User talk:Mangojuice

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^talk 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 12 Apr 2009 – 1 Sep 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!

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^talk 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See, this is why blocking him outright sometimes appears to be the only option: Every time I try asking people to participate, they come up with some excuse not to. You asked me to contact you, and I did, and now you're finding a reason not to. Yeah, a discussion was underway, and guess what? Four people (I and three others) came to a consensus on three of the four points I brought up (six if you count two others in a discussion on the Comics Project in February--It's in the portion of this discussion beginning on 2.13.09) and what did Asgardian do? He reverted the article. When confronted, he stated that there was "no clear consensus" on the matter. He even reverted blindly, and in knee-jerk fashion, because he not only changed the disputed content, but even a valid edit in which I formatted two mentions of the same source with the ref name tag. He also appears to have edited my post on the article's Talk Page to delink my signature for some reason, and others in the discussion appear to be losing their patience with him, as seen in this other page. I locked the article down to prevent further reversions by him (and to avoid the option of blocking him) until we can get confirmation by the others that there is indeed a consensus. What are we supposed to do if you won't intervene as you said you would earlier this year? Nightscream (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"You indefinitely full-protected Towelie, reversed yourself..." Yeah, that's right. I didn't know that indefinite full-protection protection was considered inappropriate, and when someone pointed this out to me, I acknowledged this, and took that protection off, never again doing so. What's your point? That not knowing about a particular protocol is "misuse"? This was an error based on ignorance of a particular rule, nothing more.

"and then semi-protected it for the extreme duration of 1 year." Right. Countless anonymous IP's are constantly adding unsourced POV information to that article (possibly one person engaging in sockpuppetry for all we know), and I had previously clarified the addition of material in which editors interpret satirical works with someone on Jimmy Wales' talk page. Despite this, editors, usually anonymous IP's who don't know about or care about WP:V, continue to add such unsourced material to the article. Thus, semiprotecting it is perfectly valid. I typically do this with articles that are subject to such disruptive editing. It is not "extreme", for if it were, why would the block page give 1 year as a duration option?

"You also semi-protected Pandemic (South Park) over IP edits you disagreed with." I did no such thing. I discussed the various matters of that article with others on its Talk Page, including one matter in which I requested Third Opinion and started a consensus discussion in order to address another editor's insistence on adding certain material. All of this was by the book, as far as I know, and nothing was inappropriate. After this, however, anonymous IP's continue to add unsourced material against both policy and consensus, and not what "I disagreed with", so yeah, protecting it was reasonable.

"This is not the first but the second time you have protected Red Hulk which you have been heavily involved in editing." Of course I protected it. Editors were adding material without citing a reliable source, and in that matter, Asgardian agreed with me. Using protection or blocks is inappropriate where there is a genuine content dispute, but not, as far as I knew, where there is an unambiguous policy violation, like WP:RS. Is there? If so, this is news to me, and I can't imagine why. What should I do, ask another admin to protect it for me? In any event, this would be yet another permutation of admin powers that I was unacquainted with. I'll be asking around about this, but if what you're indicating here is true, that does not constitute a willful etiquette or guideline violation on my part.

"In the discussion that led to Asgardian's unblock, it was revealed that you were sternly warned many times about misusing your tools, yet you blocked Asgardian again." If you're referring to the blocking that led to that discussion, that block was legitimate, and should not have been reversed. Asgardian disruptively removed of content despite unresolved Talk Page discussion, and repeated violated of Civility. He has not learned from this lesson, because he has continued to engage in both behaviors, even recently. He's made personal comments about myself, and about another editor with whom he disagreed with, ignores messages left on his Talk Page, and counterarguments during Talk Page discussions, uses deceptive Edit Summaries, and he continues to revert articles against the consensus. You, meanwhile have done nothing about him, even though I contacted you when this started, as per your request.

"As to the actual issue, Asgardian is correct that there isn't a consensus over the date format thing. I do see that some editors said, speaking generally, that including dates and issue titles is okay as long as not done excessively, but that was (1) over half a year ago, and (2) not a specific opinion on the text in this dispute." That indeed pertains to this dispute, since it mirrors what was said on the Red Hulk Talk Page, and yet, Asgardians insists on removing all such information, arguing that not doing so leads to an unreadable "laundry list" or "minefield" of dates and issue numbers. This is false, since we're talking about a middle ground of occasionally including such info, and he's talking about an all-or-nothing proposition between a huge list and none and at all. This is on the Red Hulk Talk Page, which is not "over half a year ago". Did you not read it?

