User talk:Moonriddengirl

Archives

2007 (May +) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 2008 8, 9, 10, 11 (open)

[edit] 21st Century America Hates the Black Man

This article is at least as valid as the Antisemitism in the New Testament Article. I used the same logic that that article did. Please don't speedy delete before comparing to AsitNT.17:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truffy (talk • contribs) 9 April 2008)

Responded at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship, award, etc.

Hello Moonriddengirl. How are you? I will run for adminship after few months. Right now, I am busy in real life. And....

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" to Moonriddengirl for her kindness in general. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will appreciate the award. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :D I think waiting until you're not busy in real life is probably a fine idea. The process can take a lot of time and attention. On the other hand, some people seem to think it's a good idea to do it when you are busy, so it doesn't leave so much time to worry about it. Still, if I were doing it over, I'd aim for non-busy time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An incident

I posted to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility by Redthoreau re a situation where I've been acting in a mediator-like role (but not successfully enough, apparently :-\ --Coppertwig (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm making mistakes and (hopefully) learning from them. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all any of us can do, and my observations of you suggest that you do it well. I'm not sure how that resolved, since it's already quite buried in the archives and I don't know without digging through your contributions (which I might do if I hadn't spent an obscene amount of times in airports and airplanes today!) if it moved to another forum. I hope it's settled in some satisfactory way. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really!!! There have been at least four posts of mine over the past few weeks which Mattisse found to be threatening, ugly or attacking -- which I didn't intend them to be, except that the first one was a warning. I struck them out when I found out how Mattisse was reacting to them. The most recent one was here. Although I struck it out, Mattisse has, unfortunately, stopped editing the (Che Guevara) article and turned down the idea of mediation, but at least is still speaking to me. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. :( I presume this is the first edit of which you speak? Well, you certainly made an effort to apologize. Time might settle everybody down. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I very much over-reacted there, and wrote too long a message, too, as I tend to do. I thought maybe it was a mistake shortly after I posted it.

The archived link to the above incident report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive393#Incivility by Redthoreau. The other messages I struck out (and there may be more I'm forgetting) were here and here. The latter seems to have been a misunderstanding: Mattisse posted in a section of my talk page where a certain article was already being discussed with another user, so I thought Mattisse was (perhaps) referring to that article and I mentioned its name -- but the name of the article sounds like an insult! Another problem was that at least once when Redthoreau posted something on my talk page that was uncivil towards Mattisse, I didn't respond to it, which was quite unfair to Mattisse given the way I'd overreacted earlier. I suppose I need to try to develop a consistent response when people post attacks against other users on my talk page: perhaps something like "Please see the note at the top of the page about what types of messages are and are not welcome here." I don't like to delete stuff.

I think I could have benefitted from re-reading WP:No angry mastodons at certain points in this whole thing. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Always a helpful essay. :) Mediating disputes in any fashion is difficult, I'm sure. If you're reading the article name situation correctly (and it looks like you probably are), then I don't see how you could have done that much differently. The note was in that section and even indented as if threaded within that conversation. It's only natural that you would assume that s/he was talking about that article. Your response was very cordial and entirely appropriate there, I think. There is always a difficult balance between over-explaining and keeping it brief. I know a lot of people don't care for emoticons (one of my non-Wiki internet friends is outright offended by them), but I quite like them because I feel like they help with that balance. A ":)" is frequently short-hand for me for "I mean no harm by this" or "no offense intended". It doesn't always work, but I think it can help. I need all the shorthand tricks I can devise, because I definitely write long by nature. :D If you think that your messages are too long in such cases, maybe you should sandbox your initial response and then leave it to re-read before posting maybe 15 or 20 minutes later, after doing other things? I know I sometimes find that on later re-reads, I was not as clear as I thought I was. (And, of course, people will sometimes misinterpret you no matter how clear you may be, since they do have their own preconceptions.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Moonriddengirl. It's always reassuring to talk things over with you. I'll keep your suggestions in mind. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

The common IP address 62.231.45.8 is the source of yet more vandalism, this time of the Allied Irish Banks page. You andothers have issued multiple final warnings. Can we ban the address indefinitely? Acad Ronin (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for bringing this up, although I'm afraid that as I was out of the country I wasn't able to address it in a very timely manner. We don't generally indefinitely block IP addresses because of the risk of inadvertently blocking legitimate contributors. If an IP address is a regular source of unconstructive editing, however, longer blocks may be issued. This particular IP has not received a final warning since the last block was issued on October 22nd. In most cases, a new block will not be imposed unless a recent final notice has been issued and disruptive editing continued beyond it. If you observe vandalism, you are welcome to issue notice yourself using the templates which can be found here. If a user continues vandalizing after a recent final notice, you can report him or her at WP:AIV, and an administrator will investigate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old problems

