User talk:IanManka: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:15, 15 June 2007

Ian Manka is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia during weekends. Don't expect responses until the weekend if you leave a message.

IP addresses may change with every page you load and make it almost impossible for you to receive my response. I recommend that you create an account. There are many benefits of registering. Please leave a new message, even if you don't have an account. Anonymous users will find responses here.

My talk page, and all subsequent archives, is best viewed in 1152x864 resolution.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THESE PAGES. THEY ARE ARCHIVES.

For a more comprehensive list, see Topical Index

Because I felt like it, previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous Discussions:

Notes to self

Pictures of:
1. Olde Towne Hall
2. National Inventor's Hall of Fame
3. Summit Racing
4. Exterior, Quicken Loans Arena, Jacobs Field, Wolstein Center
5. Geauga Lake roller coaster pictures
6. Soda gun
7. Pizza delivery guy
8. Apple Genius Bar (Image:Apple Genius Bar.PNG)
9. Archos AV340 (Image:Arcav340.jpg)
10. Xbox 360 Controller (Image:Xbox360-controller.jpg)
Find citations for:
1. The Circle -- Busiest intersection in Summit County, Ohio?
2. Churches per Capita
  1. Guiness World Record?
  2. Trivial Pursuit Game
Summit Racing article
Germany national football team on [1]
Create Wingfoot Lake Airship Base A brief history of the Wingfoot Lake Airship Base
Respond to user who has information connecting Quaker Oats to Ravenna
Bottle Bill Legislation information from here to add to Container deposit legislation.
Lotteries in the United States; create new pages for different state lotteries; start WikiProject?
Split Template:Saturday Night Live.
Convert these to tables:
1. Member list of Order of New Zealand
2. Kultus Minister of Denmark
Infobox Baseball Stadium conversions
Watch [2]
Merge Yeditepe Üniversitesi and Yeditepe University
Wave:
1. Speed 40f/s
2. Width 15 seats
3. It takes 30 fans to set wave in motion.
4. Hungarian scientist Tamas Vicsek
5. Study, 2002
6. Watched Mexican soccer matches
[3]
[4]

Clarify please

Hello...

To whom were you directing this comment (below)?

Kind regards, fizixx

User talk:76.211.11.227
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to International Bowl. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by fizixx (talk • contribs).

Vandalism reporting

Ian, thanks for the note. Won't notify them again! Flyguy649 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review archived

Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Wikipedia:Editor review/IanManka, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TestTemplatesSmall

Ian,

I don't see a replacement for Template:TestTemplatesSmall, which is designed to be concise, at WP:UTM. I accordingly reverted your posting of a deprecation notice. Is the problem with TestTemplatesSmall that it is out of date? Λυδαcιτγ 06:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I updated Template:TestTemplatesSmall (for use on the templates themselves), and also created a new Template:WarningsSmall (for use on other pages; contains "subst:" along with the template links) based on what was at WP:VAND. The latter is only being used at WP:VAND, though. Any ideas where else it would be useful? Λυδαcιτγ 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot offer

If you could do a bot that looked at the warning that an editor issued, and said it had been deprecated, that would be fantastic. It needs another week or so I feel before the major bugs are hammered out. But afterwards that'd be great. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIAV

I saw that. I went back to change it but it was gone. Planetary Chaos Talk to me 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Templates

Hey. decided to contact you as my admin-of-choice, after you advised me not to mention WP:AIV on a vandal's talk page. Got it and understood. Different issue, however: I've created a number of my own personal warning templates, which I feel offer a greater breadth of options to me, dependent upon the actions of the (potential) vandal. Right now, I save them in raw wiki form, but is there a way to create my own actual templates (utilizing {{template}} form) on a sub-page of mine, or would I actually have to make them public in order to use the {{template}} format? (I'll take my answer here.)Thanks. --LeyteWolfer 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, I have the templates {{User talk:IanManka/Archive/Archivetop}}, which, by transclusion, produces the following if I type {{User talk:IanManka/Archive/Archivetop}}