"As ThuranX said, you have a preferred version just as much as Asgardian does and are pushing hard for your version." You are now bringing up something that is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. Of the four points I raised on the Red Hulk Talk Page, the others agreed with me on three; on the fourth, the matter of info pertaining to the character's human identity, they did not. I requested clarification of that, and ThuranX became angry at me for doing so, accusing me of pushing for a particular version, when I was merely asking for clarification of a point in order to reach a compromise. His accusation was a completely inappropriate breach of WP:AGF, and by now repeating it yourself---in regard to the separate matter of dates and issue numbers, which had nothing to do with Thuran's statement--you are now violating that policy yourself.

The evidence of the discussion on the Red Hulk Talk Page, and Asgardian's behavior, clearly falsify your assertion that he has not misbehaved, but I somehow have. Even the others are fed up with him, and I linked you to that as well, yet you ignore that as well. I asked you to intervene, and you never responded on my Talk Page, and when you did, it was to say that you weren't going to do so because you weren't "active" enough. Funny how you're not active enough to intervene with genuine policy violations by Asgardian, or to look over the genuine evidence of his misbehavior (I guess all those other users and admins I linked you to are all wrong), but active enough to overreact and exaggerate with respect to Good Faith actions on my part. Clearly you do not have the judgment capable of dealing with him realistically or objectively, and I will show this to the AN. Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

10c worth

I'll keep this separate from the above for easy reading. True to my word [1], I haven't edited Red Hulk since the issue came to a head, and have suggested that it go to WikiComics as there seems to be an impasse.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no edit warring, only improvements and modifications. The references in the article were placed in footnote formate as that is a style that I've run with for some time (over 30 - 40 articles) and seems to be becoming the norm, as the references in the text approach becomes unwieldy and difficult to read. Anyway, that's a matter for WikiComics.

Finally, a tad disappointed at the "mob" mentality shown here [2], as while I've made mistakes in the past (although it has been noted I've been unfairly blocked on more than one occasion), I don't feel an editor's history is the issue here. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to waste your time with this, but Nightscream seems to have followed ThuranX down the road of incivility, and has become openly abusive: [3] I would like to see him cautioned, and I really think his administrator privileges need reviewing. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you unblock me?

I have now an account here at Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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)

I've given due consideration to both points. I feel that KP-SV was only indef-blocked in the first place for an apparent loss of temper after he was blocked. He's retracted the comment, and agreed to a 1-month ban. I don't see that he's an SPA; he has made useful contributions at Lebanon and Jordan. And in any case, the 1-month ban will let him develop some breadth and his account is less than 1 month old in the first place. Plus, Juliancolton, the blocking admin, seems to feel the idea is acceptable. Just because this block is being lifted doesn't mean he should be spared from further blocks if he engages in more edit warring or personal attacks, after all. Mangojuice^talk 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

His article range is very narrow, basically Lebanon and Jordan and he was disruptive over more than on article. What exactly does the one month ban cover, a one month block, a one month topic ban or what? The consensus at Barbera is the autobio trumps the 1-2 RS's he can find and there are more RS's, first hand ones at that, that support the Italian view. How do we know he will accept that? Given his pattern of behavior, there's a very good chance he'll return to his prior disruption. And he still doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. Reading his talk page again note he only changed his tune when you offered to unblock him. I feel he's only trying to game an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite clear. A total 1 month ban from the Barbera article and talk page, and from edits regarding the ethnicity of people in general. As for the argument on Joseph Barbera, I don't know that he will accept it, and I don't think it's necessary for him to do so, I just think it's necessary for him to engage appropriately about it... once you guys have had a reasonable period away from it. Mangojuice^talk 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maltese dog