Sorry for disturbing you again but old problems appears to continue, this time on different contributors talk page [1], curiously enough (see timing and article), the IP anon in corresponding article enrolled in reverts [2] [3]. Could you please advise on this issue or speak with user who obviously found new "target". Thanks, M.K. (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sorry I didn't get back with you sooner. I've been out of the country and have only just returned. The first difference seems to be problematic with regards to civility, and if the user persists I would probably consider taking it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. With regards to the others, if you think the user is logging out to game the system, the thing to do is probably to take it up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. If it was the same user, though, I'm not sure that there's necessarily any action to be taken at this point, since that user hasn't edited the article recently according to article history and so wouldn't necessarily be inappropriately using alternate accounts there. It might be best just to keep an eye on the situation and see what develops. If further response seems needed, please let me know. I'm pretty tired from traveling right now and might be missing the obvious. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I will keep and eye. Hope you had good traveling! Cya, M.K. (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I did. I'm not fond of the accompanying exhaustion. :) I'm off again in about two weeks and dreading it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, good luck with your new adventure! M.K. (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another bad day

Moon ridden girl, I had another bad day at school. It was the second day in a row it happened, yesterday, it was moderately bad, this time, it is much worse! (crying) I need cheering up really badly! I even had to leave school early, because I didn't want to risk another outburst! Please respond on my talk page. Kitty53 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!Kitty53 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Moorcroft/Regulus Black

I can confirm that he is playing Regulus in the next Harry Potter film, mainly because it's me :) It's not actually a very big part as I appear alongside Jim Broadbent in a moving photograph of the Slytherin Quidditch team from the 1970s. TheHeartbreakKid15 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, congratulations on the role! :D I hope that it opens up great things for you. It's certainly a high profile film, even if it is a small part, and it sounds like an excellent resume line. :) In terms of your confirmation, though, we need to wait for something that qualifies as a reliable source to verify it for mention in one of the relevant articles, like Regulus Black. Wikipedia relies on the ability of others to verify facts by checking sources, so we have a policy against using information that counts as "original research". This is one of the reasons why autobiographies are problematic. If you know it's true, you'll probably be tempted to mention it. But we can't use it until it can be proven. Given the nature of the film, I imagine that will happen soon enough, if it hasn't already. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey ...

[edit] article assessment

Ah okay, I should have thought to look there first. Thanks for the help! = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hello Moonriddengirl. Thank you! I don't know what to say! Thank you for the award. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

This matter Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak is a disappointment because you seem to have counted votes, rather than weighing the validity of arguments. Could you explain to me please why this subject is notable. Could you, for instance, point to one independent source that has covered the subject (not just mentioned them in passing), or show me where the subject was cited by independent, reliable sources? Surely if there were valid keep arguments it should be trivially easy to find such a thing. Remarkably, every time we check a reference, we either find that the reference does not say what is claimed in the article, or the reference was written or translated by the subject, so it is not independent. See Talk:Christian Polak#Bibliography problem. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that you may disappointed by my reading of consensus (or lack thereof) on this debate, but I assure you that I didn't arrive at my decision simply by counting votes. I spent an hour and a half reading the debate and making notes on it in my sandbox. Counting votes alone would have been much quicker. The job of any administrator closing an AfD is to use his or her best judgment to determine when and if rough consensus has been reached. As I mentioned in my closing rationale, I found arguments on both sides of the debate within policy. While some arguments on both sides were firmer grounded in policy than others, I was unable to discount the reasoning of contributors on either side. I do not believe that there was a dominant view for deletion or keeping in either of the grounded arguments. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am also an administrator, so I am familiar with how to do the job. Can you address specifically Talk:Christian Polak#Bibliography problem. The list of works authored by the subject was the basis for several keep arguments. Upon careful inspection, it appears that the list was substantially misrepresented. Is it within policy to misrepresent sources? Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for explaining what you already know. I don't recall having encountered you before (though, you know, it's a big wiki, so I might have done), and I did not realize that you are an admin. My impression from your first note was that you thought my job was to judge the article rather than weigh how the community of contributors to the AfD judged the article. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did consider every argument made on the AfD page, including accusations of misrepresentation of sources. Presumably, the other contributors to the AfD—including those who argued that the individual meets WP:N—did as well. You're welcome to read my notes in my sandbox, which I linked above for your convenience (obviously, since they're notes, they're much abbreviated). (I did not take notes from other areas, including the AfD talk page.) I have evaluated the debate to the best of my ability; I am sorry if my determination disappoints you. It's quite possible that the community at DRV will disagree. It's obviously a sticky issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to take this to DRV prematurely. I believe that many of the sourcing problems surfaced during or shortly after the AfD, so I do not think they were given full consideration by the participants. Recognizing the limits of your discretion, I do not think you did a bad job. Probably the best thing to do is wait a few days to see what other sourcing issues may appear, and then perhaps go to DRV on the basis of newly uncovered information. This would not reflect negatively on your work, because you have to judge the AfD comments that you find rather than guess what people would have said if they had complete information at the time. Thank you for your efforts here. Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. :) I knew when I addressed this one that it was likely to be difficult...or it wouldn't have been left in the "old" pile as long as it was. "Snow" closures are a lot less stressful and time consuming! Since I tend to work the "old" pile, somebody else usually gets those.

