User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

MiszaBot

Since you said "wish me luck", (hee hee) I looked it over, and it looks right. MiszaBot runs every day starting right about now, so you should get archived around 9:30am EST every day. So check back here in about an hour, and it should be working. The bot doesn't update the archive box though, you'll have to do that automatically, adding the new pages. If you want a {{atn}} header at the top of each archive page, you can add this: |archiveheader = {{atn}} to the code. (See what it looks like at an empty page here. ^Ariel♥Gold 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL Whooops! Can you "undo" moves? The page doesn't get moved, just the threads. Now you lost all your stuff, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 12:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, there I wiki-linked the header so you can see what it looks like. ^Ariel♥Gold 12:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It will work now, just not for 5 days, lol. Which is okay, because now you have (well, you had, before I got here to mess it up with "Ariel Verobosity", lol) a new clean slate! ^Ariel♥Gold 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

your edit of my edit

thanks. it slipped my mind somehow. i will just put a link the future. htg 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No kidding

No problem. Yeah, you know you're doing something right, huh? What tools do you use to fight vandalism? Peace, delldot talk 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, weird. Anyway, keep up the vandal whacking. Peace, delldot talk 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

hey

ya im holybartender and you deleted my page that i wrote about myself it was just a joke not ment to be serious i dont mean to sound like a dick and i know your just doing your job but i have a right to free speech and its not hurting any one and i guess you could say this is supposed to be an educational website but you have full pages on tv shows like family guy i am reposting it and if u u plan on deleting it comment me back or however this works or email me at violentj946@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holybartender989 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Equal signs in template parameters can cause problems. The two = in the URL can be replaced with {{equals}}. {{=}} wouldn't work here. Another possibility here: Start the whole parameter (not just the URL) with 1=. This template is substituted so a third possibility is to omit = and just make a new edit with normal = after substitution. PrimeHunter 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Editor Review

Thank you for taking the time for a helpful review! I'll be more diligent with vandalism corrections in the future... they are annoying to fix but certainly worthwhile. I do have a question about adopting pages... the WikiPoker page encourages members to adopt pages, but I don't see that as very widespread in other projects (nor do I see many pages adopted). Obviously it is wrong to consider a page *yours* in any way, but in general is it encouraged or discouraged to adopt pages? Macboots 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You...

Thanks for removing that comment. By the way, what did it say? (minus the bad words of course)--Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

for you!

I want to know what he said. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (without bad words so I can read it)

Thanks for the cookie! :) I'm responding here for a change in case the IP editor returns to your page. There's not much besides bad words. :) He said, "* u betta bak the * up cus that wusnt me * * so watch ur mouth b4 u get hit in place". I think he objected to your warning last May. His talk page is over here; he has been cautioned. --Moonriddengirl 11:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Glad I could help. --Moonriddengirl 12:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Language clarification

Thanks for clearing up the different language tagging system for Wikipedia articles. I'll keep that in mind. The main reason I tagged DEVIL UNITED was because of the random seeming text and example image at the bottom of the page, which I felt merited need for speedy deletion. However, if you feel that this article could be better dealt with through translation, I totally agree. --TheBressman 13:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

youre a bitch. dont be so mean you whore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoleab (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No Problem

Hey. Thanks for the heads-up. I've just started the new-pages post. I'll try to clarify for the user. IanLamberson 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The St Edmund's thing

Sorry about that, I did place the {{hangon}} and explained on my talk page, I removed the notice as I deleted the part where it was from a website, I'm going to start from scratch now. TomRed 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to stop editing it until I get more info, I'll probably get it in person from the school since I know them. TomRed 16:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Smile

I'm a strong opponent of any kind of cheating. Always glad to help out (just not with other's homework). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with a Sockpuppet

I need some guidance on how to proceed with an apparent sockpuppet. I initially reported the issue several days ago to admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me on his talk page, but haven't heard back from him. The apparent puppeteer is TCrEoLe89 (banned by Can't sleep, clown will eat me) and the puppet TCR89. They both exhibit the same pattern of uploading copyright violation images, some of them the same images (Brittany Daniel). Also the names are obviously pretty similar... After reporting the sockpuppet, I went ahead read the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Based on the template instructions at the bottom, I thought I was supposed to go ahead and post a suspected sockpuppet template on the the TCR89 user page. TCrEoLe89 already had a template on his page, so I added TCR89 to the list of suspected puppets... Not hearing back from the admin, I starting researching more and looked at the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. After reading that page, now I'm thinking that I got ahead of myself by posting the templates, and I'm really confused on how to proceed with the issue. It really seems pretty open and shut, but Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets doesn't want cases older than a week... Furthermore the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page is really confusing me... are all the instructions specifically for admins? If so, why isn't that noted on the page (or am I missing something)? Any help guidance you can provide would be most appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macboots (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are amazingly responsive! Thanks for the help... I'm also confused with what to do about all the .jpg's the user uploaded... Should I just delete all the associated links to them, or is it appropriate to just go ahead and delete the source images? And if so, how do I do that? (I won't forget to sign this time...) Macboots 19:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect: I'm gonna kill you → Threat

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 23 where the redirect that you had nominated for WP:PROD-deletion now sits after my conversion of the redirect to the WP:RFD-deletion path. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I'm still chuckling about that, and still have no idea what the heck happened. Oh well. As someone told me very early on in my Wikipedia experience with new page patrol, "With so many janitors, it's not surprising that we knock brooms occasionally." Thanks for helping the newbie, and for all your good work I see in the areas in which I've been working lately. Accounting4Taste 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fabrictramp RFA

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A7 for pitiful humans only

Thanks for the info, I'll switch it to a prod tag. SolidPlaid 08:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ronnotel's RfA

I'm limiting thank you spam to just those contributors who made an extra effort on my behalf. I am truly grateful for your support and I hope to live up to your expectations. Ronnotel 13:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gamay_Trout

I don't quite know why an individual has to be real vs. fictional, so I think I covered all my concerns here. This should do it, I hope. - CobaltBlueTony 13:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you deleting Chintan Upadhyay's page

Hi, Chintan Upadhyay is one of the famous contemporary artist. His names and pages are being deleted every time I create. you can refer to this news for the latest half a million dollar work of Chintan. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Sothebys_draws_32m_from_South_Asian_lots/articleshow/2403921.cms Regards, Riz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.92.248 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at your talk page, but since you are apparently a logged out registered user, I'll respond here as well to ensure that you see it. :) As was explained at User talk:Rizviz, the current article Chintan Upadhyay was deleted because it was a violation of copyright, reproducing text verbatim from this web page. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. Although I was not involved with the article's previous deletion, on September 19th, the only thing in it then was == [http://cu.ashishbalramnagpal.com/] ==, which lacks sufficient context for an article. So far, the articles created for this artist have not conformed to policy. You might find it helpful to review WP:BIO to see what the requirements are for a biography. Remember to put text in your own words and to provide reliable, secondary sources. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Long reply on my talk page. Hee hee, grab some coffee! ^Ariel♥Gold 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

First template is located at User:Moonriddengirl/A7, with instructions, and an example of the usage on the template's talk page. If you're comfortable with making the others, that's great, but if you're not, honestly I like doing this, and I'd be more than happy to convert all the items on that page into templates if you like. ~*Hugs*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 19:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Adnan Oktar

Based on some of our work together in the past, I though of you as good evaluator to assist in the dilemma at Talk:Adnan Oktar. I visited this page in response to a request at 3rd Op. --Kevin Murray 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.

Remember, to test the templates, you'll have to move them out of the page they're in, and into their own template page. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's working! It's a miracle! You are a miracle worker! :D --Moonriddengirl 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a little bit, because the text is individual based on the template, in this case, the word "on" worked for the other template, but not for this one, so I just added a comma, otherwise it would result in the sentence kind of not making sense. Instead, I just added a comma to be placed after the article name, if that parameter is used. I've tested it, and also added the reason you were getting the extra Ariel♥Gold 19:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If I'm overstepping, with changes, feel free to tell me to quit, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's absolutely okay. :) I wanted to ask if you'd mind helping me with the one I just put in the sandbox as well, because it's got two variables. Obviously, I know how to do the {{subst:templatename|variable1|variable2}}, but I don't know how to make that happen within the template. Would you mind? --Moonriddengirl 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay let me go take a look. I hope you don't mind, but I made some of your templates on your ref sheet clicky-wiky-linky, lol. I really find that helpful even if they are ones I use a lot, but if you hate them feel free to revert me! ^Ariel♥Gold 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea--easier to make sure they say what I think, and also to make sure they haven't changed into something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've done the sandbox one. I think that it is going to work as intended, but it is a bit quirky, in that you must specify the name of the article referenced, if you're going to include the URL. If you don't, it will end up sounding very odd indeed, lol. I tested it with different URL endings, including .asp, .php, .html and .htm, but if you find a URL doesn't work, let me know and I'll try to figure out why. The one I use doesn't allow anything but html/htm, so yours is better, I may use the code from yours to fix mine lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Considering how often this has been coming up, I suspect that one is going to be very useful. I'll be sure to include article names and URLS. :)--Moonriddengirl 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I seem to find a number of copyvios quite often, so I use that template a lot. I need to fix mine, lol. Holler if you want any other stuff done, and I added a couple helpful admin templates to your page, hope that's okay! ^Ariel♥Gold 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

More than okay--much appreciated. Thanks for everything. :D --Moonriddengirl 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that copyright one might end up having issues with some URLs, mostly the type that are the result of a database search, with long numbers, and no extension at the end. If you find a URL that doesn't end up showing up when you use the template, post the URL on my talk page, and that will help me figure out what the problem is. I tested it with a couple, and some are showing up, while the one I used as a "search result" didn't. I'll have to look into that... hrmm. lol The majority of URLs should work, though. ^Ariel♥Gold 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)Thanks. I'll come running if I run into trouble, because I surely won't be able to figure it out myself. :D --Moonriddengirl 20:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI: the "tls" templates work fine if you copy/paste from your template page, that's how I do mine. It results in {{subst:Creation}} by copying/pasting the {{subst:Creation}} entry. (In other words, you don't actually go into the page and edit to copy it, you just copy it from the page directly, highlight/ctrlc/then ctrlv) ^Ariel♥Gold 01:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That was what I was trying to do. I don't know what I'm doing wrong! Maybe it doesn't expand in the preview? I am perplexed. I will go play in my sandbox and see. --Moonriddengirl 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not explaining, or understanding. And, that template actually requires variants/switches, so it isn't a good example. So let's use {{subst:Done}} Highlight it, copy, and you get: Y Done the "tls" can be used on any template that doesn't require any additional parameters, but for the others, yeah you'd need to use the nowiki tags. ^Ariel♥Gold 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not you. I think it's gremlins of some kind. I'm playing with it at my User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. {{tls|done}} worked. {{tls|Creation}} gives me a colon. I swear I'm not crazy. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see! So it's the missing parameter that's confusing it. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let me go through and list the ones you can use tls with:

• {{subst:create}}
• {{subst:Articledeleted}}
• {{subst:Renaming}}
• {{subst:RD1}} - This is odd, the template redirects to another page...
• {{subst:Reportvandal}}
• {{subst:Linking}}

Those are the ones, if you want to, you can change to the tls use to have the clicky-wiky-linkies. You still have to add your four tildes at the end to sign them, of course. But yeah, anything that you'd add a parameter to (article, username, etc), that doesn't work with unless you add that parameter. Like you can still have {{subst:Creation}} , but you'd have to copy it, and then know to type whatever parameter it requires, in this case, |user ({{subst:Creation|user}}). (tested it and that works) ^Ariel♥Gold 01:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You're a very patient teacher. :D --Moonriddengirl 01:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL nah, it is just this is an imperfect medium, and I don't mind clarifying or re-stating questions/answers to help. I've got unlimited time really, so it doesn't bother me. Plus, I learn too, so hey! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete My Articles

Dear Moonriddengirl you deleted my articles Robert Piemme and Greenwood Cultural Society of Pennsylvaina. I can understand why you deleted them. The Greenwood is not very well known and I certinly am not famous. I do plan on repwriting the Greenwood Article because the first time it was not well written and therefore not important to Wiki. However I do believe that Greenwood should be on Wiki. When I re-write the article on Monday please check it out and see what you think. Please keep up the goog work, there are many stubs and other articles that do not belong on Wiki, but I fell that Greenwood does. If you would like to responed, please contact me Greenwood1010. Thankyou and have a good day. Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenwood1010 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete the image

You can delete the image 50_Years_College.jpg. It was uploaded in error. Thanks. Emgeannikis 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for the advice and the links -User: Greenwood1010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.51.200.80 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay

Thanks for the message. I just couldn't find the soundtrack list anywhere (since original Juiced site was taken down) so I put the ref from the torrent site. I'll try to look for a good ref. FogDevil 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I'm not sure that we've ever interacted, but it seems like every time I stumble across a new editor who needs help or advice on defusing conflict, you've left some helpful words on their talk page already.