It's just evident from his previous work on the article/other articles across Wikipedia. However, I have no interest in causing animosity or disruption! Thanks for taking an interest, Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also...you appear to have redirected my old account...this is fine, but I liked the old account layout, and the redirect has made it impossible to view this. Please restore my old account - I may consider using the information there on my new one. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Contradict the truth"? It's pretty blatant. And silly. I'm sorry you don't see that :P Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also...you haven't done what I asked....which isn't particularly helpful. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there: your decision to act out against me has been duly noted: I shall proceed as necessary if I feel these actions are escalating towards bullying. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest comprehension lessons: I shall proceed as necessary if I feel these actions are escalating towards bullying. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I not ask for further input on your behavior. So I am doing so. In particular, I will be notifying Tanthalas39, since he had placed you on warning for disruptive behavior at Maltese (dog). I will be bringing up your use of alternate accounts. I will be bringing up your inappropriate accusation of vandalism. I will be bringing up your inappropriate attack on Imbris. Perhaps if you see that this is not me with a biased view of the situation, you will listen to the warnings I've given you, which I believe are fair and appropriate considering what you've done. Mangojuice^talk 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame administrators aren't what they used to be. I hope you're doing all this with good intentions; but we all know what sorts of roads those often pave. Be productive! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Heya! I've just realised you're a "doctor of philosophy". Isn't that brilliant :) but you don't speak much French and no German at all. How does that work? I suppose it all depends. There's an AN/I over Imbris btw, you might want to chuck your 2c in. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked out the ANI, but since I've edited substantially with Imbris, I have to consider that I've taken off my admin hat in dealing with him. My interactions with him on Maltese (dog) were definitely difficult; you can find some rather long complaints I left him if you search through his user talk page. But ultimately, I think he came to trust that I wasn't favoring one side or another, and this let him relax considerably. Mangojuice^talk 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rm125

FYI: I gave Rm125 a vandalism warning for repeatedly deleting sourced material with which he did not agree, not over a good-faith difference of opinion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you please check this

On article Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah, there's a user called Mohummy who keeps deleting most of the article claiming the sources provided are not WP:RS yet he can't say how that is. Can you please check the sources and give me your opinion. Thanks. By the way, I've started a discussion in that articles talk page. Thanks again Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, he's already done 3 rv's and I'm not about to get into an edit war with him. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please block me indefinitely

Thank you. Noloop (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please place an indefinite block on my account. Noloop (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... I reported an editor for violating 3RR, and I was blocked instead. I protested the block and was denied. I said, fine, I don't want an early unblock, and was promptly unblocked early. I requested an indef block and am now (apparently) required to be unblocked. WTF. If I request a community-wide ban, will you make me an admin? Obviously, anybody who wants to be indef blocked can make that happen...do you want me to be disruptive? Are you at least going to discuss what's going on in your head, or should I just go vandalize something? Noloop (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SELFBLOCK. Such requests are generally not granted. You can take a break or leave. Mangojuice^talk 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to help me leave. Something analogous to cutting up your credit cards. Noloop (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the idea, it's just against policy and therefore not done. Mangojuice^talk 21:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of

Just to let you know that Tan has been very kind in helping me out to sort the sockpuppets over here. Since he is on a Wikibreak so I am reproducing a message that I left on his talk page for your consideration too. And I guess you very well know the main user named LineofWisdom of this whole episode too.

"Cher Tan. I don't know how did I miss this one WikipedianBug which for sure seems yet another one of a suspected sockpuppet of LineofWisdom. Because the quality of English, written by him all over his edits, is exactly the same - the time of creation of this user account is the same i.e. 22nd August when all the other socks were created by him - and above of all his repeated votes of his earlier bad faith AFDs of Dil Jan Khan and Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. Now he has voted a 'Delete for the second time on Rafiq Shinwari, an article created by me, which though has been referenced in abundance now. I am certain that's him again but can you check this user or do something about him too. Always grateful."

-- MARWAT  01:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please advice on impossible situation- the same thing repeats itself over and over

Mangojuice, I need you advice, please. As you suggested here[[4]] I try to behave in more civil ways and when in doubt you graciously offered your help I am so fact working on J Street page. As before Malik Shabbaz and nobleezy and Sean as a team [[5]] are undoing me constantly without providing ANY justification whatsoever. Once again we are facing the same situation when I provide a thorough and well based arguments [[6]] they working as a team undoing it. Please take a look at the situation on J street. Please read the article that talks about it

This is the quote from NYT we are discussing:

“The peril may be real. But it can also feel like a marketing device. “You know what these guys are afraid of?” says M. J. Rosenberg, Washington director of the Israel Policy Forum. “Their generation is disappearing. All the old Jewish people in senior-citizen homes speaking Yiddish are dying — and they’re being replaced by 60-year-old Woodstock types.”

