Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the plus sign at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil comments here, unless you specify that you would rather I respond at your talk page. If I've left a note for you to which I think you may respond, I'm watching your page. Typically, I do not watch pages where I've left simple policy clarifications. If you want to discuss a note with me further and aren't sure if I'm watching your page, please feel free to open a new discussion with me here.
If you have a question about an album assessment I have made, please look first at the album assessment guidelines. It may answer your question. If it doesn't or if you'd like me to reassess, please let me know.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template warning I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here.
Wilmington Montessori School article - Thanks for the quick edits.
I am assisting Wilmington Montessori School with their online presence and noted that they lacked a wikipedia entry which many sister schools in our area have. In fleshing out the initial page, I used content from their own website for a quick article regarding the school.
I've reviewed the comments regarding neutrality and citable references. The content that may be appropriate for the school's own website should not necessarily be wikipedia content. I wholeheartedly agree with the edits that you have made and will make sure that further content adheres to wikipedia's policies and intent.
Since I have removed the unattributable assertion in the lead paragraph, what else would be required to remove the PrimarySources tag from the entry?
Hi. :) In order to the primary sources tag, we need a secondary source or two—a newspaper article on the school or discussion at an unrelated reliable website. (Newspapers are generally easier to find!) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl
Thank you for the quick response. I appreciate the guidance; however, I still need a little clarification on this issue. I have removed the 'offending' assertion :-) from the introductory paragraph that I assumed caused the flag for PrimarySources. I am not sure what else in the article would require any secondary sources.
As additional examples, these are some of the sister school entries that have basic information about their schools (i.e. history, programs, sports, etc.), they do not have any secondary sources listed, and yet they also do not have the PrimarySources tag to lead off their entry.
Hi. :) Actually that statement caused the article to be listed in a category of articles with unverified statements, a different issue. The article requires secondary sources to support that it is notable enough in an encyclopedic sense to warrant an article. School articles are generally given wide latitude in this regard, but articles that do not verify that they are notable are candidates for deletion through one of the various processes. (You've already met one of these processes, in the speedy deletion tag on the article for promotion.) Those sister schools should properly also be tagged. An alternative header is more specific as to the purpose of these sources is {{Notability}}, but in such cases as this I prefer the {{PrimarySources}} tag as it does not suggest that the article does not meet the specific notability guideline just because it doesn't substantiate it through the secondary sources. If you know of coverage of this school—such as newspaper articles—they don't have to be available online to be incorporated into the article. I'd be happy to help you incorporate them, given publication information. Anyway, I have moved the primary sources tag to the bottom of the article. Such tags are customarily placed at the top, but don't need to be. This will invite other editors to improve the article by adding reliable sources, just as the stub tag will invite other editors to expand the article with verifiable information. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the listing on Wilmington Friends. Good catch. Here are some external distinct sources that I have found for WMS. I'm not sure how I would necessarily incorporate them into the article, though.
Great. :) I've added two of those: one under further reading and one in the article itself, as it substantiates notability of the school to have an award-winning teacher. I've also removed the Primary Sources tag. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help today. This is my first wiki posting and I must say that you have made it an easy process. If all editors are as responsive and helpful as you have been, then I can certainly see the value in the format. Thanks again! Daddy.twins (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support on the new deletion flag. I'm the kind of guy that likes to follow established procedures, so I'm certainly not trying to incorrectly promote the school. I took your earlier guidance to heart and quickly made the appropriate edits to the site within minutes. I'm still struggling a bit with the proper logo usage, and will probably just remove the logo until I fully understand what the proper copyright indication should be. Again, thanks for the excellent help. Daddy.twins (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would do more if I could. :) I see that somebody else is formatting the article more in line with school articles, which is good. Anyway, I am watching the AfD, and we'll see what other editors have to add to the conversation. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I got a "Keep", which I am surmising is a good thing.
I have truly appreciated your helpfulness and professionalism on this article. As such, is there anything that can or should be done by some rather unhelpful, even rude and unfounded comments made by another editor or should they be ignored? It certainly doesn't seem equitable that Wilmington Montessori School should be prohibited from having a wikipedia entry when there are hundreds of other sister schools in the region that do, simply because an editor seems to have a bias against Montessori schools in general. Unfounded statements by an editor that are used to justify a delete tag certainly seems to be outside the general framework of the site policies.