Sarcasticidealist 00:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion

wow, every-time I've tried to make a page on here about an underground music group it gets deleted. I try to make these pages because I go to look them up on here and see nothing about them so I decide to make one.

I thought that was the whole point of this site but I was dead wrong. I understand that this site has to cite refrences, but it's kind of hard when its a small unknown band. I put their biography from their own web-site and that isn't good enough.

So I get it, I won't make another page on here because it's a waste of time....I will now go get cancer and fuck myself.

thanks for nothing Adambomb419 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Replying at page. --Moonriddengirl 11:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the team!

Hi Moon! I have absolutely no problem with that block. My rule is that a repeat or second attack page after a warning gets the user an indefinite block. We just shouldn't have any tolerance for that sort of thing. Thanks for the note, NawlinWiki 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

earthendesign band deletion

Hi Moonriddengirl,

You deleted my article that I'd started about the band "earthendesign", who was active and released albums in the first half of 1990. You deleted them under the criteria that the band was not notable.

I read through that area, but the specific criteria on whether or not the band was notable was a gray area. The band released 2 albums, for a total of 14 songs, and played concerts in Connecticut and New York. They were interviewed and reviewed in hardcore (music) magazines and college newspapers, and played shows with more established bands such as Hatebreed and Sam Black Church.

My plan was to post the history of the band on wikipedia, but if the band is not notable enough, I understand.

Note - I just read through the criteria, and I agree, earthendesign does not meet them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juicerocket (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juicerocket (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Julie Orsini Shakher

Not sure of your comment and reques for deletion Kind of new to this Yes I am Julie Orsini Shakher Search me on the web I am real

I am of Italian origin and was wondering how I can include my self in history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julshakher (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:207.38.160.124

Thank you for your participation there. Regards, Agüeybaná 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am not and have never been ^{[citation needed]} an administrator. --Agüeybaná 22:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

arggh

Do I need help I just thought I could make a reference page http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=julie+orsini+shakher&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&ned=us Contemporary Visual Artist....???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julshakher (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

these are some highlights from my resume

I've removed the resume, duplicated at myartspace. (Copyright policies apply to talk pages, too.) --Moonriddengirl 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

argggh

http://www.georgesugarman.com/framepage.html - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julshakher (talk • contribs)

Removing - read the above comment, copy/paste not allowed per copyright policy. (Also, indenting/spaces before text doesn't work with wiki script) ^Ariel♥Gold 02:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for deletion

• I think Wife swapping in india meets the criteria for speedy deletion but I do not have administrator priviledges. Thank you. Pen of bushido 18:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC) p.s. I loved "In Mind"

Everytime a potential FAC gets underway, an admin deletes it. the_undertow ^talk 18:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1) What does FAC stand for? 2) How can you make Wikipedia tell you every other page which links to a specific page? There have been many times I wanted to rename a page but I can not do so without potentially creating a bunch of dead links. Pen of bushido 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Process

MRG, I've noticed that you've been removing speedy tags from articles which are, bluntly put, garbage. I know process is important, but it's also important to use your judgment. Just because something isn't nonsense of the "egt76 dgukf45e7 FLURGH GLURF GIRAFFE-FLAVORED NIPPLECLAMP" type, that doesn't mean it should go to AfD. Articles which are blatantly and obviously garbage can be deleted out of hand. You don't have to use the code-numbers in the Speedy criteria - I suggest you read my deletion log to see some example rationales. DS 03:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for your note. I'm sure I have a lot to learn about the process, and I welcome input.

I use the summaries with code numbers because in working at Help Desk I've seen many users come to ask about why their articles were deleted. I like to make that process as transparent as possible. :) It's no particular onus to type them out, since they're all in my browser memory anyway.

I do delete articles which I feel are blatant and obvious vandalism. (A quick glance at my deletion log shows two together--Wtfombbq and Lncoln yesterday, for instance.) Probably my definition of that is relatively conservative. Looking over your deletion log, the only articles I see in the top 500 that I remember removing the CSD from were "skunting"—which probably was garbage, but was already in AfD and which does have enough google hits that I felt it deserved the "wider forum" prescribed by WP:CSD (under Hoaxes)—and"Rummy (spoken game)", about which I felt similarly, given my interpretation of policy. The only other two speedies that I seem to have recently removed that were subsequently speedied anyway, looking at my deleted edits, are Brigada 921, an article in a foreign language tagged as no context which was speedied for content after I requested translation, and OptiVISOR. I disagreed with speedy spam assessment and put it up for PROD as non-notable and undersourced. Another admin apparently thought the spam label appropriate.

Anyway, if you see that I have removed the speedy tag from an article and believe I'm in error, please do let me know. I'm not interested in pushing articles through procedure for procedure's sake, though I am very concerned with conforming to policies. If I'm misinterpreting something, I'd be very grateful to have that pointed out. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Just noticed that you seem like a very active member of the CVU. Just saying hi, and please keep up the good work. :) Thurston Weatherton 17:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Final Warning Summary Deletion

Hello,

I saw that the synopsis of the novel The Final Warning was removed due to a copyright violation. So my question is that is it okay to use the summary from Amazon.co.uk if reference that web page or do I entirely have to create a new summary?

Rudeboy2025 02:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, (stepping in here Moon, hope you don't mind!) Please read Wikipedia's Copyright policy. Additionally, reviews from Amazon.com are not reliable, third-party sources, so you will need to formulate a summary using your own words and thoughts. Hope that helps. Please see the following for assistance: Cite your sources, Manual of style, Layout guide, First article, Article development and How to edit ^Ariel♥Gold 02:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok but what if the novel is not going to be released until next year so I would have no clue what the book would be about. Do I just read the already provided summary and rewrite that summary? I mean it wouldn't make much difference although it would get rid of the copyright problem. Not arguing just pointing that out.

Rudeboy2025 14:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes a huge difference in terms of the law. :) Wikipedia:Copyright says, "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference." I know that, as ArielGold says, Amazon is not usable for reviews; I don't know how the summary thing goes with Amazon. You might want to check at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels to see if Amazon summaries are usable in that way, unless Ariel comes back and knows. :) If you do reformulate their summary, do remember to attribute. --Moonriddengirl 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Will look around on the WikiProject Novels to check about the summary from Amazon thing. Thanks :)

Rudeboy2025 23:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your excellent work on anti-vandalism makes you deserving of this barnstar. May you go in peace to continue anti-vandalism. Excellent editing, Laleena 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Got a minute?

Would you be willing to deal with a copyright issue? It has already been explained to the editor in question, as have the obvious WP:COI issues, but the editor seems unwilling to respect Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and has repeated the violation on their userpage: User:Eriko E. Gale has placed verbatim liner notes from her father's CD, with no evidence of permission: States at the bottom of the page: "(As appeared on the inside sleeve (a.k.a C.D. liner) of Eric Gale's album "Ginseng Woman & Multiplication", courtesy of Columbia Jazz Contemporary Masters, re-released in 1991 (released originally in 1977 by Sony Music)" I think perhaps a word from an administrator may assist this user in understanding that the editors she's been in contact with are indeed, citing proper policy and guideline, and especially with regards to copyright, these things are taken quite seriously. ^Ariel♥Gold 01:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For you, anything. :D I'll go weigh in. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Well not anything, but certainly valid issues, which this is. The user posted this to the userspace after Timotab had fully explained all the issues, so there is evidence the user did see the comments and feedback. The userpage should have the copyright issues removed, and hopefully a nice note from sweet Moon, will help her understand Wikipedia is not "out to get her" but simply here to uphold the neutrality and integrity of the project. Thanks for looking at it! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have all faith that you wouldn't ask for anything that I wouldn't or shouldn't do. :) I'm composing my note. --Moonriddengirl 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with a Serial Tag Deleter

You've been so helpful giving me pointers... so I'm back for more guidance! I'm trying to get more involved in the community, and have have listed a few copyvio's for deletion. One I listed was Image:Lanalang.jpg. Limetolime was the uploader, who then went and removed the deletion tag from the page as well as removing my comments from the image deletion discussion. Going to his talk page, I noticed he has been under quite a bit of scrutiny for copyvio's. Only thing is, he seems to consistently go and improperly delete the deletion tags off the pages... (examples, Image:S1dvd.jpg, Image:Gemanscreenshot.jpg, and Image:Superman gift.jpg). In the specific instance of Annette O'Toole's image, I went ahead and left a note for him on his talk page to please not delete the tags in the future. However, what's the correct way to pursue the issue with him repeatedly removing deletion tags off contested images? Macboots 02:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your smile

I hope these sock puppets stop chasing the moon :) Jrod2 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Need help with reverting

Malcjennings seems to have made 233 edits over the past few hours. I would revert them manually, but it is quite laborious to do so myself. Would you (or anyone else reading this with tools/popups or other such aids) be able to revert this user, whose edits appear to be nothing more than adding links to a site en masse, or, in a small number of cases, modifying existing links to that same site? Sorry if requesting such edits isn't permitted. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy mass edits! I'll certainly be glad to get on it. --Moonriddengirl 21:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm usually glad to revert vandalism, but that is a bit too daunting for someone like me, who does everything unaided, and on a ridiculous bandwidth cap at this time of night, which would mean it would take literally hours for me to do that. Thanks again. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Doing this manually would be a bit insane. :) Thanks for catching it. --Moonriddengirl 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dav nufc

That silly user Dav nufc came to vandalize my page to get even for defending you. In my page there is a clear warning about what usually happens to those who "edit" my page [1]. Cheers. Jrod2 12:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC) PS: It might be a good idea that I watch your user page and you watch mine from now on.

Don't count on it Moonriddengirl. You know what I mean. Jrod2 12:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-spam hammer

User:Wizardry Dragon/Awards/antispamhammer For your hard work in eliminating spam, I award you this anti-spam hammer (sorry, couldn't find a barnstar for it). Good work! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

I have a question. How did you become an admin so quick? You have less edits than me, and your account is newer than mine, as far as I know. Whenever I get nominated into RfA, many users opposes me with a few supports, making my RfA unsuccessful. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Just to tell you that when I had an RfA, I withdrew it because of opposes. Looking at your RfA, I saw that you had 62 supports and 13 opposes. This told me that even if I have a little more than 10 opposes, then my adminship can pass if I have over 60 supports. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and as of October 1, 2007, I had a plan to do mainspace editing on odd-number days (with planned Wikibreak on Halloween), and fight vandalism on even-number days. User:Ryulong passed his adminship with 125 supports, even though he had 55 opposes. I also saw that your RfA had same type of opposes as my RfA (experience concerns). NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Faerghail

An article that you previously prodded and had notability questions about, Faerghail, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faerghail. Thank you. Springnuts 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Permanently?

What do you mean by that? Squash Racket 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've just read it. Sorry, didn't know about that. Squash Racket 15:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I should have read the beginning of the talk page:-) Tankred 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability concerns and speedy deletions

Thanks for this heads up, for some reason this detail had escaped me. Will take it on board. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Vs Speedy Deletion

I had no idea what it meant. Thanks for your help :) Karthik 06:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to comment, but please don't remove 3PO requests

Other people might want to share an opinion. Thank you. --NBCfootballju 19:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll move it. --NBCfootballju 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Chickie-girl

You got a sec? ^Ariel♥Gold 13:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I do. What's up? --Moonriddengirl 13:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at this thread please? Both issues? The editor is replacing "sexual intercourse" with "fuck". Now, while neither Mike, nor I, are particularly offended easily, it seems completely un-necessary to do on this page, and then there's the issue of the editor's name, which is an exact match to a hugely well-known corporation. Well, you'll see when you read the thread, hee hee. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

All right. I'm heading over to check it out. --Moonriddengirl 13:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a clear and blatant case of username policy violation since it's not being used promotionally, but I suspect that its usage is improper since the editor's behavior could cause the company embarrassment. I haven't done much with username violations. However, I've brought the issue up at User talk:Rlevse with an admin who is active at WP:UAA, asking for advice and/or an assist. --Moonriddengirl 13:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You rock, girlie! Seriously. Thanks for stepping in on this. I really would have thought it would be a UAA issue, but either way, if it goes to RFCN I have little doubt it would be disallowed. Of course, I've been proved wrong before, so hey, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 14:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I dropped the tag on his page for you, hope that's okay. Rlevse 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He responded and was not receptive. Listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names.Rlevse 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Roots (Everly Brothers album)

Hi. :) I just wanted to point out to you that the above article actually did have a reference when you placed your "unreferenced" tag on it here. The reference is in the infobox and can be traced by following the "link". When I first started working on albums, I was confused by this as well, but this is the standard placement as developed by consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. I also wanted to note that the article had the "inuse" tag at the top of it at the time you edited. Of course, it is only a request that other editors not edit the article while the tag is in place, in order to avoid edit conflicts, and you were well within your rights to ignore the request, but it is a nice gesture to hold off while the article is under active construction to see how it develops. You may already be well familiar with that template, but since you're on new page patrol I thought I would point it out to you in case you were not. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, before I say anything else I would like to apologize for the confusion (and sorry about how long it took to get back!). I have generally always hesitated when tagging album articles with unreferenced tags, because I realized there must be some reason hardly any of them cite no external links or references at the bottom of the page. However, I am very familiar with the in use/under constuction tags because I am in the NP Patrol and use it myself when creating articles sometimes. The reason I tagged it was because I saw it was in use, and realized that you must still be working on it, and if you saw the tag, you would add references. (That's where I made the mistake.) I never paid enough attention to the music infoboxes to notice that one link would be the references. Thanks for the notice…and I now have my confusions clarified. jj137 (Talk) 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) As I said, when I first started working on albums, I was also confused by the apparent lack of sourcing. I still sort of think they should be on the bottom myself, but that's consensus for you. --Moonriddengirl 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the help. jj137 (Talk) 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for doing what you to my article. It really helped out.