J Street, by contrast, is wide open to the public. Visitors must thread their way through a graphic-design studio with which the organization shares office space. There appears to be nothing worth guarding. The average age of the dozen or so staff members is about 30. Ben-Ami speaks for, and to, this post-Holocaust generation. “They’re all intermarried,” he says. “They’re all doing Buddhist seders.” They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of “Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.”

As you see he gives a very pointed reply here and it is relevant. For the issue of generational gap in this context. More then that I added this right after the sentense regarding Jews and non Jews supporters ( While primarily made up of Jews, J Street welcomes both Jewish and non-Jewish members.) Why not to include that they have a diversity there? You can see clearly that when I give a point that Malik doesn’t have an answer to the other guy comes to undo it. This is very typical of this team and they are provoking me by undoing and working as a team. Please tell me what think you. All my edits are well documented. What should I do here? Please advise. Thanks for your time. This happens everywhere I go. Is 'team working" is allowed?--Rm125 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the dream team are erasing talk pages. Look at the history [[7]]how they work together even on talk pages to erase my talk. Not only they erase my contribution to the article itself. They erase talk pages. Is it possible? This is not legitimate prsactice. Something must be done about it

--Rm125 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Mangojuice's Day!

User:Mangojuice has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Mangojuice's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Mangojuice! Peace, Rlevse 00:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

nableezy needs to be reminded of civil behaviour ( use of curses on talk pages- fu(xxx)ck

What do you say? Can we start working on language for a new RfC, or do we let the old one run its course? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Fuck"Some random word" it, just let the old one run its course. This user is incapable of not disrupting anything so there is no point in just giving him another avenue to further disrupt. nableezy - 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[[8]]

Mangojuice I disagree with your ban and “sanctions“

Unfortunately you chose to ignore all my attempts to resolve our disagreement. I tried to reply to your accusations point by point.I know it is not easy to counter my argument. Therefore I don't hold it against you, since obviosly my reasonings are devastating. Hovever it is helpful to leave this correspondence for the sake of interested parties reference.I also will present it as an evidence to the appropriate board later. Please reconsider leaving it for a week or two and hopefully by then this issue will be resolved between both of us to out mutual satisfaction. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I didn't remove it, it's just inside a collapsible archive box. The length of it just makes it hard to manage my talk page. Mangojuice^talk 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin enforced topic bans

Mango, ref your comments at WT:BAN to Jayron ("I see your point . . ."), I'm curious if we're on the same line of thinking ref my thoughts in the section above that regarding this being a matter of admins interpreting consensus as we do every day when we execute a block - I don't see myself as deciding a block so much as applying consensus as the same has been conveyed to me through policy - that line of thinking. Maybe you completely disagree based on your comments but I just wanted to ping you outside the discussion to see. Also curious if you have any thoughts about my suggestion for a dedicated page where bans could be proposed by any editor for discussion (see my comments towards the end of the first section at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Community_discussion_of_topic-ban_and_page-ban_procedure_urged and Beetstra's response). Maybe I'm completely out to lunch with my proposal but I value your opinion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, when there is a clear community consensus on an issue like a ban, in principle, it doesn't have to be an admin who identifies it. For instance, if a user was blocked after non-admin X made a complaint, and X continued to be involved in the user's unblock requests, ultimately X might be the one to come to the realization that Y is, de facto, banned and be the one to articulate it. That said, I would really discourage non-admins from deciding on the existence of bans for two reasons. First, as a pure matter of practicality, Wikipedia often acknowledges that an uninvolved, impartial admin can be relied upon to be fair. So bans "identified" by admins are that much easier to check on. Second, when it comes to bans other than total bans there are a lot of variables: duration, the wording of the topic ban restriction, which other sanctions to apply, whether the ban applies to talk pages or not, project space or not, et cetera. So there is a real possibility that a consensus may exist to ban someone but not over the exact terms. I think we can generally trust an uninvolved admin to decide the terms of a ban based on a community discussion but I don't know if I'd be so comfortable with a non-admin doing that. But I suppose, if the non-admin did a good job, the ban could have support. Mangojuice^talk 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on my suggestion on Bans for Discussion or some such name, as discussed on that page?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was the WP:CSN that got closed down. I think "bans for discussion" would be too much along the same lines, and would probably not work in the long term for the same reason. Mangojuice^talk 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Camponhoyle and his socks

