Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 1 September 2009 (→Knight Prince - Sage Veritas: first block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Administrators: if you want to overturn one of my administrative actions, and I don't appear to be active, go ahead, so long as the action wasn't an overturning of your action. Use common sense, naturally. Mangojuice 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Archives
15,000,000,000 BC – 17 Feb 2006 17 Feb 2006 – 17 Apr 2006 17 Apr 2006 – 10 May 2006 10 May 2006 – 9 Jun 2006 9 Jun 2006 – 12 Jul 2006 12 Jul 2006 – 26 Aug 2006 26 Aug 2006 – 19 Oct 2006 19 Oct 2006 – 3 Dec 2006 3 Dec 2006 – 16 Mar 2007 16 Mar 2007 – 22 Aug 2007 22 Aug 2007 – 20 Jan 2008 20 Jan 2008 – 7 Oct 2008 7 Oct 2008 – 12 Apr 2009

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I think people casually reading my talk page would be interested in my response, in which case I'll respond here. Thanks!

Imbris/Pietru topic ban

Hey there. I have effectively declared a topic ban for Imbris and Pietru from the obvious article; can you comment? I think you and/or the IP above to be much more reasonable and have the best interests of the article at heart. Imbris (as can be seen on my talk page recently) claims innocence but we all know he just isn't cut out for collaborative editing, as shown many times in the past. Pietru is blocked for a month and I don't think anyone would have an issue with a permanent block if it continues when he returns. Tan | 39 23:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn. I don't think his ability to work collaboratively is promising given the past situations. That said, as long as he stops actually edit warring, I see the possibility of improvement, and it's best to not ban people when it's not necessary. But I feel a little strange trying to comment this way, because of my involvement. I might suggest you simply ask for review from the admin community generally. Mangojuice 05:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Anders Svensen

Re : http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Anders_Svensen

How can I possibly request a valid unblock when you have prevented me from adding to the talk page. Why has this been done when every question I have answerd has been done comnprehensively and without rebuttal ? --Andy Svensen (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer to your warning

Why the Perception section should not extist? We (the Human society) measure perception of politicians, perception of coruption, perception of development, perception of security. I see you misunderstood me, I love England, the English, watch Midsomer murders.

Why this head counting, the IP-user brought no concensus. I generaly tend not to belive IP-users as separate users and suspect that there is a WP that says votes from IP-users do not count, or they do count?

Also I do not appreciate your approach toward my editing, as for the Croatian name, we have sources that you refuse on grounds they are not translated, translations are comming up just fine.

I am against of questioning motivations, we are not here for that, nor we are here to block sources which have their proponents according to WP:UNDUE.

Your accusation of nationalist OR is not true, on the contrary it is not supported. What is exhausting is constant claims of my POV by Pietru, defending myself, then receive the same accusations from you.

Why did you say to Tanthalas39 that I started edit-war after I was unblocked. The article was at the time protected and I have reverted the content back to Pietru's last edit before the edit-war. Pietru was at the time blocked and discussing was (at the time) pointless. Also I was not under any regime of 1RR or 0RR at the time, nor I am this moment. When you placed Tanthalas39 on my case you did it in a way that single me out and just mention Pietru. Why is that? Why is Tanthalas39 in the impression that I am some sort of a problem.

I have explained the part regarding to the British encyclopaedias from the turn of 19/20 century on the talk page of the article in question (last section).

I am truly sorry if you feel exhausted, but don't you feel the rewards also. The article is looking better than ever. I disagree with the IP-user that the article is terrible (or what he exactly said). In great deal you are to be congratulated and said thanks to because of your great work, but you need to acknowledge the need to include Italian and Croatian sources (Yugoslavian sources and Slovenian sources agree on the issue) on the dog to make it internationaly viable.

Do you see me fighting the inclusion of Spain (which I referenced), France (Lyons which I referenced), Australia (New South Wales, Victoria), Italy, American Kennel Club, etc. Where is the fight? Please return Saint Clement of Alexandria, which is properly sourced and used by Fulda, Betsy Sikora Siino and Michele Earle-Bridges.

Even Dante Alighieri in Comm. 2, 328 wrote: Botoli sono cani piccoli, da abbaiare più che da altro. It should definitive go into the article. It is highly quoted that Maltese was the fountain of all Bichon, if Bolognese is refered to as botolo, this should be acknowledged as a coroborative source towards what Briggs said and is most certainly worth of the Temperament section.

Or Spadafori, Gina. Il mio cane, Apogeo Editore, 1998, p 45.

Potele anche ridere della ferocia che dirnostrano difengerdo il loro territorio quando un grosso cane passa davanti a casa vostra, e potete prenderli in braccio per tenerli fuori dai guai quando un cane decide di non tollerare gli insulti da un botolo peloso non piu grosso della sua testa.

— p 45.

Sorry for the previous paragraph, but you seem to dismiss botolo for the wrong reasons.

P.S. Why did you delete Constantine VII on the dog?

Imbris (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't include the deletion of content which started in 2009-04-16T20:23:55, but only valuable additions of content. -- Imbris (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

StatSoft

Greetings. We saw that you had some concerns about the StatSoft page a few weeks ago. For the moment, we have reinstated our page and are in the process of revising it to follow Misplaced Pages standards. Also, our GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is pending. Thank you. EntropyAS (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Anders Svensen

Hello. Thank you for filing Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Anders Svensen. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I commented on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/General Tojo. Cheers, -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/General Tojo

Hi, and thanks for the help on Tojo. It seems Tojo aka Keith Bridgeman threw together some old texts and now calls himself editor of a book on Ferdinand Magellan. In his usual style he promotes it on Misplaced Pages using numerous sockpuppets since quite some time. I did a couple of blocks already. Details on Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/General Tojo, bottom of the page. Cheers, -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotchety Old Man

Crotchety Old Man is definitely Pietru il-Boqli, this account is created for the sole purpose of editing on small, nearly irrelevant topics and jump in when Pietru is blocked to defend Pietru topics of interest, like the dog.

He is constantly commenting editors on the talk page of the article instead of comming to comment on user talk pages. This way he is trying to poison other editors with his suspicions and turning the issues into back-office matter.

He should be warned not to revert if there are no valid resons for reverting.

Imbris (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Even a cursory examination of their contribution histories makes it perfectly obvious these users are not the same. Pietru does a lot of Malta-specific editing; he's been blocked multiple times for edit warring and incivility. Crotchety Old Man, on the other hand, is mainly a vandalism patroller with an interest mainly in American Pop Culture topics. The only Malta-related article he edits is Maltese (dog); his first edit there was to remove a trivia item, and he became involved in the edit war on his own. Of note is that Pietru seems to be involved in a dispute over Maltese people and Crotchety Old Man hasn't gotten involved there at all. This is over the line, Imbris. If you do not apologize to Crotchety Old Man for your repeated hounding of him with this false accusation, I will ask that you be blocked. Mangojuice 05:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I will appologize after the check user confirms your findings. Crotchety Old Man is a recently created editor who as his first order of business selected the dog and is obviously more experienced with[REDACTED] than a newbie. He activated the TW (Tweak, something) among his 10 first editing. I, for the other hand did not know about it, till two-three weeks ago.

