User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

ISP info?

Not sure why you added that ISP info to my talk page. I've removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.244.157 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've re-added it. It's to let other users who later get your IP address that they aren't being accused of the vandalism that was carried out by prior users of that IP. It's also to let administrators know that your IP address is likely going to eventually be controlled by someone else. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

and I've deleted it once again. my nephew was the one going haywire on wikipedia and he shares my IP. I'm undoing his vandalism now. please don't readd it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.244.157 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Barek

My post on Barek's talk page wasn't an attack, it was a virtual slap upside the head. Don't threaten me with your empty promises! I'm not afraid of you! I am a bagel baker! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BagelsbytheDozen (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Respons to January 2009

I want to delete that Unwanted article. How do I do it? I wrote the article myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomEnigmaReborn (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No you didn't, User:DanBLOO did. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did, I wrote it myself!!!! So don't accuse me of not creating it!!!--RandomEnigmaReborn (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted you reversion

Hi. I noticed that you did this just as I was leaving a welcome message at the anon you were reverting's Talk page. The anon was replacing a deadlink with a live link to a cached page. Test his/her version of the link and then test the one you reverted to. You'll see what the anon was up to. I reverted your reversion and removed your warning from the anon's Talk page. Aside from that, I wish you happy vandal-hunting; it's going to be a long night. Tally ho! --Dynaflow babble 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Lectonar (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wausau East High School

I noticed you placed a cleanup tag at Wausau East High School. You might want to consider restoring my cleanup edits that have been reverted multiple times by other editors. (I don't want to violate WP:3RR). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I already have. :-) I'd done this in reaction to your listing at WP:EAR.

Also, just an FYI, you might want to be more careful about how you ask for these sorts of things, because requesting that someone else revert for you so you don't get busted for WP:3RR comes off as canvassing. I don't think that was your intent in this case, but I just thought I'd let you know. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Just frustrating when you're clearly in "right", but feel hampered by 3RR.... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's part of the reason 3RR exists; I'm sure the other user feels he/she is in clearly the right as well, and rather than an endless war, one of you were forced to ask at WP:EAR. It happens to everyone at one time or another. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I made comments on Blightsoot and Ed Bauder's page regarding your statements about their votes. It's very apparent that I didn't understand what you were doing, so I apologize for butting in! It's been a very frustrating roller-coaster ride, especially trying to learn everything about Wikipedia's policies on hyperspeed. Sorry about jumping in. Kallimina (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, Wikipedia has a steep learning curve at times. My advice if you're interested in learning the status quo for deletion arguments is to look at other deletion discussions started around the same time as Threshold's. You can find the full-day's log of nominations here. While most cases aren't as hotly debated as Threshold, it may be helpful to look at how other cases are generally discussed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading up on it as well as older, hotly contested articles. Do you think it's better to just give up? Personally, this doesn't really affect Threshold's usage/playerbase or much of anything in the long run, but I'm genuinely worried for other muds that hold a prominent places in the mudding community like Threshold, but are running into our citation problems. As I posted on someone else's page, here is a list of citations I've dug up for Threshold:

* Computer Gaming World: August 1, 2001 - Top 10 Free Online Games

* http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=2046 - 10 year anniversary

* Giochi per il Mio Computer - May 2007

* http://www.raphkoster.com/category/gametalk/ - Raph's blog about Threshold and the Wikipedia situation "My real intent here is the larger issue — though I consider Threshold notable, I would have real trouble proving it to Wikipedia editors, whereas I could readily provide evidence for LegendMUD’s notability."