On 7 July this user was blocked for vandalism and you blocked five others as his socks - see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Camponhoyle. It seemed as if they were a gang of kids mucking about, and they were told to go away and start with new accounts if they wanted to contribute sensibly. I think they are back, but not contributing sensibly:

• SuperTeacher123 (talk · contribs) has input an article Sockpuppetry of Camponhoyle two or three times,
• Falmorrow (talk · contribs) has just posted it again,
• Thunderbird123 (talk · contribs) put a hangon tag on it
• HappyMan999 (talk · contribs) has chimed in on the talk page, and so has
• MattiasGoyle (talk · contribs)

Superteacher123 has some constructive edits, including Easiteach and Technika which I gather were also involved in the original Camponhoyle business. The others have few or no constructive edits, and the focus on re-hashing the Camponhoyle affair is suspicious.

I was going to post all this at WP:SPI but it does not seem there was a formal SPI case raised before: shall I now raise one and post all this there, or can you deal with it direct?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: add to the list:

• Servanthoyle2 (talk · contribs), author of the remark just below, and
• Servanthoyle (talk · contribs)

JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU WILL PAY FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE TO ME AND MY MASTER, AND MY MASTER'S ALLIES!

FACE THE CONSEQUENCES!

YOU CANNOT STOP ME! WE HAVE ALREADY BEAT THE SYSTEM! TO DESTROY US FULLY DELETE EASITEACH!

Martial poem

Have you checked the source?? If necessary, I can introduce several others which make the association plain - however, the existing one offers no dispute. Please check the sources before reverting edits. This is becoming intolerably unfair. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and courteous response. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Camponhoyle

Hi I know camponhoyle and his sockpuppets, I am willing to help you get rid of them by telling you his new accounts.

A new one is user:Servanthoyle3

Thanks TheTraitor (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Common spam pattern

I notice that alot of accounts are adding a spammy article to their user subpage and adding a link to it from their userpage, presumably to gain SEO benefits of having a link to their spam article. Do you know anything about this? For more info see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Millennium_cohort/Archive. Triplestop x3 20:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of my User:Tkguy/Asian fetish and User:Tkguy/Asiaphile pages

So can you please explain to me why a discussion for the deletion 2 of my users pages in which there was one vote for Keep that was deduced only after a long discussion that concluded that there's really no rules in wikipedia that will support the deletion of my user pages. And another vote to Delete that uses absolutely no supporting references to any wikipedia rules. How did you determined that there was a consensus for deletion? These topics were very contentious so I don't believe action can be taken without a clear consensus with regard to this issue. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile Tkguy (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think restoring them necessarily makes sense. They're clearly long-term archives of one version of disputed content in userspace, without any clear effort to make them ready for prime time, and they violate WP:UP#COPIES. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, I don't believe this conversation involves you. Tkguy (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Without any clear effort" because Tkguy hadn't been editing. That's why I closed the debate as delete; given Tkguy's inactivity (or alternately, if he had been editing but not these drafts), the argument is a good one. But now that he's back, if he's interested in starting to edit them the argument no longer applies, or rather, I don't see that consensus in the debate was clear on it. Mangojuice^talk 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Please restore my page. Intend to make an effort to make them "ready for prime time" to appease MastCell. If MastCell or you have any more concern I will be more than happy to take care of them. Tkguy (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. A "long-term archive of disputed content" is a "long-term archive of disputed content." I don't see how it makes much difference if someone is editing actively or not; the idea is that POV forks shouldn't hang around in userspace for years. That seems to be the clear spirit of WP:UP#COPIES. If there is a real effort to address other editors' concerns and move these pages toward articlespace, then fine. If not, they should be relisted for an untruncated discussion. MastCell ^Talk 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to renominate them, I think that would not be inappropriate. I might have done that if Tkguy had been active at the time. Mangojuice^talk 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mango I believe according to the Wikipedia:Deletion_review you need to get a consensus to delete a page. From your writing you seem to acknowledge that there was no consensus considering the way you avoid the topic. Unless a vote for deletion by a random person with nothing to back up his or her vote and a long discussion that led to a vote for keeping means a consensus, then please explain this logic. And if you can't explain, then please revert the deletion review to an appeal.

