Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mangojuice (talk | contribs) at 13:19, 10 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

</nowiki> ----->

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

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

hey hey hey!

noticed you got your PhD. What langauge did you qualify in? I am thinking of dropping out of mine :-( ... what was the subject of your thesis...... Not sure if PhD = phd in philosophy or some other subeject....

PHILOSOPHY IS A TOTALLY USELESS SUBJECT!!!!!! an "argument" -- I only accept years years and years after being told how important philosophy is. (I obviously study philosophy... :-( ) - Abscissa 03:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik (second nomination)

Please don't change other peoples comments as you did here. I already warned Leotardo for the exact same action. Here is the original post. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit made in error, invalid warning. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites

I've moved everything (barring tubgirl) that didn't have its own article to a subpage, and we can move thing back when they have verification from reliable sources. - brenneman 05:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Frankl

JohnnyCanuck has indicated that he's finished his rewrite at User:JohnnyCanuck/Elliott Frankl. He contacted me to review it, but after my involvement in the original dispute I think it's probably best if I step back and let a neutral party make the final call. Since you had offered to review it, would you be able to do so? If you'd rather not, I'll gladly check with somebody else, but if you're able to do it I'll happily abide by whatever your decision is. I'm not sure if you have admin privileges or not, but I'm willing to do the move if you don't — but I'm just a bit concerned that my judgement would be clouded by my personal feelings about the whole fight, so I'd prefer if a neutral party made the call. Bearcat 01:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

encryption article

thanks, I didn't know a thing about Capstone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reb42 (talk • contribs) .

btw, Reb42 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Shock Sites

Hi Mangojuice,

Sorry about that. I probably should have asked you about the removed sites first, but I didn't like the single-list format. I've replied on the article's talk page, about it, also.

See ya,

Primetime 22:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Collaboration.

Hello,

Today, I stumbled upon your user page by accident, a la six-degrees. I share much of the sentiment shared on your user page, and I would like to know if you are available to work together on those goals.

Cheers. Folajimi 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Currently, I am involved in cleaning up of a pair of articles I created a while back, namely dissimulation and Working group. There are also other articles that will keep me busy for a bit, including the redlinks in Red Hot AIDS Benefit Series and Musical collective.

A lot of what you are doing seems QA related. It has been in my mind to buckle down and get to work (especially after I discovered this a few months back.) The project could really use the clean up. Since I enjoy creating new articles, I elected to procrastinate on this important matter, for fear that it will overwhelm me and keep me from doing what I enjoy.

Now that I have found someone with similar ideals in you, perhaps we could construct a roadmap to help get this QA effort off the ground? What is most pressing for you at the moment? The first two entries I mentioned are at the top of my list. Folajimi 02:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As for disambiguation, I have to work on Robert Salerno, Lokman, and Henry Havemeyer (believe me, it needs it). There are probably others, but those are the ones I can recall at the moment... Folajimi 21:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your reasoning on Salerno; a similar case involves the Noriega entry. As for Lokman and Havemeyer, the trouble is that many places seem to conflate information on multiple notable characters, a la Barry Watson. There are others, but memory fails to recall which at the moment... Folajimi 23:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

JohnnyCanuck

Mangojuice please have a look at the Frankl article and if you think it deserves an article then put it back up or if you don't then redirect it to the vaughan election page, please note that my original account has been mistakenly blocked so I am using this one until it is corrected--JohnnyCanuck2 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again...any conclusions on the rewritten article yet? Thanks. Bearcat 23:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and let you all know what I think. Mangojuice 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey Mangojuice, I was just wondering what a "dicdef" is (I'm trying to learn all the[REDACTED] jargon). It was just on the undersecretary AfD page. And, more importantly, thanks for dealing with leotardo, or vaughnwatch, or whoever he was. I really aprreciate it. Theonlyedge 04:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

• Alright, you clearly do have a point, they just tend to get on my nerves with their accusations that never come with any evidence. Anyways, thanks so much for you diligence through this whole escapade. I'd give you one of those barnstar things, but i dont know where the list of em is. So just pretend i gave it to you :D - pm_shef 05:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated

Mangojuice, I enjoyed reading your comments on secondary sources on the talk page of WP:RS. I removed the obligatory language only to have User:SlimVirgin revert it. This article is a guidline, not a policy, and it needs to be straightened out along those lines. Fahrenheit451 20:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Impy and Aevy

Well, to answer your questions, I'm afraid Impy and Aevy has not been reviewed or published as of yet (though the latter may be happen in the not so distant future). I understand your reasoning of not wanting a creator to write something on his own work, though I did try to be as objective as possible. If you feel the comic isn't popular enough yet to get a wiki, then feel free to delete it, I will hold no ill feelings towards it. I was basically using it as a test subject for making a Wiki entry. So I'm cool with whatever you decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PembrokeWKorgi (talk • contribs)

Scott Boorman

In my opinion, the original version of the article was a perfect vanity article. Misplaced Pages is way past times when evrything was done to attract possible contributors. Now[REDACTED] is mature. IMO it is time to switch the attitude and demand responsibility for the text typed, especially in areas on noncommon (e.g., specialized) knowledge. `'mikka (t) 17:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your Article.

The reason I am fighting so hard to keep the article about me is not that my life will be horribly altered if my[REDACTED] entry is removed. I could really care less if my article is removed. What bothers me is the manner in which people seem to take an almost elitist view of Misplaced Pages and who belongs and who doesn't. Had someone just brought up the problem of me self publishing the article and left it at that then I would have no problem. I would understand (as I did not know that policy when I created the article) that writing about yourself and your family is frowned upon (even though I do not believe there are any real NPOV issues with what I wrote).

It does bug me that an article about a political candidate who got over 12,000 votes is considered to be less important than Fhqwhgads or Inanimate_Carbon_Rod. And I do feel that even after an election, retaining the history of that election is an important thing.

I also believe that by keeping certain candidates who lose while removing others would be an example of[REDACTED] showing bias. Why dont you go through Daniel Zimmerman and make the changes that you have proposed. Then we can go back to the discussion page and see if anyone else will accept your revisions as being neutral and verifiable. This way we can show the rest of the people that we have at least found a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs)

Right back atcha.

No problem - I don't mean to cause offense, although I know I have a harsh tone sometimes! Really trying to get at what this is though, because I know there are frustrations on both sides! Thanks for writing, For great justice. 18:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you editing the shock sites page. Clearly if the title is list of shock sites they should include any shock sites that people know of. Furthermore[REDACTED] is a place for all information not just the information you see fit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.169.208 (talk • contribs)

Dilbert

Thank you for your patient and detailed replies to my questions about the Dilbert deletion discussion. I think I understand the "keep" view much better now. Maestlin 19:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Afd

You just added something to AfD, but it seems you didn't include the name of the article, so it just says {{{pg}}} - I couldn't work out which article it was you were trying to AfD, so I thought I'd just let you know. --Tango 11:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re prod of Andrew Lanza

I reprodded that article because an anon removed the tag without leaving comment in the edit summary. I'm not sure why you would say to me "once an article is deprodded, you may consider its deletion controversial". Any article that merits deletion can be deleted (provided it hasn't survived and AfD). Moriori 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Mangojuice, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen _C (Stollery) 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

it was true though. how do you know it wasn't? have you seen it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin hardy (talk • contribs)

mangojuice, you're a small man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.145.158 (talk • contribs)

buttered bread

the buttered bread edit you so hastily removed was 100% fact. I am a close personal friend of that user and would appreciate in futures if you refrained from interfering in our relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.145.158 (talk • contribs)