Crotchety Old Man is an aggressive user who is full of same accusations towards me, like Pietru and who doesn't contribute to the article (the dog article) at all. He has not discussed anything but editors, on the dogs talk page.

If you want I will appologize right now, but you should understand that Crotchety Old Man evades discussion and slander editors.

Imbris (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've now reported you. Mangojuice 11:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? I can find the diff where Crotchety Old Man agrees to check user, why do you want me blocked isn't it up to Crotchety Old Man to complain? -- Imbris (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not used to defend oneself against WP:AGF-violating harassment. It's actually never used to "prove one's innocence", period. Anyway, Tanthalas is the one you'll have to convince now. I won't be blocking you, I'm involved. Mangojuice 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have appologized to Crotchety Old Man . Would you consider this a valid move, to end furter sanctions? -- Imbris (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what Tanthalas thinks. Whatever the case, I'm kind of burned out dealing with your constant attacks, I'll be taking a Wikibreak from this article for a couple of days at least. I might not have made my complaint had that been your initial reaction. But it's not like this is the only issue with you. Mangojuice 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And because that I should be blocked. Where is that enthusiasm of reaching FL. Why do you insist on deleting my contributions to make a version where the Adriatic island of Mljet, Sicilian town of Melita and the island of Malta are equalised? Why didn't you respect the order of those three places as mentioned in the standard. Your revamp was a deletionist crusade against my editing - done because you think I am a nationalist. What nationalism do you speak of? Did I use those Croatian source for a sentence which is completely relevant and referenced that the breed should be considered of Croatian patronage (in the sense of FCI), I have only tryed to insert the name as the least.

Why have you before the revamp supported merging IP-user history version with the version before the deletionist crusade? The WP:UNDUE, or somewere on that page says that views should be portrayed to the measurement of how much sources support it. The Croatian claim is a minority view but has its protagonists (proponents), is sourced and should be included, and you cannot give the name.

Imbris (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm trying to take a break because if you aren't deserving of my accusations that you are editing tendentiously, then I must be getting overly involved and I need some time to cool off. I'm going to leave this response, but I'd appreciate if you could just give me, say, 2 full days before writing again. There's a lot at issue in what you're saying. My history section revamp was based, mainly, on my observation that the history section was not written in an appropriate encyclopedic style. The appropriate encyclopedic style is not to list sources but to write coherent prose, backed by sources. The current version is my best effort at that. I would love to develop it further but the level of objection you've been putting out that has made it impossible for me to work further on the draft right now. I am not trying, exactly, to "equalize" the claims of Mljet and Malta. I am trying to explain that this is a matter that is in dispute. It may look kind of equal right now because it spends about equal time on the two theories, but I think the language gives the edge to the Callimachus version, if only slightly. I think that's appropriate: in the end, Strabo was talking about Malta and some historians prefer his account over that of Callimachus for whatever reason. One big complicating factor, though, is that a lot of those supporting Malta are based too heavily on earlier writings, some of which contained errors. This is all there, in compact form. But the key is that this is writing about assertions that are in dispute. I'm just trying my best to cover the dispute dispassionately. Ok: as to "Sicilian Melita" -- several sources say Strabo was referring to Malta. Malta was part of the Kingdom of Sicility in ancient times, so it makes sense. In terms of ancient writers, at least, this stems from Strabo. I feel the text does point out that some think Strabo was referring to some other place than Malta, but even as you call the city a "lost" one, I think we ought to defer to those sources who have an explicit opinion on the matter, and all of them say it is Malta Strabo refers to. In terms of balance, I cannot see that either side has the clear upper hand, and it would be a bad idea to start counting things ourselves. I can see that a fairly large number of authors support the Malta theory and a fairly large number support the Mljet theory. WP:NPOV dictates that we not take sides in a dispute in an article, that's all I'm trying to do. You act as if equal treatment is a gross mistreatment of the dispute, but if that's the case, the burden is on you to show that the Malta theory is recognized to be a minority view.

My promise to the IP editor to merge the two versions was fulfilled: I pulled back in those good paragraphs about pre-historical origins, and merged them with text from your version. And while some of the other text has changed, the content is still there. In any case I never expressed support for the style of the version I changed and I specifically criticized it on a number of occasions.

I am not making any changes to the article in a way designed to punish you, period. I found this breed fascinating, and I've done a lot of reading on it by now, and I'm just trying to write the article as well as possible in an appropriate style. Yes, I think you have some nationalist issues, because of the way your concerns always fall on one side of this dispute, and because you always always push as hard as you can on every single issue, despite all pleas for you to stop. But my changes to the article are always designed to make the article improve as much as possible, at least that's my intention. Every time you call my edits a "deletionist crusade" it makes me very angry. I'm not a deletionist, and if I deleted any actual information, it was very little and was redundant. I was not on a crusade against you. This is a complete failure on your part to assume good faith, and it's what's leading me to need to take a break... though by rights, it should be you who takes a (forced) break, since you're the one breaking a behavior policy.

Is there a notable dispute over the patronage of the dog? I'd be happy to mention the dispute if we can reliably source it; it helps to demonstrate the dispute over the origins. This is the first time you've mentioned a Croatian patronage issue to me that I can recall. It would be a very poor argument to mention the name of the dog as if it proves anything at face value. I said long before that if you had any sources that establish some importance to the Croatian name I would consider supporting it, and you wouldn't give one.

Please don't write on my talk page any more until 2 days from now. I need this break, and it'll probably be good for you too. Mangojuice 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm back from a several-day break; refreshed and ready to rock. If you need me to look into this situation, please let me know. Tan | 39 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ...The Maiden City

I thank you for unblocking me. As a new user at the time I was prone to jumping into controversial edits without really knowing what Misplaced Pages was all about. I have learned now by my rash edits and will endeavour not to let you down...we are all human after all.... Thank you for giving me the opportunity to improve this project where I can --The Maiden City (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mocdlondon

The reasons you're not unblocking this user are not any reason we would block them without trying to dialogue with them first about contributing. Can we try working with people for a change and help them to understand why their credible material is being reverted, instead of creating barriers like requiring them to use a confusing {{unblock}} template, and other means of preventing new contributions? Bastique 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but this user needs to make an effort to communicate with us. Tell you what, I will watch the page, just in case the user has a hard time using the template. But my approach to unblock requests is that if there are issues with a user's editing, I make sure they are addressed before unblocking. This user has issues. Even if the vandalized links thing was an accident, it still had a damaging effect, partly because of the repeated reverting. Copyright is another issue, an advertising tone is another issue. I would use warnings if the user wasn't already blocked, but they are, and it doesn't look to me like an error. Mangojuice 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh

Regarding your unblock decline: you mentioned there's a RFC on him, but I wanted to note that it's been closed as he was indefinitely blocked, thus not much to talk about. Nja 15:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's no big surprise. I would rather the RFC had not been closed, as it might help settle the issue of whether the community has any sympathy for Grant, but on the other hand, it's probably better for Misplaced Pages not to waste too much time on the issue. Mangojuice 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I could have put it better. Nja 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Maiden City

This editor was unblocked after agreeing to drop the issue that got them blocked, but as you can see here and here they have not dropped the issue at all. There is also the issue of sockpuppetry, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Anuttamadasi says she is still blocked

Please see her user page. Thought you'd like to know. Is there any chance of some sort of autoblock being in place? John Carter (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety Old Man keeps reverting

Crotchety Old Man keeps reverting using TW as if my editing is vandalism. He wants me to discuss every edit I make with the sole purpose of trolling! Why do I say this? Because his only motivation is to make me suffer and work twice as much. Crotchety Old Man doesn't discuss, but only discuss editors, he has not participated in the discussions on content related issues at all. Furthermore he said that I should not address him at his talk page.