I also saw you were looking for users to adopt. How does that work?

Thanks! Gdk411 01:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a cool tool to help format reference links: [2]. Dreadstar † 04:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You may already know this stuff, but I added a references section and formatted a link in Rome High School. Check it out! Dreadstar † 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Gdk411 21:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought I'd let you know that I nominated Rome High School for deletion here since you helped in the article. Thanks! Phgao 16:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Annie in Wonderland

Thanks for tweaking this, it was one of my first efforts. I would have looked up the AllMusic reference but that site keeps crashing my browser! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sultan Catto

There is no Copyright violation as you suggest on the talk page there. --Ludvikus 13:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I will demonstrate at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl 13:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• The following single descriptive sentence, and brief list, does not constitute a Copyright violation:

   Catto has made important contributions to the development of elementary particle physics
   particularly in the area of dynamical supersymmetry,
   and in mathematics in the subject areas of spectral theory of automorphic forms
   and "octonionic projective geometries"
   (see Octonions and Projective Geometry) with applications to quantum mechanics.Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Changed sentence. Hope you're satisfied. --Ludvikus 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Valley Museum

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Three Valley Museum. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dsmdgold 13:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. :) I'll pop over. --Moonriddengirl 13:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rome HS

Since you were involved, thought you might want to comment on this. Dreadstar † 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment..<blushes>... Dreadstar † 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that I only got involved because of you...I saw it on your talk page, that thing you do...or did here. Dreadstar † 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on Texas A&M's Corps of Cadets page

I responded to your comments. If you have feedback/additional ideas, I'd love to hear them! — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded here. --Moonriddengirl 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Boiling tube productions

I am anmnoyed about the fact that BTP was deleted and am asking why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnsmalldan (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have responded here. --Moonriddengirl 15:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NYCmetroProject conclusions....

so.....conclusion on NYCmetroProject: all i have to do is produce an article of non-trivial descent, and have someone else post the article to maintain neutrality???

if such articles do not exist on the project as of yet.....as "substitutes".....is there any way i can use the multitude of consent forms signed by subway riders participating in the project already, and articles summarizing other experiential websites ("genre-ing" the same subject matter - NYC Subways)???

i read credible sources include the following:

1. idea or project (New York City Subway photo-documentary) 2. project creator info (Quagmeyer Productions, Inc.) 3. a site to substantiate the idea exists (www.nycmetroproject.com)

please advise.

Quaginc 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. :) Give me a moment to frame an answer, and I will respond at the drawing board. Though not heavily frequented, it has more chance to attract wider input than this user page. --Moonriddengirl 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Erskine

I've temporarily blocked User:KevinErskine for 3RR violations after a final warning, but this one's not going to go away - any thoughts? While I've (unsurprisingly) never heard of him, he looks clearly notable, but the last thing we need is another Daniel Brandt. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I was considering opening the question for him at BLPN. If he's been blocked, that may be the best thing to do. He seems to be a public individual, but I don't know that personal information about his family and high school career are necessary. They may overstep in terms of BLP. I think I'll go ahead and meander over there and get that started, unless you scream, "No, wait!" :D --Moonriddengirl 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He's listed. Hopefully the article will meet his satisfaction when addressed. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with stubbing it down at least - personal information is relevant for someone like George Bush or Paul McCartney, as it potentially has direct relevance to their work, but doesn't seem particularly relevant here (I've not read the blog - if we're claiming he's notable for the blog and that discusses personal information, then it may be relevant). — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Into The Fray ^T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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.

Ha! Well, I got to toss at least one out. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

seeking adoption

Hey there -- I just found out about the wikipedia adoption program, and I'm very interested. I'm primarily about editing my own personal wiki installation right now, and not WikiPedia At Large ... but if you can help me, I'd be more than happy to have you along. Please let me know! --Anamacha 05:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD is clogged

I'm trying to avoid AfD for a while, it has a backlog. There are on the order of 1,000,000 elementary schools in the world. SolidPlaid 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a db tag made for elementary schools (with a policy note on the speedy deletion policy page)? SolidPlaid 20:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any kind of tag; notability, prod, or whatever, that says "this elementary school seems non-notable"? I think a tag that alerts people to the idea that elementary schools pages are frowned upon would be useful. SolidPlaid 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What? I get confused, let me look... SolidPlaid 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for confirming my first addition to Wikipedia. Frogmarshall 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Howdy hi. If (and only if) you have a second, could you take a look at this [3]? It's a sock puppetry case I filed a couple days ago. Fairly long-term hoaxing (over a year now, I believe) has been going on from various and sundry accounts and IP's (Youtubians with little imagination, or so Google tells me). It may be meatpuppetry too. What I'm buggin' you about, though, is whether there's something else that I could do. I know there's various BADWORDS bots out there. "Rosster" would be a great word to be reverted on sight. But I'm not sure where to go with it. RFCU seems rather pointless. Long-term abuse probably won't get any kind of lasting effect. The sockpuppetry filing seems kinda pointless. I made it because an admin told me that it would be quicker than my reports to AIV had been but...you know, I still say AIV's quicker. Anyway. Any advice? Into The Fray ^T/C 23:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Any advice is good. I'm poking around IRC now. Thank you! Into The Fray ^T/C 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal thanks

I would like to say thank you for your sincere involvement in the discussion and provided help. I appreciate it very much. Cheers, M.K. 13:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A, I see you brought it to village, very good idea :) Indeed, lest hope we will have an answer to the questions soon. M.K. 13:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think that Francis Schonken made good points regarding these issues. I also additionally responded on talk page, that is your view on my new comments? Cheers, M.K. 12:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional involvement is good thing. From current situation it seem that we may find a consensus and proper solution. However we should also have in mind one thing that these developments could have a further implementations, particularly as precedent for other articles. So, we should do our best :D M.K. 13:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for help with redirect swap

Thank you for your help with the redirect swap of Walter Tewksbury. The discussion at the Help Desk seemed to be going somewhere I didn't intend, so I continued it on the article's talk page. (I also found evidence that contradicts what Fuhghettaboutit said, from very official places — including the International Olympic Committee, who ought to know!) Thanks again. — Michael J 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel Segal...

...was not "restored as per [my] talk page". You've restored it and expanded it unilaterally, which is not the same thing at all. Please don't try to rewrite history to make me out to be a liar. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment confuses me. I did restore it. For the sake of preserving the authorship history, I had to. My next step was to expand it—something that I was already working on when it was deleted, so it was good to go. If it's possible to change an article before restoring it, I wouldn't even know how. This is the first article I've restored, and if there's some trick to restoring them or some consensus as to how to label it, I'm unaware of it. I'm not attempting to make you out to be a liar. I disagreed with your deletion for the reasons that I put out at your talk page, but all I've done is attempt to work through the dispute the way policy proscribes. If you would rather have restored it yourself, I'd have been happy for you to do so. --Moonriddengirl 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You wheel-warred with me and gave an inaccurate edit summary in the deletion log to cover it that makes my previous statements look like lies. This is not the way to run a railway. Please refrain from doing this again. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warred? I asked you to restore the article, and you told me to recreate it myself. If you did not intend by that for me to restore the article, then I have misunderstood you, and I'm sorry. It never crossed my mind that you might have intended me to write the article from scratch, since that would exclude the original author of the article from the edit history, which would either violate WP:Copyright or at least be very poor form, since I had never heard of this man before I removed the speedy deletion tag from the article. I would have gladly taken it to deletion review for discussion. Please assume good faith. --Moonriddengirl 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that if there's any way to change the log, if I did misunderstand you, I will gladly do so. I went to your talk page in the first place precisely because I did want to settle this properly. I don't see how my edit summary on the restore makes you look to be a liar. I directed the log to your talk page to explain the restoration—which I believed you had authorized me to make—nothing more. If you feel that it somehow puts you in a bad light, I'd be happy to append a note explaining that at your page. (Edited To Add: And I have now done so. I hope that this will satisfy your concerns. Warring with you was never my intention. If anything, I tend to be relatively conflict averse.) --Moonriddengirl 23:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel Segal

No worries - I've wikilinked to the Hebrew article, so people can copy across stuff from there - I only had time to do his DOB and name earlier, but I'll have a look at doing more stuff later. I was surprised to see him up for speedy deletion yesterday when I was trawling through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion last night, so I'm glad you restored it. Hebrew is an interesting but terrible language to learn; imagine not having the verb "to have" (instead you have to say "there is to me") or present tense of "to be", and it just gets worse from there... :) пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I felt like he was probably notable. But I am chagrined that I seem to have restored it over protest (see above), which was not my intention. :/ Sometimes even conversation in your native tongue can be confusing. I can't imagine how you sort out subtext in another language. :O Linguists impress me. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Tech stuff

Replied on my talk page, dear. Ariel♥Gold 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied and fixed per your request. Color can be added as well. Ariel♥Gold 01:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm watching your page. I'm trying your style of communication these days. :)--Moonriddengirl 01:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL But I have no "style"! I seem to use different methods with different people, lol. Some people I'll repeat replies in their entirety on both my page and theirs, other people I don't bother replying on their talk page at all because I know they'll see mine just as soon, and still others I reply completely on their talk page. Hrmm... is this a bad thing? lol. Ariel♥Gold 02:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For sorting out Daniel Clark. Rich Farmbrough, 10:18 15 October 2007 (GMT).

My pleasure. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

citing media

thanks for your honest reply about the adoption thing. I'll keep looking, but there aren't many -- if any people mentioning technical anything on the adoption page. Sigh!

Anyway, I had a question: When you are citing media, in the sense of "I am interested in this and want to try and find it later," then how do you cite it? Do you underline the title? Italicize it? Bold it? All three? Should tha author be first or last? I'm not creating full footnote pages, but would like to cite things in the correct wiki way.

thanks! Anamacha 01:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'd be happy to help you as I can, but technologically speaking I'm pretty limited. I rely on others to help me out there. :D As far as citations are concerned, the answer is "It depends on the source and on the style you use." There's a guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources that provides an overview of them. You might find the Wikipedia:Citation templates useful, too. You fill them in, and it formats the citation for you automatically. And even if you don't want to use them, the examples make it pretty clear how they're supposed to look. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the pointers! --Anamacha 01:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

that was a real person

that was a real person you hade no right to delete it from your data base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistol grip pump (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding at editor's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Sorry I haven't responded sooner but thank you very much for such a consise editor review of me. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) I'm sorry you had to wait so long. That is so not a quick process! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiorphan looking for adoption

Snap pea 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Hello Moonriddengirl,

I am a new user on Wikipedia. My first article is on seam classifications in the apparel manufacturing industry. Currently my article is very basic. After reading about you I would be delighted to be “adopted”. Any constructive criticism on content and other observations would be welcomed. Please excuse that I am truly a newbie. I look forward to your reply.

Thank you,

P.S. I forgot to mention that the title of my article is "seam types" Snap pea 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_PeaSnap pea 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello Moonriddengirl,

Thank you for adopting me! It is so nice to have a mentor on Wikipedia.

I would like to add simple technical drawings to my article. I have them in a book. I know that if I scan and post them that they will be removed immediately. However, since they’re so simple, I would like to redraw them myself and then post them. Is this okay to do? I do not intend on changing anything in the drawing. I would really like to add visual aids because I think they would be very helpful in the explanation of seam types.

I saw that you added my article to the “see also” section of the Textile Manufacturing article. It was really exciting to see my contributions as a link on someone else’s article. Thank you for your help and positive reinforcement!

Goodnight, Snap pea 05:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_PeaSnap pea 05:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New colour scheme

Don't like it - the yellow's too bright. There's an excellent html colour picker here; if you put color=#123456 in the mediawiki software will recognise it, you're not constrained to the "Yellow", "Orangered" etc. — iridescent 20:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooh! Cool. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Spam on New Contributors Help Page?