At this point, I honestly have no idea how to proceed, and I'm starting to think that it's not even worth the fight. (Many MUDs that have met the same fate with more players than Threshold - since Thresh is for 18+ and roleplay enforced - have had their articles deleted and simply moved on.) Is that simply the fate of muds on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallimina (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm thinking this is becoming more and more of a moot point. As is typical with a hot AfD, sources just start coming out of the woodwork. The whole discussion has me wondering if there'll be proposal for new notability guidelines for online games and memes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If this happens, where would the new policy go, or would it go in as an essay to a pre-existing policy? How often do hot AfDs come up? I know you probably disagree with this, but I feel like it's unlikely that Threshold would have been able to generate sources or a hot AfD is it wasn't somewhat notable. You can't really make something out of nothing, can you? Of course, I haven't been around Wikipedia that long, so don't how the heck these things operate. Kallimina (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an old proposal for a notability guideline for toys and games, which I think would have been the operative one. But it never gained consensus; my reading is that it failed because it wouldn't have filtered out or included anything that otherwise would have met WP:GNG. Another possibility is proposing a change to WP:INTERNET. I have no experience in doing this though, and wouldn't know where to start.

My main concern has been and remains the quality of the sources being used to attest to Threshold's notability. One thing I'll say is that other notability guidelines frequently establish special handling guidelines for special cases, where WP:GNG would never support the inclusion of a likely notable topic. WP:ATHLETE and WP:MUSIC are two cases. The former permits the inclusion of all professional athletes, the latter permits the inclusion of charted albums.

In retrospect, there may be an argument for including Threshold based on systemic bias. It would seem to me a novel interpretation of the concept; in my limited experience with WP:BIAS keeps, it's usually applied to topics where information about the article's subject would be in another language and largely inaccessible on the web. The concept being that because a large proportion of Wikipedians are occidental males in a certain age range, topics of interest to people outside of any of those demographic bands will be less-covered. Of course, I'm not sure how valid that would be; I'd suggest talking to more experienced people about it if you feel like pursuing that route. It seems to me that it might be a route for the MUD community to get WP:INTERNET amended. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know. It seems like Wikipedians (the serious editors) kind fall under the same category as Mudders. Though the WP:BIAS could be used to protect the amigurumi page, I guess. My concept of notability is completely skewed now from this experience. What's the difference between a stub and something that needs to be AfDed? Kallimina (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, notability in Wikipedia terms is considered entirely independently of an article's content. So, even if an article is huge, it may be non-notable. For example, Midlothian Country Club is a one-sentence article with absolutely no sources. While this is a problem, I'm reasonably sure an AfD would end in a speedy keep because it's a pretty trivial matter to show that sources either exist or are likely to exist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the amigurumi page? It's got a quite a bit of info, but a lot of it is kind of crufty, I think. It is, however, nearly impossible to source. The majority of the books people have are in Japanese, and the few books that are out are mostly pattern books. It IS a huge movement within crocheting circles with at least 5 books being published in the last year about the subject. It's just taking its sweet time getting to the U.S. What would be the standard procedure there? AfD? Wait for more sources? Try to translate? Kallimina (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and post some views to the talk page. But to answer your question, AfD likely wouldn't be appropriate- while AfD frequently has the effect of cleaning up and adding sources to an article, it's kind of a faux pas to nominate an article for deletion for the express purpose of drumming up sources. While it's not considered abuse of process per se, it would likely result in a speedy close.

Here are some suggestions for finding sources:

1. Ask for help at WP:EAR; this is the most general assistance noticeboard (I troll there from time to time and help out). However it's relatively low-traffic I've found and it's kind of hit-or-miss as to whether you'll actually get help.
2. Ask for help at a relevant WikiProject's talk page. I'm guessing WT:JAPAN would be the best one, and at worst you'd get redirected to another page where you can ask.
3. Poke around at similar articles' talk pages.
4. If you have non-English sources and are capable at translating Japanese, it's perfectly acceptable to use them.
5. In other cases, if you can translate, it's usually helpful to check out the Japanese-language Wikipedia page. However, it looks like the page on あみぐるみ is woefully small.