“ If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. ”

I just got these pages back so give me some time before I start fixing them. In mean time please answer my question. Tkguy (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The logic is, I'm not recommending a deletion review but rather, a new WP:MFD nomination if Mastcell feels it's appropriate. I think chances are, these user pages will be deleted if you don't start editing them. So please, get started now. If you start editing them, the best reason to delete vanishes. Mangojuice^talk 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MFD states the following

“ Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline). ”

Please revert the deletion review to an appeal as obviously you can't seem to explain how you came about that there was a consensus. WP:UP#COPIES has been rendered moot as I am back to editing. If you or MastCell come up with yet third reason to have my user page deleted then I would think this is discouraging editing on wikipedia which is in violation of WP:EM.Tkguy (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What deletion review? If you want to start one, see WP:DRV. I don't understand what you're complaining about, you got your way, at least for now. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tannim1

After extensive discussion with him, I have unblocked Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hopefully he will spend his time editing, not arguing. Fred Talk 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Beaten us yet?

You started an enquiry, yet you still haven't won...I wonder why? We are the true masters of wikipedia. Delete easiteach, or we will keep coming back. Many thanks, JohnCDCD (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I wanted to thank you for your assistance. Jw120550 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Spritebox block evading again

Sorry about posting this here. I'm not sure where to report it formally. User:Spritebox is currently on a one month block for vandalism. He evaded his block via a new account User:Britespox, which you indef blocked not that long ago. Now it looks like Spritebox is once again evading his block. An IP address that he clearly used in the past just made an edit in the mainspace very similar to ones Spritebox has made in the past.

Check the contribs for IP 217.42.67.144. It is clear that the first four are Spritebox - he blanks Spritebox's talk page [20], re-adds Sritebox's personal attacks to my talk page [21], and reverts two changes by Verbal in the mainspace that are continuations of edits that Spritebox made on those same articles [22] [23].

This IP then edited today, on the Mediumship article which was very popular with Spritebox. Can you assist? Also, please let me know how to go about formally reporting this next time (AIV? ANI?) so that I don't have to bother an individual admin. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 17:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI is probably best, since the recent edits weren't obvious vandalism. Otherwise, WP:AIV. Blocked the IP for a month, b/c this IP might be a semi-dynamic IP. Mangojuice^talk 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for the advice. If it comes up again, I'll use that as my yardstick for deciding where to report. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 18:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Knight Prince

I think this justifies a re-blocking. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to reblock over it, especially given his later retraction [24] [25] [26]. But that's just my opinion, if you feel a block is necessary, go ahead. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Transparency

I've re-blocked User talk:MarkLevin7, which you had previously unblocked in good faith. As he has now made edits similar to the user he was professing not to be, and has proceeded to vandalize an article, I felt it was sufficient to close out the account. If you disagree, feel free to overturn without consulting me. Kuru ^talk 03:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of the strained discussion

After you have archived the section. [27] the IP-user, which was Notpietru (the following edit [in continuation of the diff] confirms that), changed the title of the strained discussion.

The following two links, which were both reverted portray that Notpietru is edit-warring.

• [28]
• [29]

I am deeply sorry that I did not recognize in time that Pietru (I do not know why he insist he is Notpietru) cannot be turned around to contribute.

If I remember correctly, Tan (Tanthalas39) imposed a sanction against Pietru, not to revert in the article, not to flame discussions and to discuss before editing. Notpietru did not comply and contined defamatory tactics. I was prepared to let go the issue that Notpietru (Pietru) maintained a higly POV version of the article, he did not provide a single helpful source, because for him it is still from Malta.

For what that user (Notpietru, Pietru) had done to the article he should be topic banned from it.

I am too tired to discuss with Pietru why he is not allowed to make significant changes in the article when that changes significantly misuse the sources.

Please can you select the proper title for the section that you have archived, COM is clearly not up to doing that.

Bugoslav (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiamut at WP:AN3

See WP:AN3#User:Tiamut reported by User:Mr. Hicks The III (Result: No action). Your name was mentioned there since you apparently did the last unblock of this editor. You are welcome to comment there, or to impose a new block if you think the editor should have absorbed your previous advice more fully. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ACC

Does Special:UserRights/Majorgeneralpanic still need ACC? MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed it. Mangojuice^talk 04:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Informal deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kairosis

Hi,

This is an informal request for a reversal of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kairosis given that PhD theses available for consultation are now reliable sources WP:RS#Scholarship.

Could you advise.