Did you notice that the purology edit on New Contributors Help Page has exactly the same structure as the redken one? It may be the case of the same spammer creating multiple accounts and using each of them to make such edits with the intentions of getting traffic to his/her sites? I may be wrong on this one, but it looks to me like it's blatant advertising so I thoughht I'd consult with you ;) MarkMarek 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation! If it's Spam, I think they've picked a poor place for it, since I doubt it'll get seen by more than a couple of people. I'll go check it out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

S/he copied the Redken "article" directly to Redkens and even picked up the subsequent question on the New Contributors page. I was looking to see if it was a copyright violation, but no point: it's already been deleted as spam. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Response

I've posted my response here. Please respond on my talk page. Best, --Gp75motorsports 14:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For your review

This may help give some background. Also, you might want to review the methods of "warnings" this editor gives, they are not really what I'd call being in-line with WP:AGF or with the guidelines for recent changes patrollers, warning levels and templates, and the overall method of dealing with unconstructive edits. I think the editor has good intentions as far as wishing to deal with vandalism, but I'm quite concerned that the basics have been ignored, past the point of IAR, and this "project" is unnecessary, and not a good idea. Ariel♥Gold 18:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for background. I share your perspective that this group is not a good idea and have been unable to communicate that to the editor, which is why I was inviting wider participation. I have also mentioned this "proposal" at the WP:VP, but aside from a puzzled comment don't seem to have elicited much response. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also urge you to review their talk page from the beginning, as it gives some very good background information, as well as history of the particular problem. Ariel♥Gold 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

prince ahmed fouad ...

hi you highness .. beautiful 2 see princess ferial on tv .. want also to see our prince of egypt .. please want ur email and ur sister too .. if possible your mobile no. please dont laugh .. i will be hounered .. papa always talked well about ur fam and i was raised knowing that our king was good ... God bless u and ur fam ur majesty 41.235.117.32 20:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), I have no royal blood. Good luck locating your princess. I've replied to your question at the help desk.  :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

hi

Nice reading you...Intelligent girls like you (they are rare these days) never fail to impress me ! Jon Ascton —Preceding comment was added at 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

hi

• i noticed yr appeal at WP:ALBUM about assessing articles and whatnot. i fear i may be contributing to yr workload as i'm putting the {{album}} tag on articles without... sorry about that ;-) anyhow, i've never really assessed any for quality before, but just wanted to stop by and give you a shout to show someone's listening, etc... i'm working on general gnomery around the project at the moment but will likely try and give y'a hand later. best, tomasz. 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. :) That's actually a big relief to me. I'd hate to think that we traditionally get *that many* new albums to assess in a week. I don't know how many I've assessed, but I'd like to think I'd make some dent in the backlog! Assessing isn't hard for the most part. Once in a while I get one that requires some thought, but usually it's just a matter of slapping a "stub" template on the main article & marking it on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that User:Jogersbot will put an {{album}} tag on appropriate articles providing some bits of info are there. See User talk:AlexNewArtBot/AlbumSearchResult for more. Good job for working on these lists. --Fisherjs 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the "welcome back", and I apologize for any confusion because the edit was by one of my alternate accounts. I hope you'll continue your good work at the drawing board; I'm rather fully engaged in another Wikipedia-related project. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's not like it wasn't very quickly evident who you were. I'll continue at the Drawing Board, but you are more than welcome to return whenever you like. Considering how long you flew solo on that, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd like a more extended break. :) You know, people are always very quick to answer at the other help desks. I wonder why this one is such an orphan? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, I can only speculate. First, it's a bit of a niche, which means that the questions can get a bit repetitive. Second, if one person has been doing most of the answering (which was the case before I took a spin at it, I think; in any case, I jumped in when someone else said they were going on wikibreak), then other editors probably figure the matter is being handled and they should work elsewhere. Third, it's pretty low volume, so if an editor is interested in helping out, visits to the page are as likely as not to come up empty, either because there were no posts or because the posts have already been answered; after a while, it may seem pointless to spend the time checking.

Maybe the best thing to do is to continue the de facto arrangment in place now: when a editor who has been doing most of the answering decides to shift to something else, or take a break, post at the Wikipedia talk:Help desk page. That sort of makes WP:DRAW a subsidiary of WP:HD, which seems okay to me. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim Nabors page vandalism

I'm not very familiar with wikipedia editing, so I was unable to fix the vandalism, but someone has changed song titles and a highway name to be obscene.

I'll go take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Already in very capable hands. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thanks..and thanks again...<blushes back> Dreadstar † 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We make such a lovely couple, don't we...;) Dreadstar † 21:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We hang out in rough neighborhoods. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

Dear Moondriddengirl:

Could you please suggest an e-mail address where I can write to you privately regarding certain things you've recently corrected on Wikipedia? I don't wish to write about these matters here. Hopefully you can understand.

My own address: Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.0.46 (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you register for an account, you will see an option in the toolbar on the left-hand side of this page to e-mail me. You can contact me that way. (Many of Wikipedia's editors can be reached in this way, but not all. It is a feature that editors choose to enable.) For privacy reasons, it is better not to put e-mail addresses on Wikipedia pages (which is why I have removed yours here). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remove

I made a mistake on the Margaret M. Petruska article. I broke a copy right law because I didn't add a link and because (word for word) i copyed it (but i was going to say that the text was taken form the website) so please delete it for me. Thankyou.--Greenwood1010 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's done. For future use, there's a template you can place on a page to request its deletion when you're the only substantial contributor to an article: {{db-author}}. Blank the page and place that at the top, and it will notify the speedy deletion administrators that you request that the page be deleted. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sejny

Please note that the discussion is still ongoing. I am thinking about filling a RfC on this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had seen some activity over there but last time I looked in didn't see anything I could add. I'll come take a look after I cook supper. (And, well, eat it. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We could really use a few clear declarations by neutral editor on whether 1) the quotation should stay or 2) the quotation should go.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew this would happen: [4]. They will try to push this undue fact everywhere, I am sure History of Poland, History of Lithuania, Poland, Lithuania will see it soon. Help... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could help sort it all out, but I'm afraid that I am not an expert on the history of Poland & Lithuania. My involvement at Sejny, as you know, grew out of a simple interpretation of WP:RSUE. Since I've been involved there, I feel comfortable continuing in that capacity, but as for expanding into other articles, I would really suggest that it matters proceed this way you solicit contributions neutrally at a relevant project, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe. Good luck. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Chitauri - Copyright?

You've put a copyright disclaimer on the sandbox-restore of Chitauri that you created for me earlier on. I was under the impression that this page was deleted on notability and verifiability grounds and that there was no copyright issue. I was also under the impression that users who contributed to Wikipedia did so on the understanding that anything that they put on of their own making automatically became more or less public property under GFDL. Is this no longer the case? If so, shouldn't the GFDL notice under the editing box be removed?

perfectblue 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The copyright issue arises only in reusing the text of the material without crediting the original authors. As Wikipedia:Copyrights sets out, information on Wikipedia can be used "so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)". Since the article has been deleted, there is no way to acknowledge the authors, hence the requirement that the material be rewritten in your own words. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for voting to delete the wua, a group i co-founded ( wait i thought wikipedia wasn't a Democracy...how can we vote?!?!) any how I am admiting defeat and want the article to be removed so this attack...this nightmare can be done with. I feel everyone wants this stupid fight to be over with. i don't mean to be rude i am just very upset.--Greenwood1010 15:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are upset. I have been through processes where my actions on Wikipedia have been scrutinized and questioned, and I know it isn't a comfortable feeling. It isn't, however, an attack. Part of working on Wikipedia is learning to presume good faith and understand that the opinions of others about organizing things aren't necessarily personal. Please see the Five pillars for more about this. Check out #3 and #4.

As I indicated at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikipedia_Users.27_Alliance, I believe you are all operating in good faith in spite of my misgivings about this project. Many other editors have made similar comments. If you want to assist the project in handling vandalism, it may be best for you to join one of the existing groups that do so.

As far as the MfD is concerned, I am not in a position to close that debate, because I have substantially participated in the discussion. (And it is a discussion, not a vote. Please see the relevant portion of guideline for clarification.) Another administrator may choose to close it prematurely or may allow the debate to continue, but either way, if you no longer intend to defend the page, you may want to simply leave it alone. Step #2 in the dispute resolution process is to disengage, and it's good advice whether dealing with edits to an article or more global issues like this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

New comment

Thanks for the message on how to go about voting to reinstate the page on 'Rexist Equilibrium of Life'. I did as you said and I'm keeping my arms crossed to see the outcome. I think the article is a great benchmark in philosophy and needs to be re-instated. I hope you feel the same way I do. Thanks again for all your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexeken (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 October 2007

I am happy if I was able to help you navigate the process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Css, baby

Edit that, add this:

table.fundraiser-box {display:none}

And if you want a pretty colored "new messages bar", go to User:ArielGold/monobook.css and just copy the whole thing I have in mine, into yours. Ariel♥Gold 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, you are totally my hero! Thank you! You've saved my brain! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now look at your PRETTY BOX you get for new messages! No more babypuke yellow! Ariel♥Gold 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Be sure you reload the page! Ariel♥Gold 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everything is beautiful. The world is not only good again, but better than ever! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And, if you don't like my own colors, just tell me what colors you like and I'll help you change them. I've tried a few color sets, but these are the most pleasing, and yet still jarringly obvious enough so as not to blend in, lol. I really love the colors I chose, for a while I had bright purple and blue, but it didn't really fit me, lol. Of course, anything is better than the BabyPukeYellow color the default is! Ariel♥Gold 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The green is beautiful. :) I haven't figured out yet how many other colors are impacted. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This impacts nothing. However, you'll notice the same colors on pages like AD's, because he uses the "Class= messagebox" as a design for one of his talk page boxes. If anything, it is just kinda cool to see, but it won't change or impact anything. Ariel♥Gold 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>I meant impact more in the "what it changes" sense. I see that it changes the + and - characters on recent changes. :) I really love the green of the new message. Very vibrant! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh yeah I forgot that I'd changed the colors on my watchlist. Those are the only two items, I guarantee it, and if you want to change them back just let me know and I'll tell you what to remove from the .css. But yeah, the only two changes I've made are the new message box, and the color of the + - chars on watchlist. Ariel♥Gold 23:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I made my - red just to make it show up more. Other than that, I think I can manage. I really, really like the new message box. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look at you! Editing code stuff, figuring out colors! See? Pretty soon you'll be showing me how to do stuff! Ariel♥Gold 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Not hardly. :) With technology, I usually figure out how to do one thing and stick with it doggedly--which is why I thought I knew what I was doing with that .js thing. .css? It's different? :D For the most part, I'm a random button pusher. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee. .js is "javascript", and .css is "cascading style sheet", and it is like, the file that tells your browser how to display content, basically. You can actually customize a whole ton of things via your .css files, but I've really only found the need to do my banner and the + - numbers. Anyway, if you think of something else you want different, holler at me. ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I do appreciate it. :) In case you haven't noticed, you are totally my go-to girl. If you get sick of it, you're going to have to give notice. ;) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ROFL As long as I come with a disclaimer stating "Ariel reserves the right to be completely wrong, and to refer any issues she's unable to handle to another editor." ~*Giggle*~ (In all seriousness, you're one of my favorite girl-wiki-friends here, and you can come to me with anything, anytime, and feel free to email me if you ever just want a shoulder for non-wiki stuff, as well.) Ariel♥Gold 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I almost missed this one! Ditto. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What is your favorite color, and once you tell me, can I please have permission to add a little something to this talk page? (If you hate it, you can always revert it lol) Ariel♥Gold 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Change away! My favorite color is orange, particularly dark shades. I like most autumnal colors. :) (I had even considered asking you what I might do to make this page prettier. I like a fairly straightforward front page, since I get a lot of newbies & vandals showing up, but that one seems like fair game. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay what do you think of this? Ariel♥Gold 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Very nice! It's not all institutional looking anymore! Thank you! <hugs> --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I just want to say sorry for the comment I made yesterday...I am no longer upset with those who "opposed" the Wikipedia Users' Alliance. I have since called for it's deletion and admited defeat. Thnak you and again sorry--Greenwood1010 12:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're feeling better, and I do understand that it's disappointing. I hope you saw my reply above. This kind of tension is very common in working on Wikipedia, and reading over those guidelines may help you develop ways to cope with it. Good luck. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Users' Alliance

Please note: this message is being sent out to all involved parties. Dear Friend, the Wikipedia Users’ Alliance has been deleted. I am sure that perhaps you already knew this. I myself just found out. Anyhow during the debate many mean and rude things where said. I am not innocent myself; I too contributed to the unpleasantness. But now Wikipedia Users’ Alliance is dead, gone forever. But we all must move on, for me and my friends, we have to deal with this loss. However it is important that all of us work together to fight vandalism and not argue with one another. There are many things that I want to say, but I know that they would only add to the mean sprit that fills the “air”. As a Buddhist (Risshō Kōsei Kai) I was reading the Holy Dhammapada yesterday. I came across this line, “Holding onto anger is like holding on to a hot coal with the intent to throw it at someone, in the end you are the one who gets burned,” how true! Lets us progress forward. WUA Founder User: King of Nepal has expressed similar views such as these to me via e-mail. His majesty said, “We have to move on, move forward. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia and us all.” I agree and hope that you do to. Thanks. --Greenwood1010 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Co-founder of the WUA. If you feel that you recived this message in error please let me know. Feel free to responed on my page if you wish.