"I have also nominated the article for deletion, since there's nothing notable about this school, it's just a run of the mill Montessori school."
On my talk page.
I've more or less responded below, I think. If you find comments unhelpful or even rude, it's best to try to assume that the other editor means well and restrict your comments solely to the substance of his or her argument. I am familiar with Corvus' work on Wikipedia, having encountered him (<--a presumption) on various points of the project, and I do not believe he is motivated by bias against Montessori schools. We get many, many articles on Wikipedia every day that do not meet guidelines, and some Wikipedians take it upon themselves to address articles that fail guidelines (or seem to). In fact, I am one of these. As an administrator, I probably delete a hundred articles a day. I try to help the ones I'm able, but I could easily point you to a dozen people who would characterize me very differently than you do. :)
As it goes, we have over two million articles, and whether or not yours is selected for review & analysis in terms of guidelines may be simply a matter of timing. Also, consensus is an evolving thing on Wikipedia. An article that is judged adequate now may not meet standards in six months (or vice versa). Sometimes, I can't see any rational reason why one article is kept and another not. I stopped participating in deletion debates on lists altogether shortly after I watched List of Indian women deleted and List of Iranian women kept in the same week. The two lists were substantially the same. I cannot explain to you why one survived and the other did not.
Similarly, I noted that I do not usually participate in school AfDs. The guidelines on school notability are not clear. There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (schools) to clarify these. (Previous efforts in the past have failed.) You can look at the talk page of that proposal to see how heated some fo the arguments become. There are some editors on Wikipedia who feel that any school is notable simply by dint of being a school. There are others who require considerably more. The current system isn't equitable, though I hope it will evolve to be.
In any event, I am sorry that your first efforts on Wikipedia have been so challenging. There's a bit of a learning curve, but you do seem to be getting the hang of things very quickly. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 04:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for information. I can see that school notability is definitely a hot topic. I have also browsed Category:Elementary_and_primary_schools to great extent and can see the problems with equitable treatment. I have added additional refs/sources to the article and have updated the AfD discussion. I hope that they have a positive reception. Thanks for your time! (and I hope your hand is doing better).
I've moved the detailed content to the talk page, as you suggested. As I did so, I got banged by another editor for vandalizing the AfD page. :-) Quickly and nicely resolved, though. Daddy.twins (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checking back in. You currently have a Weak Keep on the AfD. If you could take a few moments and re-review, I would appreciate any additional comments or assistance regardless of your final opinion. Regards. Daddy.twins (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have done so. I have been watching, and I think you're doing remarkably well assimilating to the Wikipedia environment. You fell into one of its most stressful areas on your first day, which must be daunting, but you've done a good job slogging through it all. Whether this article passes AfD at this time or not, I hope you'll stick around and pitch in. I think they could probably use you at Wikipedia:Notability (schools). :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kudos. I honestly feel that the encouragement of a couple of editors (you being the first) helped to get me moving in the right direction. I have enjoyed the research and learning the ropes. I might find it very interesting to help out on Wikipedia:Notability (schools) given my vast amount of recent experience. :-) --Daddy.twins (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, I'm sure they can use the help. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. For indentation reasons, I'm going to answer this one at your page. My answer is likely to be complex. :) I'll be right there. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Do I ever appreciate that information. That is a lot to digest, so it will probably take me the rest of the week (if not more!) to work on all that. The running time of each track is actually something I looked for, but have not yet found. Alas, as far as the book is concerned, I do not have access to it, at least not at this time. I am currently trying to track it down. Once again, thank you for your message. I look forward to discussing this further. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been (slowly) following your advice, and adding the information you suggested. I wanted to say, once again, how much I appreciate your assistance. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check now as you will see the source to the mannings endorsing the DSRL
Thank you
mam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applemac20 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that quite satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you for deleting this page, as it fulfills child's lives and adds spirt to other that can't join common professional sports like Baseball or theNFL. thank you Applemac20 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has guidelines for what makes appropriate material for inclusion on Wikipedia. This particular page does not seem to fit under the guidelines governing notability, although it's probably very appropriate for inclusion at Oreo. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Believe that this page is well founded. It gives people who are interested in this emerging sport accurate infromation on how to get their local leagues in action. It would be a sad day if this page is deleted.(Joe Everdine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.204.2 (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I do not wish to include it under the Oreo page due to the fact that the sport is separate subject it just includes the cookie. And yes i have linked oreo from the DSRL pageApplemac20 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted by admin Pegasus a few minutes ago. I'll note that while I did question the notability of the article, I never tagged it for deletion nor deleted it. The article has been deleted by two different admins and tagged for deletion by two or three other editors. I'm afraid that my opinion is not the only opposition that this article is facing. You may wish to review the notability guideline if you are interested in incorporating this material in Wikipedia. Again, I don't feel it's inappropriate for inclusion, but as a stand-alone article it needs reliable sourcing to verify its stand-alone notability. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DSRL
Ok if I include everything that has reliable sources may I have the constitution in there still? Applemac20 (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) While I'm an active admin in deletions and at BLPN, I have no substantial experience investigating allegations of sock puppetry. Also, in a couple of days I may well be handling the BLP concerns on the statement in that article. In light of those factors, I'm going to offer you suggestions on where and how to pursue such matters without myself looking into the history.