I hope this helps some! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could translate. Unfortunately, Japanese is not my thing. I'm not interested in deleting this article, but I'm at a loss at how to preserve it without the necessary citations. It could use a re-write as well. Would that help extend its life until other people can help source it? (Not to say that it's in any danger, but you never know.) Kallimina (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Easiest thing to do is find some notable mention of it somewhere, even if it's in an offline book, and add some statements about the subject. One statement supported by two reliable sources, even if the sources are just used to confirm the definition of the subject, should be enough to prevent someone from reasonably nominating it for deletion. Even a "Further reading" section with citations to books on the subject would probably be enough to do it. And if you aren't really sure how to appropriately do it in the article, you can just post the book titles (and if available, ISBNs) to the talk page; someone may come along later to do the legwork, and it'll discourage someone from starting a deletion discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! By the way, any idea why the blanked the original AfD discussion on Threshold? Kallimina (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. As to the AfD, I have no idea why a courtesy blank was carried out; it was apparently done by an OTRS volunteer. Why the page history should need to be deleted is a mystery to me, but in my experience OTRS always has good reason for its actions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's some discussion of the blanking here, but it's not very informative. My vague recollection is that someone referred to some past allegations of personal misconduct by a named individual. My guess is that OTRS had a good reason to remove that comment but did not have a good reason to blank the entire discussion. We peasants will never know. JamesMLane t c 11:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not surprised that OTRS would be secretive about the reasons. I really have no idea why the cblank was requested or why all the revisions needed to be deleted, but considering the nature of some comments made there I can't say I'm surprised. I do think it's unfortunate because I recall a link to a certain eZine (whose name has eluded me) which might be useful for referencing MUD articles. More than likely all the revisions had to be deleted to prevent misrepresenting what went on in the debate or prevent allegations of administrative censorship in support of a certain wiki-political camp. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Teatime? Your advice sought

I appreciate your taking the time to comment at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User:Hrafn. Nevertheless, I must respond that I feel your comment reflects a bit of the automatic "a plague on both your houses" reaction that editors sometimes feel when reading a highly contentious discussion.

I agree with you that personal attacks are pointless. I don't agree with you, however, that I should have focused on the article. I cared more about the procedure than about the specific question of whether Missler is notable. Here's part of what I said to Hrafn at Talk:Chuck Missler: "So, Question One is whether Missler is notable, and Question Two is what process Wikipedia should use to arrive at an answer to Question One. My answer to Question Two is that our process is the AfD." That was the point I emphasized.

Hrafn's tone on Talk:Chuck Missler definitely irritated me. I tried not to respond in kind, however, but to address on the merits of the argument. If you can point to any particular comment of mine on that page that you think reflects excessive focus on Hrafn, and suggest how I should have made the same substantive point, I'd be interested in your perspective. Feel free to email me if you don't want to address such details publicly. JamesMLane t c 11:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take another look at the situation. Preliminarily, I'll say that while I understand your position on process- that if you had a disagreement on whether the subject was notable, normally AfD would be the venue to hash it out. However, at present it's frowned upon to take merge/redirect requests to AfD, and such requests may be speedily kept. I know that at WT:AFD there is currently an RFC going on to try and redefine the AfD process to be more open to things like redirect nominations. In some respects, I feel like it's a bad situation for both of you. From your standpoint, Hrafn's redirection without discussion looks like an attempt to do an end-run around the sort of "notability investigation" that should happen in an AfD, and since it would appear to be POINTy for you to bring it to AfD, you can't really get a proper discussion done. From his perspective, you're trying to push him into a redirect AfD nomination, which is likely to get speedily closed or otherwise end in keep.

So what process is correct? I'm frankly not sure. If I get you correctly, your concern is, as I said above, that a redirect can be used to do an end-run around the discussion of notability that generally occurs at AfD. I'm honestly not sure if Talk:Chuck Missler is the right place to discuss such a broad issue, especially since the desire is to get uninvolved editors in on it. While you made the right step by going to WP:EAR, I think WT:AFD or maybe WP:VPP/WP:VPR would be the better venues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that some AfD participants don't consider a redirect a plausible outcome. I see that it's expressly approved in the limited circumstance when salting is necessary: A possible close is "protecting the page as a redirect to another article" (per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Protecting deleted pages). In this particular case, however, that doesn't get around the dilemma you note, because Hrafn would presumably have no reason for wanting the Missler page salted.