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Previous Archive | Topical Index | Next Archive

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between {{{datebegin}}} and {{{dateend}}}.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Also, note that each template needs to be placed on a new user sub-page. I'd be willing to help, but I'd like to know how you'd like to proceed. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the examples and (especially) the tip on being on their own subpages. Let me bump around a bit with this and I'll 'call' you if I need assistance. 'Preciate it! --LeyteWolfer 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got a new one for ya: how do I put five tildes (to display just the date) into a template so that when I use the template, it doesn't use the static date displayed on the template page (i.e., of the date I made the template? If I use "Ignore wiki formatting,' then the tildes (only) always get copied over to the page and I still don't have the current date. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer 04:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I figured it out. Thanks for the help. I've got my basic templates up & running, with more to follow. Again, thanks. --LeyteWolfer 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

No problem, is it policy always to delete the talk page? I only ask because the deletion page gives an option to edit instead, and asks for a reason for deletion. If talk pages are always deleted, presumably it could be made automatic. jimfbleak 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicon usage on your user page

No problem, hope you don't mind me changing it! We're trying to change the underlying mechanism for how those templates work, and editing your user page removes several soon-to-be-obsoleted internal template calls. Andrwsc 06:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user 194.144.111.210

Could you ban this user from editing wikipedia? He keeps vandalising In Flames articles and other articles. --Dexter prog 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add missing information to a protected page (Virtual Reality)

Eric Howlett, a notable pioneer in the Virtual Reality field, is missing from the list in this overview article. This is an obvious omission. I am researching his life and career now, will post an article on him soon. He should also be on the list and linked from that to the article. Thank you.

rperlman 00:17, 31 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Like this one

Yeah, I already know that it's used as a deliberate example of a red link, like The weather in London and red link. Now for the latter two, attempting to click the "edit" link results in the same {{deletedpage}} message rather than the edit form; by contrast Like this one is still editable, and the subject of about a dozen speedies including two from the past month. As an example of a red link, I'm thinking it should be one of the protected titles (though, as a normal user I do not know how the protected-title feature works). --Stratadrake 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Researching this subject, it appears that "protected titles" is an extension of the newly added cascading page protection feature. It is already being used for the list of pages at Wikipedia:Protected titles, I'm just asking that it be used on the other article too. Okay, looks like the proper place to request it is at WP:PT and not the article itself. --Stratadrake 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility to vandals

My intent was to be terse as called for in same guidelines not insult the vandal. Good points on first link about vandal behavior. Perhaps using those words plays to their intent. Worth thinking about. HJ 05:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS If Wiki guidelines required a registration to edit, the vast majority of vandalism could be averted in the first place and that which wasn't could be isolated and users blocked efficiently. Despite best efforts of editors and admins....vandalism often goes unnoticed or vandal not warned or blocks ineffective due to multiple IP addresses. The result is a R rated or certainly potentially flawed encyclopedic reference. There is some much goodness in the Wiki concept, it's real shame to have so much of this ongoing vandalism throughout the articles.

Please read what I said originally. In no way did I intend to be "uncivil" and the word "nonsense" is actually used in the links you suggested I read. how about some consistency or better definition of what constitutes being "uncivil"? HJ 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1954 World cup

Ian My name is Stephen Kirwan.I am 17 and am from Ireland.I am doing a project on the conspiracy surrounding the 1954 World cup final.I read your comment on the page about the 1954 World cup final and was wondering do you know where I could find better information on the conspiracy of the 1954 world cup?If so my e-mail address is s_kirwan2@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.129.84 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(Responding here) The statement you saw on the talk page was removed from the article as being unsourced. I don't think the allegations are true, but perhaps Google could help you. Good luck with your project.

commons:User:IanManka

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:IanManka. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation needed for article by name Mudaliar

Hi IanManka,

I am a very avid reader of Wikipedia articles on Tamilnadu. (a state in India). I noticed that you helped resolve the edit wars in the article Gounder with a disambiguation page. The article Mudaliar is involved in repeated edit wars similar to the article Gounder. I believe it needs disambiguation page similar to article Gounder. Both these are surnames used by different groups in Tamilnadu. There is constant slandering occuring in the article Mudaliar.