You're undoubtedly already familiar with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If you believe that two or more editors show evidence of engaging in disruptive sock puppetry according to the signs set out here, you may wish to report the matter for investigation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I would keep my report succinct, focusing only on evidence of that sock puppetry. You will need to supply diffs. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request assistance at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, but I gather that's only for last resort.
If there is insufficient evidence of sock puppetry to request investigation there, I would recommend pursuing other steps in dispute resolution. (I know you are already doing this, as evidenced by your presence at BLPN.) There are several places where you might seek resolution, given that talking it out doesn't seem to be working for the two of you. If you believe an editor has a clearly demonstrable conflict of interest that interferes with Wikipedia's goal of hosting neutral articles, you might want to bring it up at the conflict of interest notice board. If you feel that an editor's behavior violates civility guidelines, you might bring that up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. If there are multiple issues and several editors have attempted to address them with a user, you and at least one other complainant can file a request for comment on user conduct. You can also less formally seek assistance at ANI, as I note that somebody else has already done today, here. I would not personally choose ANI as my court of first resort, as response depends on which particular volunteers are manning the board. Volunteers at specialist boards, obviously, tend to specialize. However, since the question is already raised, you may well wish to join the discussion there.
In your position, I would probably first weigh in at ANI and, failing satisfaction there, choose to approach the matter first at whichever board has best demonstrable evidence. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guideposts! I shall muddle through through the muck. Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad day
Moon ridden girl, I am having a bad day today and need cheering up.Kitty53 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!!!!:'-)Kitty53 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
See User talk:Coppertwig#CSD template thingies. I'm assuming you appreciate me notifying you like this (or via talkback template). If you prefer to just watchlist my talk page, or move the discussion here or whatever, just let me know. If we're going back and forth very frequently, it may be convenient to just leave the talkback template in place, and I'll just add a couple of blank characters to the end of its line each time or something. Up to you. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you'd like to do is good by me. :) I do, of course, have your page watchlisted, but this is a convenient way to keep up with it, since I'm not the only person talking to you there. :) Anyway, I'll run take a look. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re templates not being your thing: You'll have to start branching out. Images weren't my thing, but one of my adoptees put up an image within the first couple of days of starting to edit, (asked me how -- at least I was able to find help pages at commons) -- so now I'm starting to work on an image; we'll see if I actually manage to upload it. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(And comments at my page again -- keeping all the CSD comments in one place) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See comments at User talk:Coppertwig#CSD templates, and please let me know if last-minute changes at User:Coppertwig/CSD are OK. To me, the i7 we had there was allowing some images to be deleted without any 48-hour or 7-day warning, which is not what the CSD says. Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait and set up the discussion pages after you've had a chance to comment on the above-mentioned changes. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I missed that last note. I'll go take a look! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing it! I created the subpages! (but added one more item to to-do list...) Feel free to help if you like. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you'd be willing to put hatnotes on db-meta and db-spam, which are protected. If not, no worries: I'll ask Seraphimblade to do it, as it was his idea.
Thanks for fixing the db-t1 etc. links.
Good that you put a notice at village pump. I'm just curious what made you change your mind on that.