I have hoped that you are monitoring the article (watchlist) and that you would have something to say to my recent attempt at resolving the issue, here.

Those authors were mentioned alongside with those in the article (Callimachus, Strabo, Caius, Martial) in many other authors, so this is not WP:SYN.

Could you please advise Crotchety Old Man not to revert without valid reason. Also he keeps insisting that I was blocked because of my nationalistic POV. He should realize that it was a petty edit-war, that Pietru initiated with his Malta POV. I have just answered the call to diminish Pietru's biased editing. Plus - I have not inserted any POV in the article. I hope that you also realize that.

Imbris (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF, Imbris, he's not trolling, he's saying you need to discuss your changes, and I think that's fair. I'll comment about your change on the talk page. Mangojuice 11:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety Old Man keeps reverting my edits with TW as if I am vandalising the article. Furthermore he doesn't participate in the discussions other than to defamate me as an editor. His contributions to the article are scarce. You said that the temperament section would be improved by you, also you said that Clement of Alexandria would be included. I accept that you might be busy and that my "sentences-phrasing" was not likable to an English speaker but I cannot accept that for that reason (only that reason) those edits were removed.

As for the latest in the article, I added the Category:Dog breeds originating in Croatia, Crotchety Old Man deleted it, then I added it again plus Category:Dog breeds originating in Italy. We shall see how the Crotchety Old Man would react now.

Can we also agree to write just "an English physitian" instead "physitian of Queen Elisabeth I" for John Caius?

Imbris (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets hear ya then!

Lets hear ya then!

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kittybrewster_editing_disruptively--Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock

Regarding my autoblock request being declined and your request for explanation, you mention "Please explain why you must access Misplaced Pages through open proxies, ". The fact is I have been accessing Misplaced Pages all these years without know what you mean by an "open proxy". I am connected to the internet via my internet provider Dataone so far. Is there anything I am supposed to do or ask my service provider regarding this open proxy thing?--PremKudva 06:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock Mangojuice, I find that I am assigned different nos everytime I logged in, so actually yesterday when I made this request to you I found that I was able to edit the regular pages. Our ISP is not a very user friend place at the best of times, and so trying to talk to them about open proxies would be very difficult to say the least.--PremKudva 04:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocks in September

He's an American using his self-published PoD/VP material to promote his claim to be a lost British duke (and, from there, to be the True King of England). At great length.

This is not someone we need on Misplaced Pages.

Although I guess the IP block can be relaxed if it's inconveniencing other Comcast users. DS (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gyalpo Shugden controversy

Hello Mangojuice. Thank you for your neutral input on Dorje Shugden talk page. I fully agree with what you said. I tried to implement the point (3), but these 3-4 users continually revert it. Clay tried also (he has a great deal of patience), he proposed a very balanced compromise, and they reverted all his changes also. It's been going for years. What can we do? In the current form the article is almost ridiculous. And especially the intro is very misleading.

The article in question was proposed for deletion twice, because they completely reject any kind of compromise. They say that only their view should be presented, whereas the view of the Dalai Lama and all other schools of Tibetan Buddhism is insulting to them,so it should be completely removed from the summary, and the very existence of a controversy should be pushed as low in the article as possible, so that a casual reader won't even notice. Asasjdgavjhg (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried Misplaced Pages:Mediation? It might be good to take the next step in dispute resolution. Mangojuice 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War

Hi, Mangojuice. An edit war has broken out at Galactus between DavidA and The Balance, and it's gotten personal. DavidA asked me to intervene, but unfortunately, with my job and family obligations, I do not have the time to devote that the dispute deserves. Can you step in and try to resolve it, or refer it to someone who can? Because of threats by one of the participants of reverting daily if need be, I thought it a good idea to lock down the article. I posted on its Talk Page here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock

Thanks for taking care of that autoblock. A couple editors had already made the same mistkae you initally did, so I'm glad you had the eye to catch it. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Note on Nash16 review

Actually, he did edit that article. I went back and deleted all of the sock edits to make it harder for future stocks to restore the original text. That said, the tone of the unblock request and behavior clearly matches Relucio. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I have your help with an issue I have on the Sound Film page? I revised some statements that were less than neutral, had an editor restore the statements, and when I posted a POV tag, the user removed that as well.

This page is being controlled by one or two editors who seem to think it is their exclusive page. I would appreciate a moderator's input and/or intervention here.

Thank you! (24.62.100.100 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Thank you

I appreciate your input, and I will see what happens. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.100.100 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thx

I'd have to go read through it again but I thought I had gone to resolution before the blocks and the "sock puppetry" thing. Maybe I didn't. I don't mess with Wiki much, I just saw an obvious(to me) error and thought I'd cure it with a couple pictures and stills. At least to me the cars are as identifiably different as a '56 and '57 Chevy. Never crossed my mind changing such a minor thing, especially since two of the linked cites were bad anyway, would start a war. I'm guessing it'll be updated by someone once the lock comes off the page? I don't think I'llm touch it with a ten foot pole.  :)

I will however post the resolution where the discussion has popped up elsewhere. If nothing else at least it was spirited. *LOL* Also, I'll start trying to figure out the myriad bits of mystifying and Byzantine rules and methods of Wiki before I do much else.

Thx again, Scott

FMChimera (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Caniago

You might want to revise your unblock response - the template says the request was denied, but your text says it was accepted. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did decline, in the sense that I didn't lift the IP block he was requesting be removed. I think it'll be sufficiently clear. Mangojuice 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my misundersanding. It cetainly can be confusing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Help With Article for Putting on Misplaced Pages

Hi there, I was told to come to you to get some help to put my article on Misplaced Pages - not sure what to do now ...do you want me to send to you in word? Best AB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Comedy Festival (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 3RR into Edit War?

Hi, you were previously involved in a discussion about merging 3RR into WP:EW; please comment at WT:3RR#Merge 3RR into Edit War?. cheers, Rd232 13:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

lifespan

where do you get your facts on the lifespan of this breed. what is "your source". I have noticed that other sites who specialize in these dogs say 12- 14, some say 13- 15 and others say as much as 18. where do u get ur facts?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.192.198 (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dueling User:Kataphonics?