Thanks Fifelfoo (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Consultable_PhD_theses_as_RS.2C_impact for their interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Went to undelete, who recommended DRV, which is why:

Deletion review for Kairosis

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kairosis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Our favorite editor may be back

Two usernames have popped up on my radar as possible new Darin Fidika socks: User:Ytny and User:IMMORTAL SAMURAI. The latter admitted that he was the former here, though they don't seem to be editing abusively at the moment. The latter signed a comment as the former here, though. Any thoughts on how to proceed? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Omrganews

Hi Mangojuice, I need to be unblocked I must to contact other administrator or collaborator to update some information in the article "European University", so technically I was unblocked but really I'm blocked yet. Regards --Omrganews (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Price Is Right - individual pricing game articles

Hi there -

During a short span in late November 2009, a small number of the individual articles covering The Price Is Right's pricing games were deleted. Specifically, the articles that were deleted cover games that come first alphabetically, including:

Any Number Balance Game Barker's Bargain Bar Bonkers Bonus Game Bullseye Card Game

And none of the other 100 articles have been touched in the slightest.

Could you please either reinstate those articles, or delete all individual articles altogether? It is wrong for various editors to delete the first few and leave the rest intact for months.

Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.149.72.148 (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. –xeno^talk 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you a Scientologist?

I'm just sort of curious, if you don't mind me asking. 131.191.33.121 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed undeletion of The Knowhere Guide

Mangojuice,

As per Wikipedia guidelines suggested [[30]] I wish to put forward a case to you as to why the original deletion decision from 2006 ought to be reversed. I believe I have information not available to Wikipedia administrators at the time of the deletion which would make clear that the page very clearly met web notability guidelines.

Please let me know by which means I should put forward this information, and to whom if not you,

Kindly, Altermodernist (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Go-Kustom article

I am working on an article related to 2 articles you mergered/deleted per the AfD process 3 years ago - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.A. Sebasstian. I realize you are no longer an active user but I am hoping you might come across this and be able to provide some input. I am also notifying you per Wikipedia's policies. I have put up a notice on the merged article's talk page Talk:Kill Switch...Klick which includes more information. I will be working on the article over the next several days or weeks if you would like to comment. Thanks for your time. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massacre

Why did you remove the reference to Hilsher being alive and her parents not being notified? The reference is from WSJ AND it quotes the Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel which YOU can read for yourself. How careless and negligent of you to say "Hilsher was not named" when there were only 1 male and 1 female in that incident and it used the pronoun "she"? I hope you are more careful when you edit articles that involve other people's tragedy. Angry bee (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki

Apparently this source was discussed with you a few years ago. It’s now come up on the RSN board [[31]]and your name has been mentioned as sorting out copyright issues. Just wondering why you never pointed out at the same time that this was a Wiki and as such most likely failed RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey not a problem. Could you however look at the actual article in question (Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theological differences)? LoveMonkey (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

As you were involved i this issue, I am notifying you of this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 15#Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Darin Fidika. Please participate if you wish. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"crazy radicals"?

How is it not appropriate to tell WP admins not to call other editors "crazy radicals"? IMHO this is a clear case for a personal attack. --Raphael1 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking into this. The last time I communicated with you was 2.5 years ago. Review WP:CIV and WP:NPA and make your own judgments. Mangojuice^talk 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not looking into this? You blocked me for pointing this out.--Raphael1 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember blocking you, there's no block of you by me in your block log, and my last block of anyone was over a year ago because I'm semi-retired. So, no, I don't intend to look into this. If you want clarification on Wikipedia's policies you can ask me a specific question but I can't promise I'll respond promptly. Mangojuice^talk 21:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a specific question: How is it appropriate for a Wikipedia administrator to call fellow editors "crazy radicals"? How many violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA are necessary for an administrator to loose his privileges? --Raphael1 14:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't know what comments your referring to my response will be totally abstract. But here goes. I think there's sort of a heirarchy. On one end, there are some actual crazy radicals that try to edit Wikipedia, blatantly push an agenda, and ignore policy left and right. For them, there's no point in talking to them. Calling them "crazy radicals" will simply intensify them, so I think it's unhelpful and unproductive, which is to me the main point behind WP:CIV and WP:NPA, but on the other hand, administrators are asked disproportionately to deal with people like that so I would tend to cut them basically infinite slack, though I might suggest a more toned-down approach would be more productive. On the other extreme, an admin might say such a thing about a good-faith editor they disagree with over content in an article - especially if the good-faith editor is a non-admin. That's about the worst situation I can imagine. There, I would sharply criticize the admin for the WP:NPA violation and complain on WP:ANI if they continued to escalate the disagreement. In principle, if there was broad support for the idea, I might block the admin. I have always been willing to block an admin were I ever to see a circumstance where it was necessary but I never have. The thing is that admins have a lot invested in Wikipedia and are very responsive to the community. They don't do things like ignore WP:ANI discussions or direct comment on their talk pages. They respect policy even if they differ in how to apply it in individual circumstances.