Pilfered

Hey there Moonriddengirl, I stumbled into your copyright template and really prefer it. In fact, I just used it, but only just once. Are you okay with me using your template or would you druther I use the uther? I like yours better. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, help yourself. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nendasji

Hi -- I noticed you declined my speedy nom for the above article. Just wanted to let you know that several other very similar articles by the same user were deleted, presumably by other admins. I am not making an issue of this, just wanted to let you know. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I almost deleted that one according to tag, because it was practically unreadable, but I was able (with effort!) to puzzle out what was meant by it. WP:CSD#A1 is specifically for articles with so little information that the subject cannot be understood. I strongly suspect that the subject is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, which is why I tagged it for notability. If the author doesn't address that concern, the article will probably need to be redirected or deleted for notability concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Valentine

Greetings from Kitty53

Happy Valentine's Day! -- Kitty53 (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How pretty! Thank you. Happy Valentine's Day to you, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

B'nai Emet Synagogue

I'm confused by your declining the A7 CSD of the above non-notable article. Might you be able to share? Bstone (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes. WP:CSD#A7 is for articles that do not indicate why their subjects are important or significant. I'll grant you that the article does not verify notability by any means, but the fact that the congregation is evidently over 100 years old is enough implication of significance to merit a different process. More significantly, it is only for non-controversial deletions, and in my experience articles on places of worship do not tend to be non-controversial deletions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Barker

Hi, many thanks for your note on my page yesterday about the Tom Barker article.

Would it be possible to correspond privately about this? I am concerned that the points I would like to make would have to be deleted if made in public.

Londoner1961 (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Like many Wikipedians, I am "e-mail enabled". In the toolbox on the side of the page, there is an option to "E-mail this user". If you click on this, you can send me a Wikipedia e-mail. I will hold the contents of your e-mail confidential. I may respond on Wikipedia, but I will not refer to the specifics of your message. (My talk page is rather long; you may have to scroll up some way to see the toolbox. For simplicity sake, I'm duplicating that link here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks.

Londoner1961 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

John Lee

Moonriddengirl,

I could use your help. I am new to wikipedia and never knew there was such restrictions. I wrote the content on both pages so I never thought there would be a major problem duplicating it. I apologize for this. If you have some further suggestions I would be grateful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallaceburghistory (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No apology needed. :) Follow-up on your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand all of what you did. But I thank-you for helping me comply with regulations. If the page needs to be deleted I would not be offended. Thanks again for your help. I hope this signature thing works? --Wallaceburghistory (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you so much for your help I now understand why one has to do what you did. I feel I have now learned a good Wikipedia lesson:) Now I am going to try and reproduce what you did. I copied a lot of the material to the James Paris Lee article earlier as well. However, now I am afraid I do not know what to do when the information is relevent to more than one article?--Wallaceburghistory (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been and are very helpful. The person who edited the James Paris Lee page has been very rude to me on a couple of occassions. If you look at his talk page he has quite the history of offending people. I would like to thank-you again for making edits the right way in a very respectful and helpful manner. I have not been on here very long but it seems like your type is a rare and amazing breed:)--Wallaceburghistory (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Be nice. --Asams10 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, always good advice. If you reach the point where your conversations are starting with the words "cut the crap", you may need to back up and cool off. Civility is not a suggestion; it's policy...#4 of the pillars. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For going way beyond the call of duty. Helping me not only with page improvements but with learning more about Wikipedia. I am grateful for all the time you spent helping me. Thanks!

RFA Card

My RFA →→→

Dear Moonriddengirl, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (29/5/5).

I understand why you voted oppose, and I will take the advice that you have given. And now that I am a sysop, I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — Chetblong^{T C} 21:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The note is gracious. I imagine you'll make a fine admin, and I trust that you will be careful in applying speedy deletion criteria. :) Hang out at talk:CSD for a while, and you'll see why some of us are a bit anxious about that particular issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging

When I said merging, I basically meant I was moving it from one page to another. The page that you noted was the original while the other one was the redirect that contained the correct name. Sorry if it looked like I was doing something akin to minor stupidity on my part. Kevin Rutherford —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've replied at your talk page, just to keep my response together with my first note. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know you could do that, thanks. Kevin Rutherford 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs)

The Hall Monitors

Just wanted to drop a note about your removal about "The Hall Monitors" page here. I nominated the page for speedy deletion because there is no such group as "The Hall Monitors." The student section at Assembly Hall at Indiana University has no official name. Because of the name not existing in any official capacity, I believe that the page should be deleted.Whistlesgowhoo (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Hoaxes can only be speedily deleted if blatant. This one, I'm afraid, doesn't tip over that line, particularly since the article has been around and edited by multiple editors since 2006. I see that you've opened an AfD as I suggested at the article's talk page. That may give you the opportunity to develop consensus. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Moon

Hi, I was wondering why the article on Konee Rok was being considered for deletion I was really actually suprised he did not have an article. I dont know a lot about how articles are supposed to be creative, but I tried my best to make it professional informative. I added some of his contributions to hsi repected genre of art in order to better show his relevence.

If theres any way you can help me understand and improve even more so, so that it and future articles will not be deleted that would be very helpful.

Take care

Cityvscity (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see that the article Konee Rok was nominated for deletion by deletion debate yesterday. So far, only the nominator has weighed in. The debate can be found here. To establish an article on Wikipedia, you need to assert significance according to the appropriate guideline. In this case, that would be WP:BIO. This article does assert significance, which is why I declined the speedy. But it doesn't fully verify significance with references to second hand reliable sources. If you can supply citations or links to magazine or newspaper articles, for example, that would be very helpful...especially to verify the awards. It doesn't have to be online as long as there's sufficient information for the source to be located. Primary sources affiliated with the subject can't be used to verify notability.

While looking to see if I could find additional sources to substantiate notability, though, I ran into a much bigger problem. It seems that considerable portions at least of that article are duplicated directly from other sources. This is not permitted on Wikipedia per copyright policy. As an example, the section reading "Konee Rok's career..."Time Out" magazine" is repeated verbatim from at this source. I'm afraid I'll need to look into that further, as such material needs to be removed until it can be rewritten in your own words. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Moon, I fixed a couple links to better sources and aded some notability content, but my changes arent showing up on the public view. Any thing I can do to fix this?

Cityvscity (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I also deleted the similar "Time Out' reference you were talking about and added a link to an article but it still won't show

Cityvscity (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be making your changes to the copy you've placed at your user page. The changes are showing there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So, should I just copy that version to another place? I also added a direct link to the "Midwest technology" article

18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend overwriting the article, since you'd need to be sure that AfD codes and whatnot carry. I'd just make changes directly to Konee Rok, as you did here. :) Also, please note that you might want to consider contributing to the deletion discussion, found here. Before contributing to it, I'd suggest reading over Wikipedia:AfD#AfD_Wikietiquette and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It will give you a much better idea of how to formulate your argument to conform to the standard, which may have more influence with other contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I contributed to the deletion discussion like you recommended =-) hopefully that can help. At what point would the nomination for deletion as well as other nominations be removed. IE: Myself and others have added several article links, shouldn't that remove the "This page has few or no links to other articles?"

Cityvscity (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The nomination for deletion will not be closed until the deletion discussion is over. These typically last five days, at the end of which an administrator will determine whether a community consensus reading of policy as related to the article is to delete or keep it. I'll go remove the wikilink tag if that concern has been addressed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for taking the time. If there's anything else you can recommend to bring the article to code, I will certainly trust your advice. You seem to be an "old hat at this." no pun ;-) Cityvscity (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Good luck with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Moon, I noticed that the article still has flags at the top after 5 days, it says not to remove them, and I don't want to violate any rules, I was just wondering if they needed to remain, or if there were administrators that will remove them at some point.

Take care

Cityvscity (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It hasn't quite been five days. :) The article was tagged for deletion at 15:34 UTC on 10 February 2008. The five days will expire on 15 February 2008. An administrator will remove the tag after reviewing the deletion discussion. If he or she feels that the deletion discussion has insufficient input, the article may be relisted, which will expand the debate another five days. Occasionally, articles for deletion is backlogged, and this may add a few days until an admin closes it out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks!

Cityvscity (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Miss Moon, Your page looks nicer since I was here. I wanted to ask, cuz it looks like someone deleted the Konee Rok article, what happens now? Should I try to recreate it or is it possible to reverse the decision? I know we passed the 5 day point and had people debating the delete, and was slowly improving from peoples contributions. Now its just gone... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityvscity (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the article was not deleted for policy violations, it can be "userfied" to your user space for further development if you believe that you can address the specific concerns related in the AfD. Looking at the AfD, I see that one editor recommended that, although he felt that you might benefit by working on some other articles first to gain an understanding of typical format so that you could bring the article into accord with manual of style concerns and address citing issues. I think that's probably good advice. It is sometimes possible to reverse the decision, but at this point the odds are slim. That is generally done when the closing administrator has misinterpreted or misapplied policy or when there is substantial new information that was not available during the deletion debate. (If that does happen, it's done here.) If you try to recreate the article without addressing the concerns, it will more than likely be immediately deleted under WP:CSD#G4. Your best bet would probably be to locate additional verification of notability in reliable sources. At the very least, every assertion in the article should be sourced with a footnote using one of our citation styles. I would also cut the article way down, to its essentials, to make it seem less promotional. Again, you might consider first working on some existing articles just to get a feel for how to handle some of the problems that existed in the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Moon, you are a saint for taking the time. I will consider everything you've written here and do my best to make it work. Take care. Cityvscity (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Griot

Hey there; thanks for pointing me to the results of that case; I had lost track of it all with all the labyrinthine webs of commentary that user had generated! And thanks for pointing me in the right direction for filing it. Once you take a cursory look at that user's history, the evidence of extensive transgressions was pretty glaring. If anything, its a bit surprising it went on that long, given all the alarm signals. Cheers, Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Now here's a kreepy kozmic konvergence I stumbled upon in doing a bit of post hoc analysis of the above. Minutes after I posted a note on your talk page on Feb 3 on the Nader drama, one of Griot's sock puppets posted a note completely out of the blue right after mine about an article he apparently had nothing at all to do with. Adding in a few other crypto-misogynistic edits I found leads me to conclude that this editor had a few, uh issues? :). Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, too. Strange behavior. The little bit of experience I have had with sockpuppets in the past suggests that many people enjoy flaunting it. (envisioned puzzled shrugging here). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The little dickens is still using Wikipedia via yet more sock puppets, over here lobbying another editor and likely here blanking and unblanking his page. Should I be a snitch and drop a Wikidime somewhere? Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Terran Federation

Hi, yes I'm worried there will be some controversy, mainly as the "merge-to" article is an FA. If they refuse to have the info merged in, but the AFD says "merge", what do I do then :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) If the merger is controversial (or if you think it's likely to be), you list it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Remember that a merger doesn't have to be complete; it could be a paragraph or two of information. The recommendations of AfD respondents to merge the material would not overbalance a consensus against such a merger, I'm afraid. At that point, your best bet to address the issues in the article may well be to fix them, if possible. Perhaps you can recruit editors from the parent article in such a case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

CSD stuff

Hi. I think our discussion got archived. I'm working on a list of which templates transclude which. I suggest that around now we put a message at WT:CSD that in a few days we'll implement all the changes that didn't receive any comments or for which there's consensus. (That's almost all, I think.) I can continue whatever I'm doing with db-bio and this list etc. meanwhile. By the way, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V, about a bot doing speedy-tagging, and where happy-melon and I [[5]] on that page the creation of a "slow speedy": apparently it's not that hard, it's already done for db-t3. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be awesome! Just touch base with me about when we're ready to go. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Nom

I wouldn't cross your fingers yet, it could be weeks or more before someone actually reviews it ;-) Avruch ^T 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Runemarks

Hello Moon. Thanks for your helpful note on my stumbling attempts to write my first Wikipedia entry. As soon as I realised that I had done something against the rules, I tried to delete everything, including the notices, which just made things worse! And then someone else kept "reverting" my deletions and told me I was doing something destructive (which was not the case since I was only trying to get rid of the copyrighted material). Eventually I went to bed and hoped for the best. When I try again, I'll read the rules a little more thoroughly, play in the sandbox until I'm sure I've got it right. Thanks again.Plad2 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) It seemed pretty obvious to me what was going on. I know what it is to make a mistake and panic about it. :D Once you decide to give it another shot, please feel free to me know if I can help you in any way. And, in case you don't know, you can also visit the help desk. --23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I iz serius adminz, this iz serius stuffz. No unblockz for youz. Thanks for adding it, but I'll move it into my transluded stuff! Icestorm815 • Talk 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Category:Wikipedians interested in books

The problem is that the Job queue is severely backlogged, so the page is still showing up in the category. When you remove a category from a template, the page transcluding that template will still show up in the category until the job queue catches up and removes it. There are several other categories on the working page that have been correctly emptied, just waiting for the same thing. If you look at the bottom of the page and you don't see the category, then it will disappear when the job queue catches up. So you are free to remove Category:Wikipedians interested in books from the working list, good work! VegaDark (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Traub

Hi Moon,

Regarding the speedy deletion, an NPR piece on my latest commissioned work, ItSpace will be heard on NPR's Day to Day some time in the next week or two. The radio piece has been completed and picked up by the show, it is just a matter of scheduling as to when they will fit it in (it is a news show and the major news stories come first). Once the piece is broadcast, I will meet the basic criteria (if I don't already) for musician entries "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network". Several of my pieces have also been exhibited in notable new media and network art exhibits, but there doesn't seem to be a criteria that includes those within the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Many thanks! 0r4ngecrush (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of category from my user page

C'est Wikipedia! No problem. Squamate (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reopened discussion on Category:Wikipedians interested in books

You were part of the ucfd of Category:Wikipedians interested in books by being the one who took on the Herculean effort to remove all of those users from it. I have reopened the discussion. If you wish to participate in this second discussion, it can be found here. - LA @ 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Figures that my answer to the WP:AN call for assistance in that department would bring me into something controversial. :) I've never seen an XfD launched so soon after closure (I spend most of my time in the WP:CSD neightborhood) and will watch to see how it is handled. Just to note, while I have almost no experience in CfDs and even less in UCfD, I did note that there seems to be a trend in this direction. I myself closed a cold UCfD debate of a very similar nature: consensus was to depopulate Category:Wikipedians interested in history. Currently up is Category:Wikipedians interested in radio. I would guess that categories that are viewed as too general or too specific are regarded as problematic. I'll watch your renewed conversation, and if it develops in such a way that I might be able to offer something of value, I will certainly chime in. And if it results in the category being repopulated, I will slog through my contribution list backwards. (There's a reason they call it a mop.) :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor?