Since you unblocked the former User:Kataphonic so that she could change to User:LisaSmith76, somebody else created an account under the Kataphonic name, and went straight to editing only the article about Katrina Carlson. Thought you should know; I've already left a very AGF message on Lisa's talk page, and blocked the new Kataphonic as a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Kittybrewster

I have replied on Kittybrewster's talk page. Thanks for dropping me a note. KnightLago (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Upon further consideration I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and unblock. See his talk page. KnightLago (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please gain consensus first before unblocking

The IP was denied an unblock after a number of unblock requests. If you unblock the IP without gaining consensus first could cause you to be blocked. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you don't understand what is going on here. This has nothing to do with the co-founder issue. This is about my edits that greatly improved chiropractic related pages. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In case you did not know the chiropractic page was recently semi-protected again because of IP socking. I know who the IP is but there is not hard evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP has not agreed to stop wikihounding me. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you considering to give permission to the IP to revert my edits when the IP has intentially hounded me and has not agreed to stop. This is a serious matter. QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You alleged I refused to dicsuss the issue but please read my edit summary. The IP attempted to delete the discussion on the issue. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary was explicit that you didn't wish to discuss the issue. Instead you preferred to "discuss" the issue by posting what is effectively a plea for allies in a war. Not that you didn't have consensus on your side, but instead of simply letting the user know there was consensus and where to read about it, you tried to handle the situation through edit warring. Mangojuice 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary showed I did not give in to the cyber stalking. In the real world I would not go up to a stalker and have a conversation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

more problems

Mangojuice, thank you for listening to me after others seemed to just ignore me... as i said i was going to do on my talk page, i posted on the talk page of Mark Taylor (politician) about how the section needs to be re-written completely... however i am now being accused of hounding QuackGuru... am i not allowed to post on the talk page of Mark Taylor (politician) and the talk page of Jimmy Wales?? i have not made any reverts and am not trying to disrupt wikipedia... please help me so i dont get banned again... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, it might be wise to register an account, that might help prevent an admin rushing to judgment. Just obey your restriction and don't respond when you feel like you're being baited. His complaints about you will need serious substantiation before a block would be reimposed; he has a long block record and people don't take what he says at face value. Admins know how to research the truth of a situation through users' contributions. Mangojuice 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP did have a previous account as noted here. By the way, I think the "day" part is a typo (if I assume good faith). There was long term chiropractic disruption that has settled down (at least for now). QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It may have died down, but this IP is still making snide personal attacks and combative comments there, which is true to its previously established MO. That comment brought on advice/gentle warning from Shell Kinney, whose advice I respect. I'm not going to respond there, but only in the UK can such free speech criticism be considered libel, and the British press and many websites are discussing this absurd situation. The case isn't over, but if the British Chiropractic Association wins, then anyone who expresses criticisms of the unscientific practices within the profession will be at risk of being prosecuted for libel. That's absurd. Scientific disputes aren't settled in court, but then chiropractic isn't very scientific. To call it "scientific" would be an oxymoron. Edzard Ernst closes his article with:

• "For alerting the public to all of this, and possibly preventing harm to unsuspecting children, Simon deserves much credit. Instead, he is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. I think this is a serious issue that raises two crucial questions. Is it acceptable that scientists and journalists are restricted in their criticism by the legal muscle of those who are being criticised? And is it acceptable that professional bodies, such as the British Chiropractic Association - or indeed any other organisation - are able to make therapeutic claims that are not supported by scientific data? I leave it to the reader to decide."

Even I, because I have written criticisms, have had my name plastered on the newsletter of an American chiropractic organization, with inquiries for information about me. The nature of such outings and intimidations are rather frightening, with the predictable results ensuing (the death threats and cyberstalking by chiropractors started increasing). No, the profession doesn't take criticism lightly. It usually responds with wagon circling. Samuel Homola, a second generation chiropractor, was booted from the ACA when he wrote his classic book "Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism", reviewed by Keating in this favorable book review. Thirty years later he was allowed to rejoin, with admissions by some leaders that his original warnings and criticisms had proved to be true. Members of the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine have been threatened and treated so badly that their membership list is secret, and their discussion group is a totally closed group (I being the only non-DC member), and many members don't dare reveal that they are members, and I'm certainly never going to reveal their names. No, the subject of how the profession has treated its critics and reform members is a quite notable part of its history and deserves mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to understand that "personal comments" about article subjects are not something I or any other admin cares about. Yes, the discussion got a little off track. However, I have no idea why you are discussing Chiropractic with me. Mangojuice 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry for getting carried away. That was just some explanation for why the subject discussed there was legitimate as content. I guess you didn't need to hear it, but I fear even mentioning it there because of the kind of harassment that this IP and other pro-chiropractic editors dish out. I understand that the IP has now registered an account, but don't know which account. Where can I find that information? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

He edits anonymously; he doesn't use the registered account. The IP hasn't revealed the name of the other account, but I see no reason to press about it. Mangojuice 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo

I do not think that the topic block you issued here was justified. I fully, and with the utmost sincerity respect your suggestion that I rethink my approach. If you look at the talk page here, it has recently been suggested that citations be added to numerous parts of the article, all related to edits added by Serb users, or Serbian related stuff. For this reason, I think (with my new approach that I'm working on), I can be a useful editor to the Kosovo page. Thanks, and please do reconsider. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

question from clueless flack

Hello Mangojuice, many thanks for pointing me to the COI best practices and for giving me a chance to use them. If you could also advise me on how to effectively deal with this (hypothetical) problem, I'll be eternally grateful: a particular user (X), who has taken up a cause of another parson (Y, also a user here) who has grievances against a person I represent (Z) has set up a page for Z. The page contains material originally written by Y (and posted all over the internet by Y). I now know better than to try to edit the page myself. Should my involvement be limited to posting a short request for review on a noticeboard for BLP? The thing is, I see that they have a backlog, and the material about Z concerns a (mostly boring) court case. The case itself is simple enough, but Y has woven it into a complicated plot involving other cases, several government agencies, politicians, etc. I think it would take an extremely dedicated editor with a lot of spare time to sort it out. I'll be glad to give such editor an overview of what is going on and pointers on where to start to make sense of it, but now I know not to post any explanations on Misplaced Pages itself. Should I just post my brief notice and wait for other editors to contact me with questions? What if no one is interested in this problem? And, given that X and Y devote much energy to this project and insert this material into topics tangentially related (or not) to Z, should I try to have their activities on Misplaced Pages curtailed? What is the most efficient yet gentlemanly way to deal with this (hypothetical) problem? I want to obey all the rules and be a good Wikipedian (and I truly believe I am not whitewashing, just setting record straight), but I also want to do everything I can for Z. W Cwir at Saylor (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Be specific about your concerns about the article. I can see why there might be issues in the situation you describe, but you should avoid making it about the editor -- focus on the content, not the contributor. What is the problem? Is there a copyright violation from lifted text? Is there an overabundance of Y's viewpoint on their dispute? Are there falsehoods or misrepresentations? If the text is good, it doesn't matter who wrote it (copyright issues aside). As for where to ask, the BLP noticeboard sounds like a good idea -- you are sure to get a response from X that refutes your concerns, but on the BLP noticeboard you should get other replies. (Yes, there's a backlog, there's a backlog of everything on Misplaced Pages. You can help that, though: consider making responses to other discussions that need contributions -- you'll be helping Misplaced Pages and helping yourself, since your notice will draw more attention as it gets to the "top of the pile" of unanswered requests.) WP:BESTCOI demands that you not be pushy, but on the other hand you are at least entitled to be heard once, so if you aren't getting a response in a reasonable amount of time, you can take some steps to attract attention such as using appropriate notices at relevant Misplaced Pages:Wikiprojects, or somewhere on the village pump.

