Otherwise, I'll have to refer you somewhere else. —freak(talk) 09:35, Aug. 16, 2006 (UTC)

Two pictures on the page on Josipa Lisac

Hello;

You left me a comment about how I should upload the pictures on this page. I selected the license you suggested and as for the issue of checking my authority I am disclosing the email of the official site of Ms. Lisac where such questions can be asked.

The email is:

[email protected]

so feel free to put an inquiry about this matter.

Aries 80 18:28, 16 August 2006

RoyalFrush

• I agree. However, I believe that for a new user to immediately revert the page to the same version that had been reverted to by 2 other JohnnyCanuck socks (being the only person to have made that edit) is pretty good evidence. -- pm_shef 01:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Caution

I'm not sure if you have checked Badlydrawnjeffs user page, or his contributions yet. But I'd like to let you know that he wont stop with his vendetta on SNOW. For reference only, there recently was debate over Aaron Brenneman, Tony S, and Cydes talk page. As well as DRV, not to mention my talk page. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Account creation enabled?

Regarding this: Please note that "account creation enabled" and "anonymous user only" options in the block screen work only for IP addresses. I've unblocked the user so they can place the WP:CHU request. Thanks! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Antwort

TomTheHand took over the AppleSearch problem for me and put the author's heels to the fire. Now he is disgusted with the author's behavior toward him and toward me and has refused to help the author anymore. He is vigilant though and reverts back the repeated attempts of the author to revert the article to a version without demands. So probably there wasn't anything you could have done anyway. Mattisse(talk) 09:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)