Sorry yeah but I thought they were minor. So we have a point of disagreement. C'est la vie. Belicia (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very clear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Drawing Board on Geovative Solutions

Thanks a lot for your helpful reply. A question I have now is this: If I rewrite the article (or write any other article for that matter), is there a way I can get it approved, so to speak, before actually posting it as an article, to ensure that the article is acceptable before posting and won't get deleted? If so, and if I could get feedback if my article isn't up to standard, then I could make a quality article, rather than simply having the article deleted like what happened to me, which really wasn't productive for anyone. I appreciate any information you have, and if you wouldn't mind posting your reply on my talk page again, that would be great. Thanks. Ununtrium (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yuku help

Wikipedia has a problem with the article about the message board system called Yuku. I believe the disruptions have been going back and forth for several years. Could you please have a look at the end of the part called objectivity? Seems like a couple of the editors are mostly interested in a negative angle because of their own personal negative experience. I don't believe this kind of editing is in harmony with the pillars of the Wikipedia.

Yukutalk--{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see any evidence of a problem in the article. As far as the discussion is concerned, if the people who want to include criticism about Yuku find reliable sourcing to verify its accuracy and if it is properly weighted according to WP:NPOV, then its inclusion wouldn't be a problem. Take a look at the article on LiveJournal for example, with its criticism section. We can't disallow people from editing an article just because they don't like something, or we would also have to disallow people from editing it if they like it. :) We assume good faith until an editor demonstrates that the assumption is obviously mistaken. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The guy posted the link to his own private blog. The blog is a diary of his private vendetta with this online service. He had probably removed the link when you looked. If you have seen the blog, you would probably see it is not in good faith. I understand your point though and I had already read the part about good faith.

I also thought wiki was based on editors working for consensus. He is constantly removing anything anybody is writing that may be positive. He has chased away all the other editors. It is just amazing. It makes people stop believing in Wikipedia. It is sad. He is using the Wikipedia for his private battleground. Could you please keep an eye on us? Although, I will probally give up just like the others.--{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I missed that. Wikipedia is supposed to be about working for consensus. I can keep an eye on the article, but given our prior relationship suspect that the other editor would not find me an uninvolved party. The dispute resolution process lists a few places you can go for assistance to find uninvolved editors. WP:30 is a good place when there are only 2 editors involved. Another good first step is to ask for input from a related wikiproject (I can't think of one!) or policy page. You seem to be doing a good job engaging him in dialog. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!  :-) I have learned a lot from you. Very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askeladden2006 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this until now: User:RichardHMorrisDo still think he is in good faith? I probably should go ask for help. Although, I think he has done a great job provoking me to say stupid things. LOL he is a good. --{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC) See this: Banned

Well, he may be. :) "Good faith" refers to his attitudes towards and actions on Wikipedia. His userpage says he's trying to ensure "accurate information" in the articles, which is within WP:NPOV. As I said above, we can't stop everyone who dislikes something from editing articles about it anymore than we can stop everyone who likes it from editing those articles. It all comes down to what he's actually doing at the page. It may not be fun butting heads against somebody who is approaching a topic from a very different perspective than you, but it's probably actually better for the project that you are. As long as all involved can remain civil in your negotiations, it will probably result in a balanced, well-sourced article. Sometimes this leads to lots of discussion behind the scenes! If you feel like his edits are not motivated by a desire to keep Yuku neutral rather than overly positive, you might want to request assistance at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but I see that you managed to reach compromise here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

help (again)

hey there.

OK so I post a complaint at ANI about the incessant anti-Semitic rants by an editor all over an article Talk Page, and I get told by some supposed admin to "shut the hell up?" I get a warning on my talk page about calling an editor a Nazi (I understand the rule about calling people you disagree with nazis, but soes it apply when they are nazis?) Fine I'm used to abuse here, but noone will address the substantive issue. If I am going to be abused for bringing a complaint about a clear violation of talk page policy, not to mention rancid anti-Semitism on talk pages, I am out of here muy pronto. Any suggestions? thanks in advance, again. Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd hate for you to leave. I see there's already an admin quite active in that talk page. If I were in your position, the first place I would have headed would have been to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Then I'd have gone to requests for comments. But I note that you seem to be having trouble remaining calm in conversation with this individual. I'm afraid that this is not going to help your case on any board. Readers who come in later cannot easily trace the emotional evolution of a disagreement. If it seems that civility has broken down on both sides, they may perceive you as contributory to the problem. I honestly think the best way to make your case is to remain calm and civil, even if the other editor does not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well each time I asked that editor to refrain from posting anti-Semitic rants on that page, it got worse and devolved further into Jew-baiting of me. Call me Draconian, but anything less than a zero tolerance attitude towards anti-Semitic, racist sexist etc etc ranting and baiting of editors is too much tolerance for me. I cannot accept that I am to remain "civil" and not respond to such viciousness on the part of twisted editors, while admins look the other way in the face of their clear violations of WP:TALK (they should at least enforce that, if they're not going to take a stand against vile anti-Semitism being spouted in this project). Thanks, but I remain dismayed. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okie, besides ranting (or in additon to ranting) I took your always sage advice and posted here. Took a handful of Pepsids to stomach wading through this editors racist claptrap again. And not a little ironic to me to have to complain about a vicious anti-Semite violating so dainty a sounding thing as "Wikiquette." I picture the Nuremberg trials, and a series of Nazis slapped on the wrist for their lapses in etiquette ("Mr Goring, yuor just a mean, mean man!"). But thats just me. In any case, this user's rants will stop; I think you know that when I set my little mind to something....:) Cheers, Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it is very difficult to remain civil in some circumstances, but in my experience it helps if you focus on the larger picture. (I also understand your dismay. I have learned that even though civil is policy, it is not consistently enforced.) Perhaps it would help you to consider it this way: civility is intrinsically intertwined with civilization. It is a mark of a civilized society that it can treat even its enemies with fairness and dignity. Civil discourse doesn't mean accepting villainy; it just means not descending to that level ourselves. We take our criminals to trial, but we don't taunt them from the stand or behind bars. Further, in public discourse, conversations are witnessed. It pays to remember that even if we cannot persuade our opponent, we may be persuading those who stand by. If our message is not muddied by insults and sarcasms, others hear it more clearly. (They hear it when it's muddied by insults and sarcasms, too, but generally then it titillates baser emotions; I'd rather sway their reason than be a spectacle for their enjoyment.) Finally (and the most petty reason), it can be personally very satisfying when others try to goad you to refuse to be goaded. You know that you are depriving them of the satisfaction of seeing you lose your cool, you are displaying yourself and your beliefs better for onlookers, and you are demonstrating that you are a person of superior honor. Please do not confuse civility with capitulation. While it can be a mask for retreat, when coupled with action it is a position of strength, requiring self-restraint, that does not in any way hamper a pursuit of justice or truth. I appreciate that you are determined in pursuing your goals. You were right in your suspicions about Griot, and it takes courages to pursue an investigation of that sort when faced with discouragement and disbelief. Every society (including Wikipedia) needs people with passion and courage in their convictions. I would not wish to diminish yours. I would encourage you to modulate your approach merely to help you achieve your goals and to make sure that you yourself remain within policy while attempting to address problems created by others who you believe have not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks, again. I appreciate your taking the time for a thoughtful response, and I will take it to heart. I am aware of the distinctions with respect to civility you've delineated; I just perhaps see the demarcations on different coordinates on the map. In my personal experience, perhaps differing demographically and experientially from yours and other Wikipedians', my responses have been the epitome of civility. That is because my "crowd" has zero tolerance for anti-Semitism and the various other isms. You might not want to be around us when we are "uncivil." :). Mind you, I am not in any way infringing upon anyone's 1st amendment or Wikipedia rights. I am challenging this slime strictly as a glaring violation of WP:TALK. Admins can feel free to warn me all they want, just in the end uphold the policy., anything short of that IS capitulation and coddling of vile hatemongers.

But in any case, I appreciate your ongoing guidance. Whatever it takes, this vileness shall stop. cheers again! Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, good luck. Please don't get yourself blocked in the process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, don't worry, I'll be fine Nine lives and all that. :) Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Prasadz Multiplex

Hello, Excirial. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that I have removed the speedy deletion template that you placed on Prasadz Multiplex because the article does not seem to fit the speedy deletion criterion. WP:CSD#G11 is only for "unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content" and does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort. Please consider other means for addressing ongoing concerns. Feel free to let me know at my talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ehm, i think you made a typo here. A G11 is blatant advertising. At this time the article seems purely promotional, and contains no references other then the companies own page. What you described is a CSD G1 Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I did make a typo. You tagged it for G1. Everything else still stands. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I should seriously consider getting a good night of sleep tonight, as i keep making those small annoying errors today. Anyway, thanks for notifying me. I have simply Prodded this article, as i kind of doubt i could get this to qualify as a G11 on second thought (Not promotional enough). Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird history

Let me know if you see it WP:AFDO history that is). It looks like Mathbot was working like crazy, but no evidence of them being removed by a human editor? Weird. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disappointment

On 25 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Disappointment, 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.

Nice work for an important topic. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I felt a bit odd self-nominating it, but I was kind of proud of it. It was much more complex than I expected it to be. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AAA 2nd Anniversary Live -5th ATTACK 070922- Nippon Budokan for speedy deletion

Hello, I'm just wondering if this is able to be tagged as speedy deletion, I just need someone's opinion, if that's ok... Ryou-kun16 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see that it really fits in any of the speedy deletion criterion. It's not a speediable level of promotion, in my opinion, and it can't be deleted for notability concerns because it's a DVD. PROD may be your best way to go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agh! I meant to say Proposed, not Speedy, gomenasai~ ^_^;;; Ryou-kun16 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd go with probably, given the absence of sourcing, but a reviewing editor might disagree and remove the PROD. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't done anything the past 48-72 hours, so that's a good sign. ^_^ Ryou-kun16 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mudos vs MudOS

Just a friendly question on the Mudos redirect you restored. It seems the IP user was looking for MudOS, and didn't realize the capitalization would make a difference. Should we think about changing Mudos to a disambiguation page? I could just put a disambig toplink on the Oddworld arrticle (which Mudos redirects to), but it might be confusing to people who went directly to Oddworld. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Glad you figured that out. :) I think a disambiguation page may be the right way to go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll get right on it. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help!

Thanks for the nice note. I thought that repost applied to the clear-cut speedies as well. Shows ya what the heck I know.  :) Anyway, thanks again. It's nice to know I'm appreciated. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bless you. Folks like you make this project worthwhile!  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Avanti Construction - Inquiry

Hi Moonriddengirl

Thank you very much for your comments in the Deletion Review on Avanti Construction.
After five days in the deletion review and having read the above comments, what is then the final decision on this entry? Can I restore the content as it is written above? If any changes are needed, could any of the administrators kindly suggest them?
Sincere thanks.