I think it needs a simple disambiguation page on the lines of article Gounder so that different groups can use it as a starting page.

Hope you can use your expertise in this matter. Thank for your time and help.

Sriramwins 04:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG map of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact

I have just uploaded SVG version of image you requested. Could you verify its correctness (and possible replace previous version) please ? Image is available here [[5]]. Let me know if you need to change something. --Miko3k 11:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just found a problem which my image (legend was wrong) so I uploaded a new one [[6]] (I can't replace image because my account it too new). I have submitted a replace request to help desk at wikimedia commons too. --Miko3k 12:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestions, I created an updated version. Could you look at it one more time to ensure it's all right (I'm not a historian so I relly can't tell:-)) --Miko3k 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 NFL Draft Order

Hi Ian, I noticed you changed the draft order back to having bands and saw your reason. Do you have a link to this new change? I must not have heard about the NFL doing this this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 7231g (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here/commons.wikimedia

Hi, I noticed in Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here/commons.wikimedia that you had attempted to transwiki a bunch of articles with pictures to commons. It appears that most of these attempted transwikis did not work for some reason. [7] was supposed to have gone to [8] for example, but did not. Gallery of 1900 Galveston Hurricane images was supposed to have been transwikied, but as you can see at [9], it was deleted from commons for being empty, which means again the pictures were not sent. What happened? I am trying to clean up and archive the items on the transwiki log here, but I'm not sure what to do with these items since the transwiki procedure didn't appear to have worked. --Xyzzyplugh 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok, so you started the transwiki procedure on these articles, copied the articles over, but didn't copy the pictures that went along with them? The problem with that is that there is no system in place for anyone to finish the procedure. It would be like taking an article which is supposed to be moved to someone's user space, cutting and pasting half of it over, and then leaving it in place like that, figuring, "ok, good enough, maybe someone will come by and cut and paste the other half over some day". Realistically, no one is ever likely to finish transwikiing those articles, so it's best not to start the transwiki procedure unless you plan to copy over the entire thing. Not that this is any great crisis, though, we could remove transwikiing altogether and it would have little effect on wikipedia, I think. --Xyzzyplugh 05:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Hi

I was cleaning up WP:PM when I found an entry for merging MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger.

From the discussion on both talk pages, there did not seem to be consensus and you had closed the matter. I was just a little confused, was there no consensus, or was it clearly decided not to merge?

I couldn't exactly figure out, but I'd like to help in any way if I could. If there was no consensus, then I would like to re-open the discussion,since the Windows Live Messenger states at the top:For the old versions of this software called MSN Messenger, see MSN Messenger.

Any ideas about this?

Thanks xC | ☎ 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages by themselves list each other as past and present versions of the same software, so I strongly believe they should be together. Then again, they are pretty big, so merging them together on one page would mean first making a giant and then splitting it up to make it less clunky. I would still support a merge, since that would mean identifying both of them together. However, at this point, you're right, there really is no need to haggle about this. If as and when there are substantial changes to either of the two articles, I'll try bringing it up. Thanks xC | ☎ 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en-admins

I confirm that I am the IanManka on IRC freenode.net If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BAO Team

Your thoughts regarding this article, this is already the 3rd nomination. Some people might be confused that warez, hacking and cracking groups are legible for wikipedia. I can't believe this is already the 3rd, does this mean that any article can be deleted for the sake of different POVs. Yunaffx 08:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, other's POV not your POV. Yunaffx 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oley Valley High School

Hi, I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oley Valley High School. You quite rightly put this up for deletion since the article, at that time, professed no notability. However, I have substantially expanded it and included two events that made the mainstream media. I should be grateful if you would take another look at the article in the light of the improvements made. TerriersFan 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. TerriersFan 00:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My green e

Thanks for alerting me to Esperanza's deletion. I was gone from wikipedia for a long time and only returned this past week, and had not got around to checking back up on Esperanza, but now that i see it's been decentralized, this will be my last signature with the e. Thanks again. --Evan S e eds (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved from Archive 14

You removed our University Photo which are taken personally by myself (uzawaung). I may not know copyright claim but my photo are own by me and i give free access to all. If you have time, i request sincerely to write to me how to post own photo for future. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangon_Technological_University

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uzawaung (talk • contribs).