I just had a glance at the talk page of the article and see that concerns are continuing to evolve. I think you have a good idea in waiting a couple of days to make sure that all information is in so that a DRV is fully informed and definitive. For the record, I take your walled garden concerns very seriously. I tried to address it to the extent that I felt appropriate for me in the closure by noting my interpretation of policy that the existence of the article does not inherently validate the individual as a source for other articles. I considered linking to some notable but not necessarily credible scholar to demonstrate this, but the the one that came to mind isn't really analogous as he is himself accused of fraud. I would have had to think up somebody who has coverage but is not necessarily considered an expert in his field, some pop scientist or some such. (I'm sure they're out there, but I couldn't think of any.) In any event, I hope it all resolves to your satisfaction, either by alleviating your concerns or conclusively confirming them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment passing by --as I see recent deletion reviews it is almost impossible to get a no consensus close changed to delete (or to keep). he response almost always is, just try another afd in a few months. I'm not arguing the article should be kept--just that the procedure probably wont accomplish anything except prolong the dispute without advancing it. DGG (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to start a review myself. If somebody else thinks it is necessary they can. The more important issue is to verify the facts in the article so we can be confident that any future decisions have a proper basis. Jehochman ^Talk 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. I wrote a paper (in my own words) on SGF last year for grad school which I will use to create this entry. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfer7315 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I should imagine that would work well, as a graduate level paper will undoubtedly have the kinds of reliable sources that Wikipedia requires to verify information. If it's based on a paper, though, do be careful not to include any original research. We have to avoid copyright problems, but on the other hand as an encyclopedia we also avoid incorporating information that has not already been published elsewhere. If you have questions about any of these policies or guidelines, please let me know or ask at Wikipedia's help desk, which is typically manned around the clock by volunteers. There can be a bit of a learning curve at first, especially with citing references and suchlike. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I made some comments at the rewritten article--you might want to take a look yourself. DGG (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: East Central High School (Indiana)

OK, I will consider that in the future. It is now a redirect to Saint Leon, Indiana. --User:Iambus (speak | proposal) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal?

This man User talk:Grant.Alpaugh is vandal. I know this, because his my bro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LASurfer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(duplicating message from other talk page) Whether he is a vandal or not, his page does not qualify for deletion under the speedy criterion, any more than does mine or User talk:Madcoverboy. If you are concerned about the editing of an individual, you can certainly seek advice on dealing with vandalism or read through our vandalism policy for yourself. But please be advised that placing tags without a valid rationale can in itself be disruptive. I am curious as to why you have duplicated this userpage on your own. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPA/Vandalism?

