User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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
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 →→→
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 [[1]] 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

Updated DYK query 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://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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 WhiteT·C 06:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I didn't do it myself... --Michael WhiteT·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)