AfD

Jeez, I can't believe I did that! Thanks, Ian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of omnipotent fictional characters‎‎

Why did you delete List of omnipotent fictional characters‎. - Peregrine Fisher 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not a vote is why I ask. If it was a vote it would be an easy deletion. The delete voter's argument basically boiled down to omnipotent (mostly comic book) characters have been beaten in a fight by so and so, so they're not omnipotent, or other reasoning based on what they felt the word omnipotent means. The keep argument was basically that we're not here to pass judgement on what fictional omnipotence means, and every character on the page had a reference for their omnipotence or near omnipotence, which was the scope of the article. I think it should have been a no consensus keep, or straight keep. - Peregrine Fisher 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you feel the same way as the delete votes. It's the delete reasoning that fails OR, not referenced characters. It doesn't seem like "If there is room for judgment in trying to make a list that accurately fits the title, it's too subjective for encyclopedic entry." is accurate, when the judgement is by RS. There's lots of WP lists that rely on subjective judgement, just not our own. It seems like why "List of Strong Fictional Characters" wouldn't be encyclopedic is because it would be open ended, which this list was not. We have lots of lists about fictional characters with certain characteristics. It doesn't match "indiscriminate collection of information," either. It's title and references discriminate nicely. - Peregrine Fisher 07:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fictional portrayals of psychopaths. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaksar (talk · contribs)

First off, 48 hours for a first time offense? Secondly, to you really think it was necessary to act on a report that was filed 4 days ago? Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. John Reaves (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that they are unblocked. You may want to see the relevant discussions here and here where your block length and the age of the report have been discussed. I also find it concerning that you didn't sign or make any notice of a block being placed at WP:AN/3RR. And on a minor note, you told the user you blocked to ask any questions on your talk page, which they can't really do considering they are blocked. John Reaves (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress Classification deletions

(Merging comments) The votes was only on the BS schedule, but I can understand that if you felt the consensus was to delete BS that it would also be to delete the of the BA, BB, etc. But there was no discussion of the advisability of deleting the master B schedule. Could you explain your rationale? DGG 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IanManka! I recently came across this AfD and wanted to ask you about your reasoning. How did you get from deleting one set of subclass pages to deleting "all other articles beginning with "Library of Congress Classification"? I'm not sure that there was consensus for this decision. As you can tell from my comment on the talk page, if I had seen this AfD before it closed I certainly would have voted to keep -- the LoC pages provide a great unusual way to browse Wikipedia content, and they are listed as such on a half-dozen structural pages, such as WP:CONTENTS. They aren't listcruft, at least not as I understand the term. Anyway, I think at least some of the AfD commentary was only focussed on the subclass pages, and NOT the higher-level class pages. I'd like to hear your reasoning. Thanks for your time! -- phoebe/(talk) 05:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note this is the same issue that DGG brings up in his comment "B Schedule" above. phoebe/(talk) 05:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extending Phoebe's question what was on the other main pages for the other letters A, C through Z --was there substantial content? i cannot see it now? DGG 09:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I urge, is that you restore those main single-letter pages now, since they had not been discussed, leaving the more specific ones for further consideration and a possible deletion review. DGG 09:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, do I feel like an idiot. I totally misread what was meant by "subclass." I went overboard seeing the same type of pages in the other subclasses, and thought they were similar in nature and about the same amount of content. In the meantime, I'm going to undelete all the pages I deleted without consensus. Again, I'm sorry about this whole mess, and I hope you'll accept my apology. A more detailed explanation will be posted here after I re-review all of my deletions. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive Reflection

When closing the AfD, the nomination indicated for the deletion of "the entire class of similar articles." At first, I took this to mean the Class B, subclass B<whatever> articles. I took action to delete all of these. After deleting these, I thought that Library of Congress Classification:Class B -- Philosophy, Psychology, Religion was nothing more than just a directory of the subclasses (which I now realize that there are links that lead to actual articles, not just the subpages). I then proceeded to delete the Class B article.