Hey, I was just wondering if you were warning me or the other jerks who were vandalisng/trying to delete my talk page? If you were talking to those people (which I'm pretty sure you were) is there any way you could talk to them about not deleting my talk page? That appears to be an open-and-shut case of vandalism. Thanks. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) My only edits to your talk page were to neutralize the deletion tag, here and here. I did tell the editor who placed the tag that placing such tags without rationale is disruption, but on his page, here (duplicated above). (He also placed the tags here and on my page. (So far, this editor has been persistently blanking his page.) The first notice I left him about the tag, here, assumed good faith, as I wasn't sure what he was attempting to communicate. The second notice, here, was the first in the vandalism series. He left me a personal note after that claiming some sort of personal relationship with you, which is when I gave him a more in-depth explanation (my first diff, above.) If he persists, he is certainly liable to be blocked as set out in the vandalism policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea who this guy is, though I think his user page suggests this is sockpuppetry. It's not the biggest of deals, but false accusations of vandalism can be really abusive especially when rather than vandalism, you've actually been working for several hours on templates and such in order to improve the articles he seems to be accusing me of vandalising. Hopefully your quick and firm actions have persuaded him to pursue this no further, and I thank you for being helpful as I have found you to be in the past. Thanks again and keep up the good work! -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Metal Observer

I'm having an argument with a couple of users to find out wether this online-magazine's article should stay on Wikipedia or be deleted. They moved the article The Metal Observer to here (my own page), so that I could show its importance. It's a pretty visited metal-site, it covers all kinds of metal music. Please tell me what they asked for (here). Rockk3r (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The AfD closed as delete because consensus of the participants was that the article did not demonstrate notability through reliable sourcing. There are specific requirements at WP:WEB for what web content may warrant an article on Wikipedia. If you want to recreate an article on this web content, you'll need to be able to demonstrate that it meets at least one of those criteria. One of the most commonly used is demonstrating that the website has been written about in magazines or newspapers itself. It could also be discussed in television shows or other reliable websites (like Rolling Stone). Press releases don't count. It can also qualify if the website or its content has won a well-known, independent award. (You should read that full link for more.) Once you figure out if it currently qualifies, you need to be able to demonstrate this by providing reliable sources to prove that it meets the criteria. If you can do that, then you can move the draft back into article space. Until the article meets the notability guidelines, however, it is subject to being deleted again as a recreation of an article deleted after deletion debate that does not address the reasons for which the article was deleted. Please let me know if you need more information or assistance with any of these policies or guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little Help?

I think that this is related to what happened the otherday with LA Surfer (If I had to guess I would say that LASurfer is a sockpuppet or friend of US - Jimmy Slade. I think if you look at Jimmy's talk page (he's since blanked it, but looking through history you can see the posts that caused his outburts) you'll see I did nothing untoward to provoke these outburts and I would appreciate something being done about them. Thank you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you've done to help. I want you to know that while I agree that my first comment can be misconstrued to seem belittling. I didn't mean it that way and was thankful (as you pointed out) that he was at least willing to listen to my arguments (which still have yet to be addressed on their merits on either talk page or the article's). Any sense of frustration with the level of his English came from the fact that I've been dealing with several situations similar to this one (though, thankfully, much more civil) and thathe purports to be at least a high school graduate (though as you are aware this is copied from someone else's user page), and should be able to communicate in English in a manner that allows me to understand what he's trying to say without having to endlessly parse and decode it. I suggested to him that he might find his efforts more fruitful if he was working on one of the other Wikipedias in a more familiar language. He responded that he simply knows so many languages that he cannot commmunicate properly in any of them, an argument I simply don't buy. After he started swearing at me and vandalising my page I kind of lost my cool, but I think that's understandable. In short, thank you for helping, and I appreciate you following up. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did suspect, as I mentioned, that you might not have intended your first comment to send belittling. With regards to the user page, I have not seen the page from which this one might have been copied. It was created in July of 2007 and seems to have evolved slowly from there. User:LASurfer was created as a duplicate on April 7th. Are you confusing these user pages, or have you discovered a duplicate of User:US - Jimmy Slade? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] He's wrong

He changed the table on the page Major League Soccer. This is bad made, and incomprehensibly! Why when someone do here to standard, so this can block, but this guy no? Thanks LASurfer (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are means for dealing with content disputes. Edit summaries like this and posts like this are not acceptable. Civility is policy on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LASurfer

I don't like vandalism and I'am not a vandal. I just don't like unfairness LASurfer (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] last comment

A part of this conflict is my. Sometimes, I have annoyed. This is my defect:) So, sorry about that and Thank U US - Jimmy Slade (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that conflicts can get heated. Sometimes it can be helpful to step away from the computer for a few minutes until the initial emotional response settles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's up?

Hey! Just wanted to see how your doing! Life going well? My goal is to make friends with every single person on wikipedia! Will you be my wiki-friend?

216.229.227.142 (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A little something for you

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Great work on Muktadhara! Phil Bridger (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I admire your work on AfDs, which makes me all the more appreciative. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)