User talk:Mangojuice: Difference between revisions

</nowiki> ----->

Archives
15,000,000,000 BC – 17 Feb 2006 17 Feb 2006 – 17 Apr 2006 17 Apr 2006 – 10 May 2006

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message; I'll write back to you on this page, unless you request otherwise. Thanks!!

Seeing as you are such an advocate of deletion, perhaps you could tell me how I go about deleting one of my own sandbox pages? I was creating a document, decided to use my sandbox so as to not have a "work in progress" available for all to see and now that I have moved the content to the actual page itself (sadly I didn't use move which I now realise I should have), I am left with the original. Any help would be appreciated Enigmatical 23:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I didn't realize "new" meant the original article. I've also sent "Ombudsman" a note to see if the person will self-identify. The organization appreciates the entry!

Sylvia

I read your well-considered review of deletion policy guidelines and then, somewhat defensively, posted the additional paragraph noting that I had never made such a nomination before. You make all very useful points—indeed, with hundreds of short-lived, shortsighted and short-on-words vanity pieces up for deletion on a continuous basis, it probably seems churlish of me to single out a year-old article on a subject I care about, that someone took so much time and effort to type up. Unfortunately, however, that's all our anonymous user did—type it up. Many great TV shows of the black-and-white era deserve episode lists: Playhouse 90, Studio One, Kraft Television Theatre, Matinee Theatre, Naked City, Route 66, The Defenders, even Ozzie and Harriet. However, I wouldn't even attempt one of such lists unless I had something original to contribute—exegesis, analysis of individual episodes, etc, such as, yes, Buffy and Pokemon enthusiasts contributed. Having said (written?) that, if Wikipedians don't object to the list's exorbitant kilobyte use, it probably deserves to stay. I simply wanted to find out if anyone out there cared one way or the other—the lack of any real editing history over its 12-month lifetime is pretty dispiriting. In my one editing attempt, I changed some cast names in the first season listings to indicate the episodes' major stars and added links to the actors' names, but came to the realization that even if I did it for all 268 episodes (plus the other, unfinished, list that should eventually contain the 93 hour-long episodes), it would still contain a lot less information than a simple IMDb link. But you're right, of course, it makes more sense to improve it (expand it?—it's already too long) than to delete it. One suggestion might be that a Hitchcock specialist should reduce the list to just the 17 half-hour and 1 one-hour episodes directed by Hitch himself (plus an episode each of Ford Star Time and Suspicion that he also directed). Alternately, this list can just be left alone and a new one, selectively short, but detailed, created. Romanspinner (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MJ, why d'ya start this bugger off with a test4? what'd he do that was so vile? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance with vandal User:65.41.222.73. Ian Cairns 05:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:198.53.106.160 - this guy has done nothing but vandalism - his talk page has something like 4 warnings to stop vandalizing pages (for some reason this guy arbitrarily vandalized my talk page)... anyways I hope he's been dealt with accordingly. --Bri 12:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I know a great deal about philosophy and utilitarism. Do you? That section of the article is COMPLETELY WRONG: Deontological focus more on intentions than utilitarism, and Mill's utilitarism focus on facts.

I hate saying that this way, but I don't have enough English ability to reedit the full section. So please, for the good of the Wikipedia, correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.54.106 (talk • contribs)

Look, August Kreis was kicked out of Aryan Nations in the mid 90's. He's been running an organization called aryan-nations since. He has more time on his hands (since he is on welfare and unemployment for his purple foot caused by diabetes) to edit these pages. Pastor Butler kicked him out, and would be pissed off that August is still trying to take the name. The "faction" led by Jonathon Williams holds the legal title to Aryan Nations (the organization does it's taxes through the name Aryan Nations and holds the legal right).

I understand that the people running this web-site don't give a damn about this bickering, just please take some more time to examine the facts.

Take for example the fact that aryan-nations shows on their web-site their support for terrorists, and other religions (asutra, creativity, islam, etc). Aryan Nations is a strongly patriotic White only, Christian only church.

I am not a sock puppet to WoW so please unblock me.. May you please unblock me.. I am not a sock puppet to WoW. I don't even know what that is! 66.25.132.168 is a school IP! There are many students that use this site. And if the IP is blocked indefently, That means no one can contribute to Wikipedia! Please unblock me.

Hi,

Thanks for the notice. I have already discussed the issue with the nominator on his talk page. He has agreed to move it to AfD. Thanks again. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll watch your page for replies)