Then, upon further reflection on the AfD discussion, I first realized what the nominator suggested: "the entire class of similiar articles." I reviewed some of the articles of the subclass-level type (like Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DF -- History of Greece), and agreed that these were no more than "taking something from some database and compulsively stuffing it into Wikipedia" as one editor wrote on the AfD. I then decided to delete all subclass articles, as I felt that: (1) it was the original wishes of the nominator and other comments on the AfD and (2) the subclass articles (like the one linked above) were nothing more than some cut-n-pasting of the directory (no wikilinks, for example), and should be deleted. I proceeded to delete the subclasses, which eventually led to the same realization I came to on the Class B article, which led to the deletion of all LOC Class <whatever> articles.

Then the above comments were lodged, and I took the following actions:

I undeleted all articles that were perhaps unmerited in deletion. These articles were basically all that were not in the Class B LOC directory articles. I also undeleted the Class B article.
I reviewed the AfD a second time.
I reviewed the comments left on the AfD talk page.
I reviewed how the Dewey Decimal System article has been set up.
I posted the aforementioned explanation.

And from here, I wish to list my views on the whole set of pages.

Personal Commentary

In my opinion, the whole set of pages are a mess. I see the following flaws in the setup of these articles:

The page titles are excessively long, and appear to be copied out of the Library of Congress (hereafter LoC) directory. This could be a good thing, but I don't foresee anyone to type in a similar title unless they were also copying out of the LoC directory. I would suggest (if these articles were to continue to exist) a simpler structure: "Library of Congress Classification: Class <whatever>, subclass <whatever>". The lead sentence of the article would read: "Library of Congress Classification: Class <whatever>, subclass <whatever>, formally known as Library of Congress Classification: Class <whatever>, subclass <whatever> -- <even more specific category or title> ...."
The List of Dewey Decimal classes is far superior to the messed-up system we currently have. This may owe to the fact that it is "much simpler", and "constantly revised" (see Dewey Decimal Classification). The Dewey Decimal classes list is rather manageable: despite listing 1,000 topics, it weighs in at about 46K, which is a little longer than some other articles. It lists the top two subclasses, linking where necessary and appropriate to other articles of interest. The LoC system requires the user to click through further subpages to get to the desired content: other articles of interest. The Dewey System refers users to articles of interest without having users trudge through two Wikipedia articles. Also of note is that to navigate deeper in the classification system, one must realize to click on a pair of hyperlinked letters -- very difficult for casual users. This is why Wikipedia discourages the use of linking the "$" sign, preferring instead to have editors link "US$" so that users have a better chance to click on it.
I feel that these topics would be best achieved with a category system: all topics that have some part in the LoC categorization system would be placed in these categories, allowing for the "exploring Wikipedia" taste that some users (mainly the two listed above) would appreciate. Structure would be set up as follows:
Category:Library of Congress classification (contained in this category: parent article, "List of classes" article, Class categories)
Category:Library of Congress classification: Class A (contained in this category: Subclass categories, relevant topics related to subclass categories -- in this example, encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.)
Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AC (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories and topic category -- in this example, encyclopedias )

Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AE (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)

Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AG (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)

Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AI (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)

Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AM (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories -- in this example, museology)

Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AN (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)

Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AP (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)

Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AS (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)

Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AY (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)

Category:Library of Congress classification: Subclass AZ (contained in this category: relevant topics related to the sub-subclass categories)
If that were to fail, I suggest the creation of List of Library of Congress classes, similar to the Dewey Decimal Classes article. The article would be similar to the aforementioned article in format. There would be no use for Class <whatever> pages, nor Class <whatever>, Subclass <whatever> pages -- all would be contained on the List of classes page. No further detail should be required, as these are contained within categories.