I had been thinking about a posting at WT:DEL, which seems more general than WT:AFD, but the pump pages you mention are also good alternatives. Thanks for the suggestions! At the moment, I've already spent far too much time on this, so I won't be raising the issue anywhere for several days.

In addition, I plan to avoid any WP:TEA issues by not getting involved in the content editing of the Missler article, a process that would require me to attempt to cooperate with Hrafn. I don't care enough about any Missler-specific issues to subject myself to that. It's unfortunate that editors who conduct themselves the way Hrafn does are more likely to get their way, but I'm hardly the first to notice that problem. JamesMLane t c 06:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as to posting at WT:DEL instead of WT:AFD, I don't believe the deletion policy says anything about how the AfD process is governed, beyond perhaps that there should be one. I've personally been active at WT:AFD recently because of a number of proposals and an RfC going on there to try and revamp the process considering the negative media attention it's gotten (not specifically in re certain recent AfDs, but in general). I'd actually made a proposal there about merging AfD with WP:PM (which is depressingly low-traffic). In any case, if you do post a proposal or something like that feel free to drop me a note and I'd be glad to comment on it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Talkarchivehist

Hi. I responded to your question at Template talk:Talkarchivehist#Usage for incrementally archived pages?; I'm not sure if you saw it. For an example of a non-useful diff, try the original vs archive diff link on any of your User talk archives. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Review: Requesting permanent deletion of a revision that violates my IP rights

Hi, you resolved this issue on the admin page. But, if you have time, maybe you could take a look at my comment. Thanks, --Steve (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I marked it as resolved because it appeared that it was appropriately handled. If you feel otherwise you may want to replace the "resolved" with {{unresolved}}. But to be honest, I think the replies since yours sum up the situation better than I can. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please

hello,can you give me comments on my edits?thank you.Jamiebijania (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All I really have to say is copying and pasting a long timeline of cloning in the article on Dolly is inappropriate as that article is not about Cloning in general. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Sigma RBI logo.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Sigma RBI logo.svg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering it's PD-textlogo I'm not sure why this is necessary, but done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Sig

Thank your for your concern, however, despite the large font, I do not think that the large font, in combination with the small number of letters in it will cause a problem, and as this is the only complaint I have received in the very long time that I have used it, I think I will keep it for now, but thank your for voicing your concerns. --( fi ) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You sent me a message???

I don't get it. I got your message, but I did not see anything about me there. Could you please point it out for me? Love- Linda Mancia (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

whois

Not a problem. I hadn't checked the template page in a while (I started doing that a long time ago) and at that time {{whois}} didn't have the no-subst warning on it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain

Sorry,i do not think that i created a page (Wrath Of Dolly)(refer to Jamiebijania (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)).Can you please reply to me on my talk page?Thank you.Jamiebijania (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

National_bankruptcy

thank for your remark. the first chapter should be the (short)introduction, as in the German original, but i have no idea how to move it. Could you help me. as the index/is generated automatically , i dont see it in the edit page, though can put something before the index. --81.184.117.103 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC) --Stefanbcn (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

just solved the problem . i hope its not to short--Stefanbcn (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, just that the page needs to be referenced now, otherwise we can't tell where the info comes from. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Denis wood_bio'

Mendelev:

First, a happy new year to you. Welcome back, I think, to the arduous work of the wiki'.

On my page of the new denis wood bio' I'm getting a mistaken ref./error message which I've tried to fix but could not. when you have a chance ... would you look and tell me what to do?

I think the new Bio' is in sufficiently good shape that we can ask the creator of the older page if we cand do delete his page and substitute this one. I wrote Wood and asked for a photograph that can be uploaded if you wish a photograph with the page.

Tom Koch--Tomkoch (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)