Just wanted to let you know that I moved it to Afd after your deprod. We have a perfectly good category for this, so I really don't see any use for the list (after the few redlinks have been made into stub articles). My prod was not aimed at getting the article improved; I think it should be deleted. -- Hirudo 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is the "someone should make stubs out of these redlinks" thing is pretty ridiculous on a prod. The expected outcome would have been that no stubs get made and the article is deleted, because prod is especially designed for people to not look at it very much. AfD on the other hand attracts a lot of attention, so in an AfD nomination, there is at least a chance that someone will do that work if you won't. But in any case, the deletion process isn't good for things like that; if you want to request that those articles be made, better to list them at articles for creation. Mangojuice^talk 00:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about those redlinks, that was a not so smart move on my part. I think it's more important to get rid of the list than to get those articles created though. -- Hirudo 00:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(PS: I left you a reply about Bitter & Twisted on my talk page. I wasn't sure if you'd be watching my page for replies or not so I'm just mentioning it) -- Hirudo 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another article that could easily have been kept/merged on AfD. You should really be more careful when throwing around labels like "non-notable." If you go by the guideline definition of notable, from WP:MUSIC, Area-7 is notable. They have three major albums and many EPs. Also, the norm seems to be that albums do get their own article, so I would suspect that an AfD would more likely go the way of "keep," and I wouldn't be surprised if the articles on the albums get restored eventually. Mangojuice^talk 00:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Area-7 is nn. I said the album in question wasn't. And as far as I can tell only a small subset of albums get their own article (too many still in my opinion, but that's another matter) -- Hirudo 00:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was a non-notable album from a non-notable band. Regardless, though, album pages exist for a great many albums, take a look throught the categories. But a different matter is whether the community supports deleting articles about albums if they aren't notable... and I've never seen an example except when the album was vanity-published or the artist didn't meet WP:MUSIC. But when I say be careful, I really mean, be careful in prods to be sure your arguments are totally mainstream. Mangojuice^talk 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no I did not. To cut and paste directly from the page: "nn album by notable band. does not need its own article". But that's of little importance now anyway. You may be right that most albums are kept (though from looking through the Afd logs there seem to be plenty of people on both sides of the issue; the fact that in case of doubt keep is preferred is rather unfortunate but I can't change that), but until it's official consencus I will occasionally put one up for prod or Afd to see if the situation has improved yet. -- Hirudo 01:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, sorry, I misread you. My apologies. Anyway, my request is to please not "test" the situation through prod, do it through AfD until it's settled. Until then it is de facto controversial, and prod is for non-controversial deletions. Mangojuice^talk 01:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I can go along with your Afd suggestion for situations like this. -- Hirudo 03:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is a boy who died at the age of 16, leaving his wife pregnant. As far as I can see, this is all we know about him, or are ever going to know; and it is mentioned under Earl of Devon and elsewhere. Thank you for noting the links to the page; they do not refer to this Baldwin de Redvers, but to his grandfather, the first Earl. I will put in a redirect, on that basis.

Thank you for notifying me. Septentrionalis 00:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You marked this as a potential copyright infringement despite the fact that the copyright holder has already granted permission as noted on the talk page. Even cursory examination would have revealed that www.rebuilder.com and www.americanneuropathyassociation.com are the same site. I have reverted your inappropriate tagging. Please exercise more caution in flagging potential copyright infringements in the future. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forgot that there's a parameter for that template. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 05:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mangojuice, thanks for your notification. I won't AfD it for now - I trust your judgement that it meets the notability guidelines. Cheers, Tangotango 06:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. There are so many specialized aspects of Wikipedia that most of us come across only rarely, or never. It's hard to get something like 'deleting a category' correct on the first try. Uucp 15:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. He's already at AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One may not userfy until the appropriate deletion process has taken place per WP:UFY. Litte-known policy. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome is obvious, consider CSD. Whether something should be copied to the userspace is peripheral to the fact that in order to remove a whole article from the mainspace, some process is due. That's why they call it "due process" :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a substitute for regular deletion processes
Userfication should not be used as a substitute for other deletion processes. Although an article that is subject to speedy deletion can just as easily be userfied, an article that does not meet speedy deletion criteria must go through an appropriate deletion process before being removed from the main article space." - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I better reflect that fact here [1] - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And think, even if you do userfy, you still need admin action to rmv the cross-namespace redirect! Might as well go through with the CSD instead of taking unilateral action. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding this article and notifying me that you were removing {{prod}}. It's much better that it get expanded than deleted. =) Amalas =^_^= 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing you overlooked for me. Since I scan the WP to find articles that wouldn't be encyclopaedic or that should be deleted or are too short that I add stub or that need to be categorized, I go through a lot of articles and sometime some of them aren't useful articles... this one slipped through the cracks. Thank you for notifying it and have a good day. Lincher 21:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah no it's fine i'm not offended it was like my second or third entry and i didn't really understand what was going on...didn't know neologisms weren't okay. if it means anything, the terms were used in the new york times or the new yorker or something recently. i don't exactly remember, and i'm not going to fight for them. i'm a newbie, so any tips beyond the standard boiler-plate would be appreciated. thanks.

With regard to the "prod" tag - you are very perceptive regarding my intentions. I'll add the templates you recommended to my list. Thank you for your consideration. Rklawton 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg	Good Job!    For your work on Parasitic number. Well done!