I think that about covers it. Hopefully I've cleared some things up that needed clearing up, and given some of my insight on how these pages should be molded in the future. I hope people will read my comments and reflect on them. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your lengthy explanation, apology, and undeletion -- I really appreciate it. I think that you are right that the pages could be (and should be) cleaned up.. the category idea is intriguing, though I might lean towards the "list of LC classes" page idea. I agree that the names of the articles are basically useless; this is only good for browsing.

The thing that the LoC class system is supposed to do is provide a mirror of human knowledge, much like the Britannica's Propaedia. The interesting thing about this set of articles is it tried to physically mirror this setup. However, too much mirroring and we really are reproducing information that's elsewhere, and WP is not an indiscriminate collection. So I think there's a fine line. Personally, I think the best thing to do would be to keep the upper level class pages (A, B, C, etc) and not the subclass pages... but this might be something best discussed on the article talk page. At any rate, thank you again for your detailed thinking about this! -- phoebe/(talk) 07:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd almost like to send the rest of the articles to AfD, just to see how it would turn out and what other users think, but I really don't want to mess with yet another deletion. That would be my bet on where it would be the best place to discuss this. The talk pages would be an interesting thing, but I don't foresee many people visiting there. Another place to bring this discussion up would perhaps be the Village Pump. You are welcome for my detailed analysis. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hamilton

Hey Manka,

in case you are interested, I posted a couple of links for a clip of Tom Hamltion(WTAM/Cleveland Indians broadcaster) home run call, I'm not sure if it is legal or not but you can check it out for yourself. I posted them under Hamlton's discussion page.

Tim New wiki member. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timothyparryjr (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Article considered for deletion: Chris_Hewitt and Tractor_(Band)

I have started the cleanup of these pages, I also removed the notability notice as it has been there since December 2006 and is now irrelevant since the decision was to keep the articles.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (e-mail address removed) as I will probably be able to get hold of any information that is required to clarify/reference the subject. I will be starting to reference the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Hewitt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Screechlab (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

[10] Scream 4

I think you meant protect. Someone has re-created the page. Megapixie 01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Ian - Thanks. I don't need a wikipedia lesson. The first message on my talk page was not legitimate because the edit it referenced was completely within reason and certainly not vandalism...and your message about the AFD has been seen by me and I no longer need the message there. Thanks for your concern. EagleFan 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Mark Lind

Can I ask why the AfD was closed as "no consensus"? The only keep vote reasoning was WP:ILIKEIT from SPAs. THF 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just relist? //THF 10:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your much-appreciated forthrightness.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mark Lind. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. THF 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago 2016 Olympic bid CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
In the past you have edited Chicago 2016 Olympic bid. This week it has been selected as the WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the week. Each week a Chicago related article in need of attention is selected as the Chicago COTW. Feel free to come help us improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onspex

I have rewrote the content for Onspex. I hope it is ok to keep live. Thank-you for your advice.

Obtree

I have to disagree technically: the template says that the article can be speedy deleted, except for recreation: I nominated it not as recreation, but because it is an advertisement, spam. You can disagree with that judgment of course (and I won't complain, judging speedies is often a personal interpretation anyway), but to refuse the speedy because the article can not be speedied is incorrect. 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Fram 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Draft

Hi their, I was wondering if you could address the question I brought up in Talk:2006 NFL Draft. Thanks Chaldean 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly

Can I ask for some additional clarification and expansion on your closing of this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Schlafly. I might be able to understand a no consensus default to keep, but to declare it as a consensus for keep doesn't seem right, there were not really more keep comments then delete, and I do not think that we have any chance of verifiability on this. Verifiability is suppose to supersede other issues right? This is a biography of a living person, with only trivial primary sources to write with. I just don't understand. Tmtoulouse 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the nomination not count than towards a vote for delete? Tmtoulouse 16:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know its not a vote :). One of my comments on the AFD was to ask the closing admin to look beyond the slight majority of keep votes and look at the arguments because it is not a vote. My main issue was a lack of non-trivial secondary sources. But I will drop the issue of deletion and see about building the article. If we can find the sources then I was wrong and can be happy, if we just hit a brick wall I will renominate later. Thanks for your time, I don't mean to seem contrary, I am still very new to wikipedia and just trying to understand better. Tmtoulouse 16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mundana Quartet

I'd strongly suggesting relisting this; it got very few votes - and it was deleted from Polish Wikipedia (in a vote with over 20 people). Also look at the "reasons" for keep and general discussion...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for reviewing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Picks

Please update the 2007 draft picks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.1.67.250 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Seeing how you were active on the 2007 NFL Draft page, I was wondering your opinion on the issue of creating pages on players drafted. A bunch of seventh and sixth round picks, maybe other rounds as well, have 1 or 2 sentence articles that mention who they were drafted by and what college they went to. In my opinion, these articles should be deleted, unless of course someone wants to add more information. The likelihood is that is many of the late round picks will not play in the NFL and will be not notable. What's your opinion on these articles? Pepsidrinka 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clarification

You have blocked User:125.164.164.141, and then when notifiing the user of the block, you said If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page, which the IP cannot do, being blocked(The only page a blocked user can edit is their own talk page, provided it's not protected.) I think you meant to say their talk page, but it just didn't come out like that, and I would be confused.--U.S.A. cubed 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the signature explanation clears up everything. I don't see a need to change your signature, but it may be a good idea to now explain that to the user, and I think everything will be fine.--U.S.A. cubed 20:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided explain to the IP. If you would like to add anything, that's fine.--U.S.A. cubed 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Up a White Kid Day

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Beat Up a White Kid Day. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Corvus cornix 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be an ID warning box for this sort of page. "Warning: politically charged contents whose significance is disputed," something like that. When the impact of a wiki article carries as much or more social impact than the few newspaper articles on the subject, and particularly when the article can perpetuate hate crimes, there is a problem. I know the delete/keep discussion can be debated and debated and debated, but at least if the page stands it should have an ID warning box. (I think the page is disgusting, but that's an aside) MotherFunctor 23:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD ShareASale

I have some questions about your decision for the AfD debate for the article ShareASale. Actually only one, Why?

1. Notability was clearly established in the AfD debate

2. COI accusations were not warranted, which was also established in the AfD debate. The article was created by a user who meets the COI criteria. I did inform the user of this and strongle discouraged him to continue to make edits on the article. Since I contributed in the past to the same subject and the creation of an article for ShareASale was on my to-do list (can be verified by going the edit log of my userpage where it clearly shows that I added it to my to-do list long before the article was actually created). Any accusation that I meet the criteria for COI in this matter in very far fetched. I made clear what my relationship with the company is and what it is not.

3. User:Anthony Appleyard did not provide much arguments during the discussion. I provided multiple references that shows that WP:CORP is met. I asked him also to clarify his vague statement "looks like an advertisement to me". I also recommended that he might want to change any parts of the article that are "advertisement".

4. I question the comments by User:Dimitrii and believe that he is a sockpuppet by looking at his contribution history which consists only of AfD debate comments, Mass Replace "Celtic" to "Celt" in numerous articles, Disambiguate "Celtic" to "Celtic xxxx", Disambiguate "John Warren" to "John Warren xxxx", Disambiguate "Fredericksburg to "Fredericksburg xxxx" and Disambiguate "Cimmeria" to "Cimmeria xxxx" plus a few minor edits, which include the rv of spam. This was pretty much all what this user contributed to Wikipedia during the last 15 months. The comments made in the debate were as vague as the statements made by User:Anthony Appleyard.