As for what to say, be brief and polite, and up-front about your conflict. Share enough details to make it clear why you'd like someone to get involved, but keep it short or it'll look like you're going to be pushy about it. Mangojuice 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Cwir:

I am a detective of sorts, and I see you have been shadowing my contributions. Before you continue to libel me by naming me as "X" below, allow me to furtively introduce myself:

Misplaced Pages is a hobby of mine. I do not contribute to any page of which I have any personal knowledge. My special interests are Truth , Justice and the American Way. Perhaps I should have penned my id as "super furtive". Writing on[REDACTED] relaxes me, but as I do my research I tangentially uncover information which is unexpected, similar to Angela Lansbury in "Murder She Wrote".

I began with the 2008 arrests of Madoff which forked into Merkin which forked into Cerberus Capital, which forked into GMAC, and then Fairfield Greenwich and Cohmad. Dreier, turned to traub, rho and kirkland all members of his firm who have dubious ethics. When there is more news on Rho and Kirland, I will start pages on them as well. and i seem to be the only one who contributes research to Nadel. As more research is added and sourced, I find branches on the family tree. In regard to Mr. Traub, I googled him and found a wealth of dubious court documents and transcript admission of a fraud on the court. Since i happen to come from a family attorneys, i was flabbergasted to see what was going on in bankrupcy court. one big reason our economy is so stressed is becaused of all the bankruptcy petitions, and the amount of money the stockholders are losing from gmac to merrill lynch, etc. and how greedy attorneys can be to the stockholders. they appear to advocate for themselves and their firms. i do not know who you are referring to as "Y" except i have found the court docs from a primary site where the person definitely appears to be stung by the etoys case several years ago. so now i am following the supreme court case involving goldman sachs and will contribute when newsworthy. from my own legal background and research, it appears that many parties and officials in the US Trustees office in that case find your client quite dishonest and deceptive. and as i told you if you can find other sources to rectify the sources i have added, please include them IN ADDITION TO MY INCLUSIONS: PRO AND CON. you cannot simply delete in one fell swoop because you don't like what is written. i am sure Madonna dislikes most of what is written about her. you can most certainly write about all the accolades Mr. Traub has received over the years of his career. I added a lot about that.

No one likes their contributions and sourced research deleted; you won't either. BUT YOU DEFINITELY CANNOT RECRUIT PROXIES FOR YOUR AGENDA! That is exactly what I discovered about your client: No one is indispensible; everyone is utilitarian. I knew a man like that once. He is now in federal prison for wire fraud. He is not important enough to have a page on[REDACTED] and i certainly would never contribute to it if he was, as you now realize.

I caution you not to delete sourced material without refuting it with other sourced material. If Mr. Traub wants a balanced profile, I am sure those who respect him and are interested in his predicament between Dreier and Petters will balance the page.

It is not for you to solicit assistance. If you do, I will see you are blocked permanently. and do not make predetermined decisions about anonymous contributors just because you don't like the subject they are covering. Do not threaten anyone about "curtailing their activities." You seem to ignore we still have a first amendment here. you will only self-destruct if you attempt to threaten anyone in any manner implicitly or explicitly. Change you perspective before it causes big problems for you.

Now go enjoy your productive contributions and feel proud when you begin a new page and keep adding to it! It is a feeling of accomplishment, and you might discover your own detective talents!

You can check any history on the pages i mentioned: i make the most contributions to those pages, good or bad, positive or negative. i do not switch very often. that way I stay current. i am not targeting your client, though I am quite happy he is not my husband, brother, or father. just the facts ma'am as reported from reliable sources and documents including emails from officials and affidavits.

Furtive admirer (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Mango juice, i get the sense and my intuition is telling me that Ms. Cwir has entered the halls of[REDACTED] strictly to delete any negative sources claiming them invalid and/or impeachment, similar to knocking out a witness in court. ultimately, her only interest is the deletion of sourced documents about only one person: Paul Traub, wherever his name lands, who was her client before she was blocked and continues to be. her goal is to delete, not to add, whether she does it or has someone else do it for her. I created the page with lots of accolades sourced. Her concern is that if the page is stained, she will lose the account. This endeavor appears to be a business assignment, not a hobby. This is her job, and nothing is different since last Friday June 5, 2009. i absolutely do not want another edit war with her but, her goal is to delete bad press which has been documented and sourced correctly. and if she loses the account, she will attempt to say there is no COI any longer because she is not being paid, or she will be replaced with another professional who will try harder to delete any facts which do not reflect him in a positive light. If these facts are untrue, I am certain he would refute them personally.

since you unblocked her, can you kindly unblock the Marc Dreier page as I have other contributions to make other than her client and the way her client is written, it is a pr press release which should be deleted because she deleted the entire section which was my work product for several weeks (see the history) including what remains. before it was blocked. she never contributed a thing to that page except deleting and now she has deleted the warnings on her own talk page, out of embarrassment, i presume. free publicity i believe is for the newspapers and professional journal, right?

Furtive admirer (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mangojuice, I was happy to see today that other editors are paying attention to the article I was concerned about. About the BLP backlog: I don't think I know enough about Misplaced Pages rules yet to make a meaningful contribution to the discussions, so for now I started to help with the copy-editing backlog. Thank you for all your help and guidance, and I will now stop taking up your time... right after I ask you for this one last favor: my user page still says that I am blocked, and I can't edit it -- could you please do the magic that will let me edit it again?

Weronix (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (new signature for W Cwir at Saylor)

Done, 24 minutes ago. :) Feel free to edit your user page yourself, too. Mangojuice 20:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Eternal gratitude, Mangojuice. And hey, if you ever need a spin doctor... But I wish you to never be in that situation.