As for an admin losing privileges, I have never seen it for purely WP:CIV and WP:NPA violations and I doubt I ever will, though I haven't been paying attention for quite some time. Admins tend to lose their privileges if they can no longer be trusted to have them, as evidenced by a pattern of abuse of those privileges, and WP:CIV and WP:NPA violations are not specific to admin privileges. Mangojuice^talk 05:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Tkguy/Asian fetish and User:Tkguy/Asiaphile

Because you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asian fetish, you may be interested in subsequent discussion about these userspace drafts. I have nominated User:Tkguy/Asiaphile and User:Tkguy/Asian fetish for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asian fetish (2nd nomination), respectively. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cryptography FAR

I have nominated Cryptography for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Smallman12q (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi, just a courtesy note to let you know I've undone your protection on Crystal Gail Mangum, which you did in 2007. As she is facing murder charges, she is independently notable and I've also undone the redirect.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Omer123hussain#Looking_at_this_again's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Design Classics

Since you are the admin that deleted the article Design classic, I thought I'd contact you before recreating it. I would like to demonstrate that 'design classic' may not be a well-defined concept, but that there is a common understanding that there are a number of industrial design products that together constitute a body of design classics. To start with, I've come up with a few references:

• Phaidon Design Classics (a book)
• The Independent: What makes a design classic?, 27 August 1999 by Stephen Bayley
• The Guardian Stamps of approval: British design classics, 13 January 2009 by Jonathan Glancey
• Design Classics by Patrick Taylor
• Design Classics: unequivocal, tangible, iconic?, RSA Design & Society blog
• What Makes a Design Classic? by David Hill, Vice President, Lenovo Corporate Identity & Design

Aren't that enough references to justify an article? Best, Mauro Bieg (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Prod-related templates

Category:Prod-related templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Long Overdue Apology

I used to be the user User talk:Ciaran306, whom you probably don't remember. I apologise for the way I acted in response to the block, and I don't hold any hard feelings. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 15:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Racko!

I have started a discussion at Talk:Racko! to rename the page to Rack-o. I saw that you had renamed it from that title before, so I hope you will chime in when you get the chance. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WilliamH (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

3 Quarters Dead profile

Hello, this iS Mark Alexander, guitarist for 3 Quarters Dead from NC. I am trying to make an official 3 Quarters Dead Wikipedia page and i just noticed a few days ago we have a deleted account on here. I'm not sure who tried to make one but i need to know what we can do to make this right so i can get an account up and running. I noticed we are on the music page for the state of NC and we are the only band mentioned that does not have a link to a page on here. Let me know how we can fix this. Thank You.

Mark Alexander, 3 Quarters Dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.66.23 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Knowhere Guide

Hi, I'm not sure about the protocol for recreating deleted articles but I've restarted The Knowhere Guide which you deleted after an AFD in September 2006. By the way I'm not claiming that your action was wrong (from the AfD it seems to be right) it's just that there seemed to be a number of reliable sources. Please let me know of any issues. JASpencer (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Orthodoxwiki note

Template:Orthodoxwiki note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Orthodoxwiki permission

Template:Orthodoxwiki permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

As a current or past contributor to a USCG Auxiliary article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

COASTIE I am (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prod-reason

Template:Prod-reason has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mangojuice. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Deprod-afd

Template:Deprod-afd has been nominated for merging with Template:Deprod. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Applied Cryptography" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Applied Cryptography. Since you had some involvement with the Applied Cryptography redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. LFaraone 13:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Jamaican Shower" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jamaican Shower. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Jamaican Shower until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Once Upon a Time (game).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Once Upon a Time (game).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material

Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Copyright permission

Template:Copyright permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Unblock-spamun

Template:Unblock-spamun has been nominated for merging with Template:Unblock-un. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. kleshkreikne. T 07:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)