And just FYI Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shareasale. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Regards --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 14:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In The Past Toys

Hello fellow member. I recently created a page entitled "In The Past Toys" and it was deleted without much effort to fix errors. The page was not intended to be an advert. As such, it had lots of information on the company. The only reason that the people who proposed it to deletion was because it was linked to the incorrect pages. It was belonging to a section entirely that consisted of action figure and historical figurines. It was a normal page just like the other 40 or so company pages that were designed for companies. Please tell me what steps need to be taken to revive the page and keep it from being deleted. Again, there was absolutely no signs of advertising on the page. Thanks again. - Brendan Filone 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 NFL Draft - FL candidate

Hi., i nominated the article where you made significant contributions - 2007 NFL Draft as a "Featured list" candidate. Please leave a comment FLC-2007 NFL Draft. Thanks. Kalyan 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Mariners

I recently discovered that you deleted the page I created for the Boston Mariners, a team in the Boston Men's Baseball League (an amateur Boston-based baseball league). The stated reason was "non-notable baseball team". Pretty subjective, wouldn't you say? I just think it's kind of ridiculous for you to delete the Mariners page, especially after considerable time was put in to creating it. There are a ton of random articles in Wikipedia, and I'm not sure that the Mariners page is any less important than your tiddly-winks team page. Stop censoring content, especially when it's clear that considerable time was put in to its creation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkenglander (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

2007 NFL Draft

hi., i made modifications to the page and provided detailed comments on the talk page. Pls let me know your responses. Kalyan 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you would withdraw your objections if the "Notable undrafted players" section was removed. Thanks. Kalyan 17:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi., the 2007 NFL Draft has cleared all objections from others and pending your sign-off only. I have addresed your opposition to "Notable undrafted players" section and commented it out. Hence please revisit your opinion on the FLC and let us close it. Kalyan 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to retrieve deleted content

Hi IanManka. I was contributing some content to an article last month (Shetlink) which I see you deleted. Is it possible to retrieve any of this deleted content, as I'd spent a considerable amount of time researching material for the article. I have no idea if this is possible because I'm not very experienced at editing Wikis. Thanks in advance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prroudfoot (talk • contribs).

Snowfix

This article was deleted under A7 for a non-notable podcast and the Articles for deletion/Snowfix page said to contact you here. The podcast in question actually receives over 60,000 downloads for some episodes and has an established fan base throughout the world. Obviously it is a very specialised topic so if someone is not into skiing or snowboarding they are very unlikely to have heard of it.

However, it is almost always featured on the iTunes UK (and in the winter seasons, iTunes US) sports pages for example, and is featured (and heavily advertised) on the TV station Extreme Sports Channel (available in Europe). It is also going to turn into a TV show for this station in the third season, something which very few podcasts have achieved.

So on the base of the A7 reason I would like to submit it for reconsideration. On the basis of why it was submitted again, another viewer had set up the original page without using the podcast info table, and with some obvious bias, so when that was deleted I created a new article (without using any of the previous content). The viewers have also been asked to help maintain the article to increase the amount of information contained and the validity of said information.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Many thanks

Cdk157 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions concerning editing

Hi, I put some questions few weeks ago at talk:DejaVu hopping that you will see them. I still wait for an answer.

Thanks, Mihaip 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first edit day!

\|		Happy First Edit Day!
		Today is your first edit day so please enjoy and have a wonderful day,Best Wishes-Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 13:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

The Wikipedia Birthday Committee is proud to wish you a very happy birthday.
May all your wishes come true!
Thank you for all of your contributions to this wonderful encyclopedia.
Yours truly,
Eddie 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing IanManka a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Eddie 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 501: / Line 501: @@
 |align="left" width="100%"|Wishing <b>[[User:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]</b> a very '''happy adminship anniversary''' on behalf of the '''[[WP:BDC|Wikipedia Birthday Committee]]'''! [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''Eddie'''</font>]] 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 |}
- [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''Eddie'''</font>]] 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)