Weronix (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link in question about the $750,000 The DOJ US Trustee's Office wanted returned from Traub. I believe it was ordered as part of the "Stipulation to Settle" which you deleted. The judge signed off on that, so did the Federal Prosecutor and Traub as well. It should be reinserted: and

thanx. Furtive admirer (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Furtive admirer (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This shows why Misplaced Pages does not like to rely on primary sources. Once again, those are all referring to the motion to seek $750K in legal fees. One mentions Traub agreeing, but what I read from that is that he was agreeing about the amount of legal fees they had paid. What you believe is not backed up by anything you've shown. Frankly, I think you've been pushing to make Traub look bad and are being very haphazard with the truth and reliability of sourcing, which is a major problem. Confine yourself to secondary sources and what they say directly. Mangojuice 11:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied to you.....

....here.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Some shameless thankspam!

User:Colds7ream/RfA

Thankyou

Thankyou sooooo much for unblocking me. I am so happy I almost cried when I saw the unblock thing. Now I'm going to undo some vandalism at Stormbreaker (novel) I was unable to undo when I was blocked. Thankyou. I can't say thankyou enough. Do you want a barnstar? Because you deserve it. You really do. Thankyou!!!!!!! Spongefrog (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Really it's no big deal; collateral damage autoblocks are a regular occurrence. If you think someone was using your wireless network, you might want to change your network settings so they can't do that. Thanks for your contributions. Mangojuice 21:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I just realised I don't have a secure network thing. I'm about to fix that. I doubt it was actually my neighbor, but I have noticed my browsing history has been mysteriously deleted. Probably someone in my family using the computer. I suppose I could have waited until the autoblock expired, its just I thought this was an isolated incident, didn't know it was a regular thing on WP (by which I mean Misplaced Pages, obviously. It's because some random person might read this and say "WP? What the hell does that mean?!"). Spongefrog (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If your browsing history was deleted it could be that someone has actually hacked your computer and used it as an illegitimate proxy. I suggest you look into it; in the meantime, you should be careful to log out when you're done with a session on Misplaced Pages. Mangojuice 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

aafoods

This new account looks familiar...User:Endorean. ccwaters (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Joplinfan1 block

I don't get it. What did the user do to merit an indefinite block? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren

Seeing as you've noted the blocking of Digwuren for reasons I had not even considered, it would be great if you could take into account Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard#Appalling abuse by User:Sander Säde and User:Digwuren.

Thanks, PasswordUsername (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

You are mentioned Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vintagekits here and may wish to comment. Bastun 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nabil rais2008

The user has agree to your terms in an unblock request (contents: Ok i am agree to the conditions MangoJuice has set forth: a total ban on image uploads so Unblock me, beacuse my only desire is to create articles on Misplaced Pages.). I've placed the unblock on hold awaiting your decision. Happy administrating! ~fl 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking

Thanx for unblocking me !

Block Log

Hi there, you declined my request, yet my block log is empty. 86.135.7.105 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking

The user who was also blocked for sockpuppetry, Element014, needs to be unblocked as well. He got back to the office today and called to ask me what I did to get him blocked. For future reference, The IP that comes up for both of our accounts should be the same, as we sign on from work and as far as I know our organisation only has the one IP address. Kinty500 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

He'll have to post {{unblock}} on his talk page to get things started. I'm happy to lend support to this being two separate users, but there are other issues too. Mangojuice 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The unblock request has been posted on User talk:Element014. If you have any other concerns prior to lifting the block, I'd appreciate your comments there. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just the meatpuppetry issue. Mangojuice 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Images

I want to ask you, can i copy images from Misplaced Pages commons and from other articles on Misplaced Pages,so that i can put them in my articles.

Colossal (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thats fine, so its mean that i can copy images from[REDACTED] commons too ???

Colossal (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another CFB article restored

Hey, just to let you know I "boldly" restored Phillip Henry Bridenbaugh from this AFD when I found he was (at least at one time) considered the fourth best high school football coach in the nation. FIgure that's notable enough, right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Edgar P. Weltner when an early professional basketball coaching career was found. Please review and feel free to comment!--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...and Byron E. Morgan.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Image use...

I will give an example , if i want to copy the Montage from the article of Dubai, so am i allow to directly paste the link of this image to any of my article ?

Colossal (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thats fine, i will be careful in copying images.

Colossal (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

More editwarring problems

Subsequent to my ban and unban i have tried to be on my best behaviour and to follow the dispute resolution process... User:QuackGuru has continued to edit war and is continuing to edit war at Chiropractic education and at Chiropractic controversy and criticism... more information can be seen at Talk:Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism#ethics_and_claims..._new_zealand... is there anything that you can do to stop this edit warring? this guy seems to be untouchable even though he has been banned for edit warring in the past... thanks for helping me get unbanned and for any help or advice that you can give for me 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about my delay in responding. IMO, QuackGuru is not "untouchable." If you feel he's gone too far, you could post a request at WP:AE; there are ArbCom rulings that pertain to Chiropractic and related topics. Mangojuice 23:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal abuse

Hello, you might remember me, you blocked me once.

My options are pretty limited when it comes to which administrator I can go with a problem, so I thought this might be a good place to start.

I've received some abuse -- here -- and do not know how to proceed.

I have tried to address the credibility of an author (a certain Noel Malcolm) in order to use his work in the article and remove POV statements. I provided a list of all the reviews the authors book has received, in order to further prove the credibility of the said historian. The other user "Balkanfever" had no response so therefore he resorted to name calling.

Any suggestions on how to proceed? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).

I took a look at the discussion, and while I saw one rather incivil comment directed at someone other than you, I didn't see that you were really being attacked. You are trying to have a discussion, things are getting a little heated because, well, things tend to get heated in that topic. People aren't edit warring. I'd say the best thing is to turn the other cheek, just keep discussing, be more civil and more mature than those who are annoyed at you, and things will work out. Mangojuice 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb again. However, again -- here -- an administrator is refusing to provide sources for their claims (probably because he is wrong) and is telling me to "go away". He is also using the Misplaced Pages "disruptive editing" rule to gain the upper hand in the talk page even though and as you noted, no edit warring has been going on (as far as I'm aware you've also blocked me for a month from editing on the page any way), so clearly I haven't been involved in "disruptive editing". Reporting the user to the Misplaced Pages etiquette section seems too harsh, but the administrator is annoying me highly; quoting non-related Misplaced Pages rules and making preposterous statements on the talk page related to national myths, which I have to respond to. Your comments on how to proceed are welcome. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)).

Let's be honest. Your username is sort of obnoxious, because while you may be interested in fairness from your perspective, you are actually pretty one-sided about things. It's borderline, I wouldn't consider it unallowable but it's not all that far away. It pretty much casts you as a POV pusher. So there's that. As for "WP:IDHT" I'm not even sure what's really being discussed, because I'm not really involved... but it seems like you have gotten feedback on some of the things you were discussing and have sought alternate ways to get what you want. In other words, trying to ignore or downplay the feedback so you can keep pushing. His response is basically saying he's tired of the discussion which is going nowhere because you refuse to admit defeat. If you want to get things back on track, you should reassure him that you don't intend to pursue this much further and that progress is being made. Mangojuice 12:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How do I change my username? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)).