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. An administrator should close the entry at some point, and if the consensus is to overturn the deletion (it looks like it is to me), he or she will do so at that time. Changes will be needed,yes, in order to avoid other deletion processes. If it is restored, you will want to add additional secondary sources to help verify its notability. You'll also want to be sure that it is not overly promotional. This is supposed to be a 5 day process, but there are sometimes more processes to close than administrators can close them. I can't do it myself, because I participated in the conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your prompt response is greatly appreciated, Moonriddengirl. I will wait for it to be closed and will enhance the style and the content of the entry, to match the Wikipedia standards. Thank you very much for your assistance and advice.

Kindest regards,

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

News on Avanti Construction

Dear Moonriddengirl
Thank you very much indeed for your kindness and for your advice. I am deeply enjoying being part of the Wikipedia community. I am really impressed by the accuracy of the procedures in order to match the Wikipedia standards and I fully support these policies.
I will do as you advise and I will try to enhance and improve the article to avoid deletion.
Once again, thank you very much and I will keep you posted!
--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Syrym

Hi. You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syrym that the article should be redirected if independent sourcing couldn't be found. Since that AfD, there still aren't any references establishing notability. Should be redirected to its parent article, Babylon A.D., now? Funeral 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's a valid action. :) I note, though, that the article has recently been edited, which means it might not lack controversy. You might want to propose a merge to invite consensus and handle it that way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hi. :) Working on the backlog at AfD, I noticed that the bots weren't properly cataloging this one as closed. I think on investigation that it may be because you put the closure template below the header, here. The template needs to go above the header, and I think now I know why. :) I've reformatted this one, and the bot seems to be handling it correctly now. I realize this could have been a one-off accident, but in case it was something you didn't know, I wanted to point it out to you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd stopped doing closures because I could see that one hanging, and I wasn't sure why. So I thought I'd wait to find out the problem before doing any more. I'm clear to go now! SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Merges

Thanks for the heads up. I obviously have no idea what I'm doing! But it looks like you've got it under control? Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was coming here to see if your offer to merge/redirect still stood, and checking your contribs, it looks like you've made good on your offer!. While I'm here, do you have any problems/qualms/additions to my close? I was trying to articulate what you had basically said already in your !vote and I'm hoping I came across correctly. Any opinions? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer did it. :) I just added the R from merge tags. I think your closure was worded just fine. It's tough when there's multiple outcomes. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (I now see the Drewcifer diffs). Appreciate your reply! It's always good to get feedback, even if it's solicited :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You sooooo much! Henslee57 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help

Thank you very much indeed for your comments and suggestions in the Avanti Construction entry. I have now addressed all the concerns raised and I shall look forward to the outcome of the review.

I very much appreciate your advice.

Kind regards

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for fixing my bad on the page that I merged. Next time I will read the instructions!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelmadatter (talk • contribs) 28 February 2008

You're welcome. :) As I mentioned, it's a common mistake. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Albums

You're a fucking whore,

what the fuck is your problem? you issue threats when there is no cause you stupid bitch, what gives you the right to do that? You are a wikipedia editor, fuck you, you cunt.

--Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)--Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your help has been really appreciated

Dear Moonriddengirl

Most sincere thanks for your comments at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avanti_Construction

I have now added the date of the start and have improved the entry. I am really enjoying this Wikipedian activity and I am learning so much.

Thank you very much indeed for your advice and help.

Kind regards

--Machiavelli2008 (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job improving the article and in following through the processes. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I just wanted to apologise for the way that i acted in my earlier post, i did so with out thinking, and if i were to revise my post, i would do so without the intense use of expletives that i did use. If i offended anyone, please let me know on my talk page, and i will apologise directly, and once again, i am sorry. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To Moonriddengirl

Moonrise by Stanisław Masłowski (1853-1926)

A moonrise painting for you. May you continue to rise above adversity and shine with your own true light. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :D How beautiful! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Touché

Since the recent conversation has nothing to do with me, I guess my one observation comment was more than enough. But I was so tempted to point out the same thing you did. I'm glad you mentioned it. ;-) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :D I appreciate the comment that you did make there. Peculiar behavior. We'll see how it plays out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about ARV

I reported IP 209.191.2.178 just a moment ago, and you responded very quickly (thank you for that). This IP has previously been blocked for vandalism and has continued to do so after the block was lifted. Once a block is lifted, is the user back at "square one" and should receive a first warning, second warning, final warning, etc. all over again, or should they be reported for any vandalism after a block has been lifted? I apologize if this is mentioned in WP policy, but I've never read it anywhere. Thanks for your help! Editortothemasses (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) My usual rule of thumb with IPs is "it depends." If they return immediately and show the same pattern, I jump rather quickly to a level 3 or greater (especially if it's exactly the same thing). I would not start again at level 1 unless there had been a relatively long gap, since the idea is that IPs may not always be the same editors. I suspect that this user is heading to another block, and if they vandalize again in the next couple of days should probably be blocked without further warning. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Coaching

In theory you register at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to be a coach. Then either a user finds you or the coaching coordinator nudges the user in your direction. The coord over the last year was moving into a long-term wikibreak, but now that I've start filling some of her role, coaches on Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status should start seeing people come their way. MBisanz ^talk 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. :) I'll go look into it. My efforts at adopting didn't work out so well, but that's primarily because people seeking adoption aren't always serious about it. My one "adoptee" disappeared almost immediately after signing up. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A yarn

Thank you for addressing this situation. Kind of perplexing to wake up in the morning to a random attack from a stranger. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Odd. Comments on the ANI, and Meursault's response do knit a yarn. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool

From what I have seen since, it appears to have been one of my better judged supports. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Relisting

Huh. I relisted but apparently I didn't actually relist; I just meant to, according to that summary. Sigh, I've gone insane. Thanks for the help! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, thanks for bringing tears to my eyes. :'( Thanks for the note though; I should know proper merge procedure, seeing as I've actually merged articles in the past. Maybe that's the problem; I only performed merges, didn't leave notes for them. Anyway, thanks for stalking mentoring me! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Admin coaching

{{Talkback}} Thanks! Midorihana^~iidesune? 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Merging

Thank you for your advice. I'm not sure I was necessarily proposing a merge when I opened the AfD; I merely cited it as one possibility. In any case, there's barely any useful information on that page to be merged into another page. Also, when/if I merge that page, how does it get deleted afterwards, or does it? --Michael White^T·C 06:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I didn't do it myself... --Michael White^T·C 15:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Baphomets Throne

You're right. I hadn't found anything conclusive. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good for you for trying anyway. :) I believe in giving articles every possible chance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Danvers

Hello, Moonriddengirl. This is up for deletion review. BlueAzure contends the claims to notability are not supported by reliable sources. At a glance, it looks OK to me. Can you walk me through so I better understand the Keep rationale? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I was persuaded personally by pornstar bio criterion #2, "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature." For me, it comes down to his role in Grunts, an award-winning film, in which he has 3rd billing (here). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Plot Keywords: Verbal Abuse / Sex With Foreign Object / Uniform / Shaving / Soldier". Just another day ensuring every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge... — iridescent 12:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So glad to know I'm part of this life enriching experience. Dlohcierekim 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has taught me more about the world of gay porn than I ever expected to know. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

I've read the entire AN/I thread (or I did earlier today), and the DRV, and to be quite honest, this is pointless.

Why is there even a DRV? The articles were restored. Once they're translated, they can be moved. I was asked to restore them by someone who said he would translate them himself. This is ridiculous. DS (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 IP reports

Hello Moonriddengirl, and thanks for clarification. I'm only recently starting to help patrolling Wikipedia, So I still get the policies wrong from time to time. In this specifically case I thought about reporting only after the second IP vandalized in the same (close enough) way the same article. And I realized it could be someone hopping on computers inside an university. It is in my watch list and I will escalate the warnings as it goes, if it happens.

Now a question, if another IP from the same domain do the same vandalizing on that article, can I issue a level 2 or 3 warning, or do I have to issue a level 1?. Thanks Samuel Sol (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No problem. I know there's a learning curve. :) When an edit is made in obvious bad faith, you never have to go with level 1. Level 1 presumes that the contributor may not have meant to disrupt Wikipedia. I'd say if you get more of that, you should feel free to go with level 2. And, again, page protection is sometimes the best thing to do if you're seeing a lot of such activity. I protected the space on David Motari after the last incarnation of that article was deleted for reasons I have no doubt you understand. If a lot of different people are drawn to make the same kind of vandalism, it's easier than having to address them one at a time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Going to do that. Thanks for the help. Samuel Sol (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Boys for Pele comments & help

Thank you for your speedy review of the Boys for Pele article, also for providing a source for information on the song "Marianne". Pele is one of my all-time favorite albums, so expanding it into an article of good quality is an extreme pleasure. Thanks again! =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) It's always nice to assess an album article in such good shape. :D I like the album, too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

creepy crawly stalker harrassment

Hey there--I had hoped to spare you further drama until at least the springtime, but was not to be. Is there any way to eviscerate from my Wikipedia life the incessant, skin-crawlingly creepy stalking of Calton? He has, you may recall, been harassing me ever since I had the nerve to challenge his buddy Griot, the now departed mega sock puppeteer. Calton has filed false sock puppet cases against me and generally stalked my movement since. I filed a Wikiquette notice regarding his gratuitous personal attacks here, but apparently no one cares. No one as well seems to care about his using his cranky user page as a forum to attack and demean a real life person (a BLP issue I tried to address).

He put yet another a harassing message on my talk page here, which I deleted. He followed with a repeat, and additional vituperative bile here.

Filing Wikiquette complaints against this creepy, creepy editor, and his sleazy behavior, seem to be ignored. What to do?

Thanks again, Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've never had a conflict reach that point, but the next step seems to be Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment on users. If it's not possible to simply agree to ignore each other, that may be the best avenue to take. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Warren :)  ?

I would appreciate it if you would not delete my Warren :) page again. As far as I can see there could be no harm from having the page up, and no legitimate reason to have it removed. The act of removing the page is borderline unconstitutional, as it is a real part of our culture here, and should be respected as such. I can't imagine you removed pages concerning aliens, bigfoot, or Jesus, so it would be well appreciated if you would not remove Warren :).

kthanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawl55 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to delete the page myself, though I note that it's been deleted by four separate administrators now. Again, I'll suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article for some information on what is regarded as appropriate on the project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

David Motari

Hello. I see that you salted David Motari. Since you did so, an article has been created at Motari David about the same subject. Unfortunately, I could not find any basis on which to speedy it (it's clearly not an A7, in my view, and I think the reasonably thorough sourcing prevents it from being a G10), so I've taken it to AfD, where I doubt it will survive. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know about it, and also let you know that if you do perceive a valid speedy rationale (your protection of the original location suggests to me that you don't think a valid article could possibly be created on the subject), I wouldn't object to your speedying it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I salted it for a short period—in fact, the salting expires today—for BLP concerns raised here. Early creations of the article included the subject's address, for instance. I only salted it for a short period because I believed that given sufficient time to verify (or not) Motari's identity, the article might no longer be a BLP issue...even though it might remain a single-event article. I believe that in its new form the article still represents a BLP issue in that the website containing Motari's alleged confession does not belong to the subject, but instead is apparently hosted by other individuals (Front page: here). I'm going to strip the material lacking reliable sourcing, but I don't know if the current incarnation is a speedy candidate. I'll weigh in at the AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if I unprotected David Motari to move Motari David there? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Protection expires in three hours and some change anyway. But don't delete the redirect, please, as I've linked it at BLPN. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc Glasgow's speedied the article anyway; he didn't actually cite a valid speedy rationale, but I'm tempted to WP:IAR on this anyway. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I guess IAR isn't necessary per this. Anyway, I'm sure it'll crop up at DRV at some point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Very likely. I think it's a good deletion, and I'm not surprised that Doc did it. :) I would probably have deleted if I had not already been involved in protecting the article at the last space and if it were a little more clearly in vio of BLP. Like you, I didn't see it as speediable. (Even in google news, the name hits 11 right now. On the web, it's got 29,600. And the article did not definitely identify Motari as the perpetrator.) But I don't believe Wikipedia should be contributing to it, and I applaud you for ferreting it out to begin with and Doc for flushing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi, I noticed you were coaching User:-Midorihana-. Would you care to join the admin coaching project as a coach? If interested, then add yourself here. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably. :) I'll see how my first experience goes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, best of luck. =D. Malinaccier (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice, please re an editor deleting text and leaving an impolite message =