-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know exactly what you want it changed to, and I'll update the bots code. In the future, I'll have the bot grab a template for the top and bottom text (above and below the dates) so editors can edit them at their leisure. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change, it should appear in tonights update. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir:
I have read the Wikipedia for a long time and made small anonymous edits and surprisingly never had any problems. None of my edits or additions was ever deleted or challenged. But I am new to being a registered user and have no experience in dealing with "deletion wars". The very first article Amiga Virtual Machine I wrote sat there for a while doing nothing then someone did some sort of thing to it for a sneaky uncontested delete. No attempt was made to improve the article they simply decided to delete it. I never would have noticed until it was too late. But luckily MangoJuice stepped in and saved the day (you're my hero :) and made it at least be a contested delete. So I wanted to say Thank You, your hard work is very much appreciated! Well they outnumber me 2 to 1 so they will get it deleted anyway. :( First they tried to sneaky delete it. Is there a word for that? Now they are trying to do a "delete by dispersion" tactic where they promise to paste pieces of the article into several different scattered articles and plastered tags all over the original article so it now looks quite ugly. Is there a word for this tactic? Furthermore someone deleted an article that linked to the afd by first cutting out 95% of the article and then doing a page move over it! I was very shocked by that! I call that vandalism but is there some other official term for that? It was all very confusing at first. I am sorry to write so much on your private page but I am new here and have no wikipedia friends but many questions.  :) You can delete all of this if you like, I won't be offended. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneGiant (talk • contribs)

I do not believe my edit should have been changed. It was quite relevant actually. thank you

-master vandal

Whatever. Mangojuice^talk 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...thanks for moving that. It is pretty hard to miss when its right their on the watch page. I saw it right away, but you beat me on my dial-up connection. Also, I am aware of the subst. guideline and will watch the debate as it nears policy status (sometime soon, I'd imagine). Cheers and keep up the good work. youngamerican (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see you are using vandalfighter. Do you like it so far? youngamerican (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your comment in my Talk page;

Hmmm, the redirect was already there, sorry about the lack of reason. It was not that I hadn't read any of the material on AfD, but rather that I misclicked... Also, I wasn't aware that it was a 'controversial' article, seeing as only one person had ever commented on that specific subject, and they obviously had not gone to the effort of their own research within Wikipedia on whether it existed. I saw no tag pertaining. I did look around a bit on the subject, as I did not know which templates to use, sorry if I used the wrong one? I'll look into that a bit more.

I'm sure that for the sake of a sore hand, it will be a bit before I do any more editing ;) Sorry. Oh yes, and... Zasz 03:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yours was a rather quick response, in fact so quick that I had the message before I was able to change the original template, and insert a reason. Rather extraordinarily quick ;) Have fun. Zasz 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my revert was inappropiate and I don't see where you "cleared my copy". Please be more specific. Also, I'm familer with the features here, thanks for the help. Please clarify as per above. Navou ^talk 09:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mango. Thanks for the note about {prod} on the Brenda Barrie article. I used it because I didn't think there would be any controversy other than the subject losing her vanity entry. ;) I'll list it as you suggested.

thanks Robert

I strongly suggest you withdraw your deletion request for this page. Deleteing the page won't save disk space, since all the data would remain in the admin history. Administrators are still able to view deleted pages, the only way to remove it completely from the database would be to have a developer do it manually. Prodego ^talk 18:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for withdrawing the nom. Prodego ^talk 18:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got started and then lost my connection. Thank you for following up! :)

Thanks for improving the article, and for notiying me; more than usually gets done when someone removes a prod. As a Scot, I am aware of 'UK Soccer' ;), but not familiar with the conference leagues. I'm still not convinced this person is notable enough, but maybe you can address this in the article... Cheers, ::Supergolden:: 08:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from IT People, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT People, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 12:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you having taken the time to let me know, I've added my comments to the AfD. Thanks! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Good research on your part: it does look like he's been a busy bunny. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks for writing the Ralph Elihu Becker article which I didn't get around to writing :) Dragomiloff 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i must have made a mistake when looking at how many there were it says that i clicked all of the links sorry for the mistake--Wompa99 20:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC) I did not know i should leave the prod tag up. sorry about that:)--Wompa99 20:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC) From now on i will leave the tag on thanks for telling me to leave it on thanks,--Wompa99 22:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note: setting up an afd was on my list of "things to do." You saved me a step. Joyous! | Talk 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{prod}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Also, please give a reason when you add the prod tag to an article. Thanks again! Mangojuice^talk 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess I'm a little unclear about how the deletion process works. Is adding a prod tag the same as nominating an article for AfD? I've been using prod in lieu of an appropriate speedy-delete tag when an article seems non-notable, but there is a possibility that I'm wrong. Is there a better way to go about this? Squigish 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! If I have any quetions i guess i'll get back to you.

Matwat22 11:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I had an idea but i dont exactly know how to make it, but anyway, I thought there could be a wikiproject type thing called a new user welcoming commitee to kind of introduce new users to wikipedia and get them to be comfortable. If you know of any way to make this possible it would be nice if you could contact me. Thanks, Matwat22 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can i tell if an articale is on AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wompa99 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the revert on my user page. I'm taking a lot of it from several IPs after being involved with an AfD on AbsoluteLOL earlier today. Could you take a look at 193.146.194.108, 216.105.183.41, and 66.214.61.12 if you get a chance? Cheers. Tony Fox 00:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Thank you for being so kind to me when i made mistakes:) Wompa99 12:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]