Pick a new one; look up available names at Special:Listusers, then post a request at Misplaced Pages:Changing username. Mangojuice 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement discussion

Hi. Back in 2007 you participated in this discussion. Would you be willing to provide your perspective on the current discussion at Talk:Traditional marriage movement? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 02:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I bet you'd like to know

I saw your comments at ANI and responded to them. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really clear where you're seeing a consensus to unblock in that discussion. There are only three of you - including the SPA - endorsing the unblock, and at least four of us (and arguably as many as six) endorsing the block. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for the block. Your idea that engaging in a discussion in an article talk page (with only two comments, no less) in a way that involves policy constitutes a policy discussion is just preposterous. Posting the murderer's name on the talk page does not constitute disruption: yes, making a point, but no, not disrupting Misplaced Pages, and in any case they've promised not to continue. And given that you have been involved in the discussion and taken a clear stance against this user's opinions (as established by you here), it might be best for you to let it be. I honestly see at most 2 who really support the block: you and Jayron, and you'd been involved in the dispute. Arguably Exploding Boy might have, but his one comment has been contradicted. Roux, Hersfold, and Baseball Bugs never said anything about the block, and Roux is highly involved anyway. Enigma "supported" a checkuser but gave no reasoning at all. Plus, we've gotten concessions from the user. Mangojuice 14:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Much obliged for your help with the autoblock! Rotational (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks. I'm now going to change my username and user page. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the unblock Probably a good suggestion on your part. It was an odd situation. I don't think it's likely it'll be an issue in the future —Preceding unsigned comment added by Element014 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Edit Wars

Hi thanks for your comments. Just about one thing you said; "That said, his inappropriate comment is not a good enough reason for you to revert - you were reverting because you preferred the other version." My reason for reverting was, as I said, only because I thought he made his edits invalid through the use of a false edit summary, not because I preferred the other version (though of course I did and I'm not denying that), but if my motivation was merely to revert to the version I preferred I would have done it long ago, if you look at the page history, and the his talk page comments, Twospoonfuls has been reverting the edits of anybody who tries to make an edit he doesn't agree with for a long time. If that had of been my motivation it would have occurred to me immediately that I was falling into the trap of edit warring. As it was I mistakenly believed it was okay to revert edits if the edit summary had a false description of what the edit actually was (and how can an edit be good faith if the reason for the edit as described in the summary isn't?), I admit I was mistaken in this, and when I did review the 3RR/edit warring rules I realised that mistake, then posted to the other party that I was reporting the entire situation and stopped editing the page altogether awaiting the outcome. I don't really think there was a need to block me since I had realised my mistake and had already stopped. I understand why though and don't really mind since in all likely hood I wouldn't have been editing in that time anyway, it's really not a big deal. As to the admin who blocked me saying I hadn't provided evidence of an attempt to resolve the problem on the talk page, you say that was probably because I hadn't talked about the current revisions specifically, fair enough, though the discussion I linked to, where we had tried to resolve the wider situation, made it clear that Twospoonfuls refused to have any further discussion on the matter at all and had unilaterally declared the discussion closed. As I was obviously new to the whole 3RR process, and had asked if I'd done it right, explaining what I hadn't done correctly would have been helpful.

Probably would be shorter to say, I thought that his inappropriate comment was a good enough reason to revert, reviewed the rules realised it wasn't and stopped doing so, then reported the situation. It was a genuine good faith mistake and I was not reverting because I preferred the other version as characterizes the motivation for edit warring. Thanks for clearing up those couple of points for me though. Cheers Number36 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Upload...

I have created some Graphs, can i upload them ? , because they are not images but instead they are just files ....

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Educational opportunities

Do you know of any institutions of higher learning that offer doctorate programs in Capitalization? OhNoitsJamie 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but that user is very good at it. :) Mangojuice 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re my user page

Thanks . If you want a reply: I know that academic textbooks, too, have their own points of view, I encountered such a case at least once, - but, if we are to have a debate about neutrality, then we need a second reliable source expressing the other POV, preferably another academic textbook, first, before we can have a meaningful discussion. Well, if this was indeed simply a misunderstanding about the term 'toleration', then the issue should easily dissolve. If not, well, then someone, I suppose will have to spent some time in the library (to find more sources). Zara1709 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"the big orange box above this"

"Orange"? That box isn't even a good fierce peach, much less mango or some other true orange shade. I'd call it salmon at best. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection at Fred Singer

Re. : I don't think this is a good decision. This was one person and his 2 IP's reverting against strong consensus of 6 other editors (all experienced, at least 4 of them admins). The user in question has been blocked (as you know, having declined his unblock request), so I see no reason for a page protection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will downgrade to Semi, to prevent him from continuing anonymously. I wasn't sure the IPs are him but you're right, they probably are. Mangojuice 20:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

“Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them.” (emphasis mine) See policy: Misplaced Pages:Unblock#Block_reviews. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Andonee

Hi Mangojuice. I am just letting you know that I have unblocked User:Andonee over a day early, responding to an unblock request in which he promised not to edit the article. If you believe this in inappropriate, let me know, but I was willing to assume good faith and unblock early. If you happen to see the user editing the article, don't hesitate to block him for a lengthier time. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine, hopefully he will drop the issue once it becomes a little clearer to him that his edit is not going to be accepted. Mangojuice 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Block on TheEditor22

I didn't know if it would be appropriate for me to chime in on TheEditor22's talk page while the matter of his indefinite block were being discussed, but in response to his concern over vandalism of the ACN article I just wanted to point out that that article has been the target of POV vandalism, both pro and con, for years already. This is nothing new, and those of us who watch over it were managing just fine long before the arrival of TheEditor22, and his concern is misplaced. There's no need for any special consideration, IMHO. Mike (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your response to this long ago unblock request.I dream of horses (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Images.

Ok can i ask someone(Any user) to upload my graphs or images, to my Articles ?

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better not to do that. Since you've been pretty fuzzy about when an image is really considered yours or not, I think you could be encouraging others to upload inappropriately. If you were to request adoption, maybe whoever adopts you could help you. Mangojuice 03:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Nabil rais2008

I believe you were the one who banned him from uploading images? He's now uploading his images by proxy- see the recent uploads by Mohammad adil. I don't know what to think of this- on the one hand, he's basically using meatpuppets to circumvent his ban, on the other, these images look legitimate and could be argued to have been double-checked by another user. Thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think someone is only fairly considered a meatpuppet if they've been recruited. Mohammad adil could be cautioned that Nabil rais was banned from image uploads because of consistent difficulty understanding copyrights and persistent copyright violations. So he should be extra cautious. But I think in the circumstances I'm more likely to believe these images have been double-checked... but could stand more double-checking, which is why I'm discouraging Nabil rais from doing this, above. Mangojuice 03:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ACN article