You were really helpful when I started a page on the novel Runemarks. I started again and thought I did a lot better, but was startled to find that another editor RHaworth had deleted large chunks of text and left an {{Advert}} tag and an impolite message. I think it's called biting in Wikipedia talk. And now I find that someone else has just blanked the page completely (even though I had a "underconstruction" sign up. I've restored the page for the moment but need advice. Obviously I need to edit the text to work within the novel project guidelines. But I thought the guidelines for editing behaviour suggest that editors who think text needs revising should say so on the talk page first. I also read somewhere that there are guidelines about not biting newbies (which neither of the editors who have attacked the Runemarks page seems to be paying any attention to). Runemarks, as a novel, fulfills the notability criteria for both the author and the number of copies sold. I started the page because it interested me and I wanted to try my hand at Wikipedia, and I've told a few people who've also read the book about it and suggested that they might like to contribute. They can't do that if it keeps getting deleted. Advice, please. I feel well and truly bitten.--Plad2 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Let me take a look and see if I can offer any assistance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The blanking of the page was probably either a mistake or simply vandalism. The IP that blanked the page has no history of editing, as you can see here. That probably means it's either a new contributor who wanted to edit the page but couldn't figure out how or some kid playing games. I've left the editor a message (here). It's a friendly message, because we assume good faith to begin with. If they persist in blanking material without explanation, we treat them according to vandalism guidelines. This means they receive a series of escalating warnings and, once they've continued disrupting the process after a final warning, may report them to WP:AIV for administrator intervention. As far as conversation prior to revision, no, any editor can alter the text in any Wikipedia article that is not protected as long as those alterations remain within guidelines. We are encouraged to be bold in editing. If a change is likely to be controversial, it should generally be discussed. The material that was removed was problematic with regards to our neutrality policies. We are not allowed to praise books, although we can quote reviews that do. We're just here to report what others have said. The tag left is not intended to bite, but to draw attention of other editors to existing problems with tone. I think that the editor who removed the non-neutral text probably took care of that and that the {{advert}} tag is not necessary. Neither the tag nor the removal of text constitutes biting, although the edit summary was probably not as friendly as it might have been. Our civility policy suggests ignoring it if possible and focusing on the contributions rather than the tone. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. And for replying so promptly. I certainly feel better. I've removed the advert tag for now and am actively engaged with rewriting to fall within the guidelines.--Plad2 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy if I could help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion Review

I wanted to thank you for all the help you've given in the deletion review discussion I initiated. You've been great in trying to initiate a dialog with the deleting admin, even if they haven't been so responsive. I know I'm not making a lot of friends when I take up causes like this but I really feel foreign language articles should be given a chance and shouldn't be irresponsibly speedied contrary to policy. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you looking out for the project, even if it doesn't make you popular. :) I'm typically pro-policy myself and am disappointed that conversation didn't resolve anything. Oh, well. I guess it can't always. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Booksfree

Hi Moonriddengirl, I'm not sure how this works. Are you willing to write and article on Booksfree?

Booksfree (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I'm probably not the best person to help you out with this. As I mentioned at the drawing board, you might want to look for a Wikipedia:WikiProject to see if you can get assistance there. I typically do not write articles on businesses and would not unless I was 100% sure the company I was considering met our notability guidelines for companies as demonstrated through widespread, significant references in secondary sources. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, you have a chance to find editors who are experienced in such matters who might be willing and able to craft such an article. That said, I see that they recommend on their talk page that you post your request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics/Businesses and Organizations. I'm willing to bet that if you can provide links to websites that verify notability there, you'll have a much better chance of finding somebody willing to undertake the article's creation. Good luck with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IP block

My apologies ... I just got the bits last week, and going indef was a visceral reaction to all the vandalism. Locking them down for a year ... Blueboy96 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge question

Since you seem to know what you're doing with merging/AfD's/all that stuff, I thought I'd ask you a question: if an article has been merged into another article (which saves its history, talk page, etc), should all of the WikiProject banners and what not be taken off the old article's talk page since it's basically a glorified redirect at this point? Thanks for any help you might be able to give me. Drewcifer (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) It depends on the reason for the merge, generally, and what the article is. I'd probably remove the WikiProject banners--or at least remove the article grading, since they'll no longer apply. If there's a chance that the article may be later split, I wouldn't remove the WikiProject banners. If you'd like me to get more specific, just point me to the article and I'll give you my opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got more to add to this. I've done a couple of mergers yesterday where I decided to neutralize the banner until and unless the article is split out again. I just put "tl|" inside the template, like so: {{album}}. This might not be a bad idea in general to keep an article from showing up as needing to be reviewed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so much for the advice. Drewcifer (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. In one occasion there I participated you provided an outside opinion. Now, I would like to ask similar thing. Initially I filled 3rd party request, however it was unlisted, because at the end were involved more party editors (currently inactive again). Later, I added RfC, but for some reason it is not working (as I understand due to bot problems). In other words, I desperately need outside opinion, in regards about one specific sentence, which is may contradict to WP:NOR and WP:V. If you can help, please see here for further details. I would be much obliged, M.K. (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I hope that you will monitor (if possible) further developments about specific issue.Thanks again, M.K. (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on it and will certainly contribute further to the conversation if I'm able. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sportin' Life

I'm not clear on why adding a link to a site with lyrics is a copyright violation. The lyrics aren't on a Wikipedia page. SpanishStroll (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. My bad. I see how this could violate a copyright. Sorry. SpanishStroll (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Devil May Cry Demons

...nowhere in the arguments for deletion was the claim that notability was inherited - that was a strawman that those pushing deletion came up with. Those urging for keeping the article came up with direct quotes for both creation and reception. All of the reasons that led to the article's deletion were strawmen, and I provided direct examples as to why they were untrue (while those pushing deletion just kept saying that it violated GUIDE, without ever giving an example). Could you please tell me where to find information on getting a deletion re-looked at? I also asked for some time to be allowed to address the problems, as we were given no prior notice, and it was the middle of exam week.

As also explained in the AfD, the article is completely redundant on the DMC wiki - we already have all that information, and more. As such, I am deleting it on the DMC wiki, as it is completely redundant and useless there.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the indication that notability is inherited is implicit in the argument advanced by Pixeface about spin-off articles. If you read the wikilink buried under WP:FICT (included in the close), the relevance of that comment may become more clear. Likewise, the relevance is perhaps demonstrated in the first link, relevant portion of which reads "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." You are welcome to take it to WP:DRV. Feel free to delete it from DMC wiki as you like. As regards your request for more time, this is certainly available to you if you choose to request that the material be userfied (which, also indicated in closure, I'd be happy to do.) If you wish the AfD closed against my reading of consensus, I'm afraid that I can't help you, and DRV may be your only recourse. If you're not familiar with it, please read over the procedure carefully before filing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it was a strawman argument that those pushing for deletion initially came up with. Pixelface may have been wrong in his rebuttal, but notability was clearly shown in other parts of the debate - I could in seconds find almost a screen full of quotes regarding development and reception from reliable sources, exactly what those pushing for deletion kept claiming couldn't be found.

Also, I'm having trouble finding the part of WP:FICT that you are talking about. Could you provide a quote or something to make it easier to find?

Thank you for informing me about DRV. Also, I already had copied it to my userspace, though the history was not preserved.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict X2. I'm going to get this down before reading & addressing any additional entries.) As far as pointing out DRV is concerned, no problem. I understand that the deletion is likely to be upsetting, since you obviously feel strongly that the article conforms to policy and guideline, and my reading of the AfD debate is by no means personal. I believe that the editors arguing for deletion, which greatly outnumbered the editors arguing to keep, were within policy and guidelines in doing so. Anyway, I'm sure that you already know that if you do use the userfied material as the basis of a new article, its history will need to be restored for GFDL compliance. If you decide to pursue DRV and it is decided there that there was not consensus to delete, that won't be an issue. If, however, it remains deleted and you are able to address the concerns, the offer to userfy still stands. Articles that are recreated after deletion debates may be speedily deleted if they are substantially the same and changes do not address the reasons for deletion. If changes do address that, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely. I wasn't trying to be obscure by linking; sorry if that was the result. :) I see on closer reading that I actually already did provide the quote I intended in the AfD close "WP:FICT indicates that "editors should strive to establish notability by providing as much real-world content as possible for...spinout articles."" As I indicated above, that comment & the text surrounding was directly related to the argument by Pixelface about the lack of need to demonstrate notability in spinout articles. The question of the sufficiency of sourcing is a separate issue; I wanted to be sure to explain why I do not believe that spinout is a reasonable explanation to advance in arguing that no verification of notability is required. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and P.S., I'm sorry that this came up during your exam week. It hasn't been so long since my last exams that I can't imagine how much that sucks. If it helps, just remember that the material is not permanently gone; it's just temporarily hidden and can be restored if you successfully appeal to DRV or if you create a "new, improved version of the article" (I'm quoting from WP:DRV there, under the section of History-only undeletion). It's not going anywhere in the meantime and should absolutely not be allowed to interfere with your exams. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but where was any consesus reached and any real reason raised for the deletion of the article that you just went ahead and deleted it? We raised multiple examples and reasons for it to be allowed more time to evolve and improve and we're just ignored? What the hell?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you have read the closure rationale or any of the above conversation gven your statement here that you weren't given a chance to salvage any of it. Not only did I transwiki it with its history (subsequently deleted by User:KrytenKoro who felt it redundant with information already there), but also offered to userfy the material, not only at the AfD but also above. That's about as much opportunity to salvage as I can offer. AfDs are routinely closed after 5 days. This one ran a little long because we have a backlog, but it is the job of an uninvolved administrator to read through the debate and determine rough consensus. Rough consensus, linked from the Deletion guidelines for administrators, indicates that "In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail." We keep this in mind, while discounting arguments that do not fall in line with policy or guidelines. I see 2.5 to 1 arguments for deletion. Some of the arguments for deletion are stronger within policy than others, just as some of the arguments for keep were more in line with policy than others, but there nevertheless seemed to be substantially more arguments for delete reliant on policy than arguments to keep. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you've read the comments then perhaps you can understand my comments where I linked to at least 3 separate articles that feature similarly to this one and yet remain unchanged nearly a year later while this one was put up for AfD after only a month during which time only two editors worked on it. We were never given a chance to bring it up but as it was it was still a fair article and as notable as anything like list of enemies in mario bros. I'm not trying to come off as agressive with you but it is frustrating that our arguements were ignored completely to arguements which did not prove lack of notability or lack of worthiness to exist on Wikipedia or simply those that said "Burn it in fire, its a game guide, die article die". Loosely translated. It was never a game guide and myself and Kryten never intended it to be anything of the sort. Its a brief article. Hell, theres a seperate list now JUST for Resident Evil 4 enemies. I feel that this article has been targeted and treated unfairly and given the stable and rational arguements given for saving it and giving it a chance to improve to some apparently high standards, its deletion was not warranted. Hell, Caribbean moved it from merge to AfD in like 2 days as if he had some personal grudge against it.

As for earlier comments, I didn't know you'd moved the data, for that I thank you as some of it was definetly worthy of saving despite what others think. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay in responding to you. I had quite a long work call, and it's hard for me to concentrate too much on other things during those. I can understand that it's frustrating, particularly after you've put so much work into it, and I would feel pretty put out myself if somebody proposed to "burn" one of the articles I had written. I do take your point about the three similar articles that were not targeted. I'm sure it feels very unfair. The problem is that arguments about similar articles are generally not helpful in deletion debates, because each article is evaluated on individual merit. (Behind that link is explanation why.) Sometimes Wikipedia can seem very arbitrary, particularly in terms of consensus in AfDs. I always think of the example of List of Indian women and List of Iranian women, which were nominated for deletion within a day or two of one another. One was deleted; the other was not. The articles were, so far as I could tell, substantially the same. As I pointed out to KrytenKoro above, the information is not gone, although it is not accessible to most Wikipedians. I believe that I assessed consensus fairly—I certainly tried to. I read through the arguments several times before tagging it "close" and then again another time before actualling closing it—but it's possible that other contributors to WP:DRV would disagree. Even if that isn't an avenue you choose to pursue or if you pursue it and fail, that does not mean that you can't utilize that material in a new article. As long as your new article addresses the concerns that created consensus in the AfD, it shouldn't be an issue. I would, however, strongly recommend that you work on it in user space until you feel sure that other editors will agree that it meets notability to avoid going through the whole debate over again or having it speedily deleted by WP:CSD#G4. I am still happy to put the article and its history into your userspace, if you'd like. (For the sake of convenience, I'm linking to the AfD discussion here.)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could give me the data, that would be great, I can see no way to obtain it from the deleted article. As for the article, I don't take it personally but am still agrieved. While I know that pointing out other articles of the same status is not a valid arguement it is still ridiculous to so agressively target this particular one, declaring it all unnotable and not even trying to salvage the notable ones. As stated, the other articles are similar if not exactly the same and RE is no more notable than Devil May Cry, not in a quantifiable way anyway so, as you said, when people attack the work almost with venom and seemingly without having actually read it (Again pointing out the "game guide" comments), it is frustrating that they still succeeded in robbing us of the chance to develop the article.

Anyway, thanks for being amiable about the situation, its CaribbeanHQ thats caused my issues not you so I apologise if I seemed agressive at all. Bye.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The article and its history are now at User:Darkwarriorblake/ List of Devil May Cry Demons (Hrmph. I put in an extra space. :/) I certainly understand why you'd be aggravated by having an article deleted. I hope that having the material userfied will give you what you need to continue your work in a way that won't encounter the same troubles. It's obvious that you put quite a lot of time and effort into it. I'm sure it's not much comfort, but please note that even some of the contributors who argued for deletion on notability cocnerns commented on how well done it was. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks againDarkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)