Hi Mango Juice. Could you please come over and have a look at the ACN article. I'm involved in a discussion involving Insider and Mike, but they're extremely opinionated and very inconsistant with their approach to source reliabilty/crediblity. I am using the New America Media article to back up the points made in a Fox News article. I think that because I have two sources, they both should remain as they compliment each other. They also seem to have no problem with using www.acnpresskit.com as a source, despite the fact that it is advertised as a news source and run by ACN. Nobody else seems to be contributing to the discussion, so, it would be useful to get some other views. Thanks--TheEditor22 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on vacation now with sporadic access. I advise you post at WP:RFC or WP:RSN if you need outside opinions. Mangojuice 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Adstokesllc and Alan D. Stokes

I just recommended a speedy for the latest incarnation of the Alan D. Stokes article, whereupon the author immediately blanked the page, including the speedy tag. This led me to the user page, where I see that you have blocked him before for this sort of behavior (and where I left comments about problems with the article - essentially a lack of notability). Perhaps you might wish to consider another block now.Tim Ross (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I had just declined an unblock. I see one has already been placed, and I concur with it. Mangojuice 11:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

AN discussion needs input

A discussion regarding an unblock of a user you previously blocked is underway at WP:AN. Your input would be valuable here. See . --Jayron32 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian and David A

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but there seems to be a conflict between Asgardian and David A (the most recent of an ongoing conflict between them). Asgardian left a message on my Talk Page claiming inappropriate Edit Summaries on David A's part, but did not cite a single summary, policy violated, or even an article. By contrast, Asgardian's comments in both that message and on Mobb One's Talk Page are certainly problematic vis a vis the Civility policy. I think I've done okay getting along with Asgardian of late, which is why he now sometimes enlists my help in certain administrative matters, but since this may possibly be one incident in which Asgardian is in the wrong, I thought I'd swing it over to you. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needed to come this, but I'll make a quick case:

Unfortunately David A fixates on the Marvel Cosmic characters and tends to insist on taking his view - back by statistics taken from the invalid Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe - to an extreme. This can be seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Marvel_Cosmic where he has clashed with three editors. David A has also been involved in numerous Edit Wars over the Galactus article : http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Galactus#Attempt_at_Mediation

What concerns me is his behaviour, which can be guaged by his comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/David_A

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADavid_A&diff=306325547&oldid=306325326

Now, I've just offered an olive branch and posted threads of Comic Guidelines for Dave to read, backing my claim that we need to be objective, can't use OHOTMU universe etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADavid_A&diff=306325326&oldid=306324305

What I suppose makes things a tad tricky is David has admitted to having a medical condition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mobb_One#What_is_going_on.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nightscream#Again

Given this, I apologize (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:David_A#Civility) for the comment made there as while I believe the behaviour to be obessive, it at least now has a context. That said, my one comment is hardly on par with the history of uncivil comments made by David A. That's why I was tad disappointed in the comments left on my Talk Page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Asgardian by Nightscream as I thought they were very judgemental and didn't really address the overall issue. But, we've made a great deal of progress and I have no wish to jeopardize that.

I suppose the argument boils down to two things: David A just needing to refrain from the use of OHOTMU and being civil when someone disagrees. Over to you and many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:XEuser!

Hello. Just wanted to point out -- you declined to unblock this user (rightfully so, I believe), but your description was inaccurate. User:Boyhere's block had already expired by the time the new sock was created; I think it was done to avoid the "bad karma" surrounding the old account. You may wish to clarify/update your reason. Just a thought. -Sme3 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've corrected myself. Mangojuice 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks from GoRight.

I appreciate your assistance. --GoRight (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

halvai deletion

I am the owner of Halvai, a company based in Soho that creates unique handmade carpets. I recently noticed that you deleted the 'halvai' page, a while back, and would like to understand why this was done. If possible, can this be undone?

Billybobjack (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted that almost 2 years ago. It was deleted because it was blatant advertising, and I believe any recreation of the article by you would still be blatant advertising. If you want, you can request to see if an independent editor would be willing to take the time to research the subject by filing a request at WP:RA. But it's inappropriate for you to do so; see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, and most especially Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Organizations. Mangojuice 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

About AfterLogic WebMail article

Thank you for approve unblock me. My question is about my article AfterLogic WebMail Lite, which was deleted before I was blocked. It's about open-source product under GPL v2 license. I've added some external news and community links to the article. Also, I've borrowed some vision on writing this article from similar articles within Misplaced Pages, such as RoundCube or Atmail pages. Could you please tell me if I wrote anything wrong and if there is any chance Webmail's article can be available on Wiki? Audrey09 (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question about Afterlogic Webmail article

Dear Mangojuice, thanks for the details you provided! I'm newbie at Misplaced Pages... While composing the article, I took different Misplaced Pages articles as a principle, and mainly @Mail article. As I can see in history, article was initiated by user Ben@atmail.nl, who is Ben Duncan, AtMail CEO. Also references at the page contains only single link, which is their own press-release, hosted at PR agency website. What I am wondering about - if I provide some external references (like sourceforge, freshmeat and a couple of press-release and blog articles), is there a chance webmail article will be published? Audrey09 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

another dumb question

Ok. Please let me guess. If I ask my friend (who is not related with the company) to create an article with the same content, should this work? Excuse me, if my question is stupid. Audrey09 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

please recommend a person

Dear Mangojuice, thanks for all the info! To be honest, I doubt if someone else would independently create such an article, just because there is a small community of developers around this kind of projects (as long as atmail's and roundcube). Afterlogic Webmail Lite is a very popular webmail script, which is often compared to similar scripts already published at wiki. Despite of my involvement into the project, I believe wiki will get richer if this article will be accepted. Could you recommend somebody seasoned at Misplaced Pages, who might be interested in publishing article? Audrey09 (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian and the Red Hulk article

Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but Asgardian seem to be having an edit conflict again, as seen here. I tried leaving a message on his Talk Page explaining my rationale, and suggesting that we start a consensus discussion. Instead of agree to that, or even responding to my message at all, he went and reverted the article again, which is against WP policy regarding edit conflicts. I've started a consensus discussion on the conflict on Red Hulk here. I request that you monitor the situation so that if he continues to revert without discussion (the offense for which he was blocked previously), you can offer your assistance. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not really active enough to take on new things to monitor closely such as this. I took a look at the recent behavior and it appears that discussion is underway and reverting has slowed down or stopped, so I see no need for a block right now. I suggest if you feel a block is merited at some point, that's when it's best to request help. And WP:ANI is probably better than requesting my help directly, because I'm not all that active these days. Mangojuice 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you unblock me?

I have now an account here at Misplaced Pages (the same as the one on the Swedish wiki "Hollac16"). Can you unblock me? /Hollac16 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Knight Prince - Sage Veritas

This guy looks like a disruptive SPA to me. I suggest not unblocking him or a perma ban on Barbera and ethnic realted articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I also must object to any unblocking of Knight Prince - Sage Veritas, I spent time and effort to try and help this editor understand that edit warring and personal attacks were against Misplaced Pages policy, and after his first block and my detailed explanations, not only did he persist in edit warring and attacking Rlevse - he still attempts to play the innocent card. Dreadstar ☥ 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)