Oh-oh: Category:Speedy deletion templates also contains a lot of templates we didn't even look at -- at least, I didn't. If the wording for db-meta is changed (as Happy-melon suggests) we'll have to have a look at all of them, too. Probably should anyway. Or at least, I probably will. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links, sure. :) Since I put the notices on the talk pages, I noticed when I followed those links that they weren't winding up right. Village pump: I did it because you wanted it. I don't have strong feelings about it, like I don't have strong feelings about meta. If you want it, it only takes a minute, though, so I went ahead. I didn't look at that category; I only looked at the speedy templates listed at WP:CSD. If we need to change more, we change more. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait -- don't put the noinclude messages on db-meta and db-spam. Unless you want to, that is. A user has expressed an opinion (at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Suggested new wordings for CSD templates) against such noinclude notes on templates in general. I'll suggest to Seraphimblade that he do it if he thinks it's a good idea. (I think it's a good idea.) Thanks re the village pump. And thanks for your reassurance about various things. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppetry 2.0
Thanks for your guidelines on handling the disruptive editor. A look through the Ralph Nader edit history indicates that Griot has likely been doing the multiple account 3RR evasion thing well into last year without getting caught, using Feedler, 71.139.36.105, and probably a few more IP's as alters. Cheers- Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am currently checking on ANI to see how the confirmed checkuser should be handled here. If you believe that other IPs are involved, you may wish to initiate further investigation into that. If there is truth to your suspicions, then it would certainly indicate a different approach to this editor may be in order. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess that's it then, for now. He may contest the block and return. If you suspect ongoing sock puppetry, you may want to pursue it further. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I put my 2 wikicents in. I'll add the additional sock evidence if need be. Thanks again. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a datapoint about motivations, but Boodlesthecat seems perfectly happy with abusive sockpuppets when they're supporting him. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen for the outing of his own abusive sockpuppet supporter. I offer no opinion about Griot, but you need to take Boodlesthecat's recommendations with the appropriate grain of salt. --Calton | Talk 02:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very nice if people could just work within policy. :/ I'm not sure the history of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen, except that I did notice that the first IP editor to bring a complaint against Griot at ANI was evidently a sock. I hope that Griot's only sock is the one identified. I imagine it would be helpful in determining the proper handling to know if it wasn't. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 03:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl. I've found it to be the practice that admin-clerks do the blocking and the tagging, not Checkusers. (thanks for catching my failure to tag the guy, BTW.) I would suggest doing one thing, you should tag the userpage then redirect the talk. It's generally what I do. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of service, good luck with those BLPs. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Toyism
It's cool what ya did with the article, from almost being deleted to a nice little stub. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl! How wonderful to hear from you! I'm doing great. Been busy both in RL and on Wiki. Hope you're doing well too. Drop me an email sometime! Dreadstar† 01:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Griot sock puppetry 3.0
Hiya
See over yonder for some more on this issue; as noted in the Check User, the evidence is still far from inclusive of all the instances of sock puppetry by this user. Cheers Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moon
Hi, I was wondering why the article on Konee Rok was being considered for deletion I was really actually suprised he did not have an article. I dont know a lot about how articles are supposed to be creative, but I tried my best to make it professional informative. I added some of his contributions to hsi repected genre of art in order to better show his relevence.
If theres any way you can help me understand and improve even more so, so that it and future articles will not be deleted that would be very helpful.
Hi. I see that the article Konee Rok was nominated for deletion by deletion debate yesterday. So far, only the nominator has weighed in. The debate can be found here. To establish an article on Wikipedia, you need to assert significance according to the appropriate guideline. In this case, that would be WP:BIO. This article does assert significance, which is why I declined the speedy. But it doesn't fully verify significance with references to second hand reliable sources. If you can supply citations or links to magazine or newspaper articles, for example, that would be very helpful...especially to verify the awards. It doesn't have to be online as long as there's sufficient information for the source to be located. Primary sources affiliated with the subject can't be used to verify notability.
While looking to see if I could find additional sources to substantiate notability, though, I ran into a much bigger problem. It seems that considerable portions at least of that article are duplicated directly from other sources. This is not permitted on Wikipedia per copyright policy. As an example, the section reading "Konee Rok's career..."Time Out" magazine" is repeated verbatim from at this source. I'm afraid I'll need to look into that further, as such material needs to be removed until it can be rewritten in your own words. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moon,
I fixed a couple links to better sources and aded some notability content, but my changes arent showing up on the public view. Any thing I can do to fix this?
You seem to be making your changes to the copy you've placed at your user page. The changes are showing there. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I just copy that version to another place? I also added a direct link to the "Midwest technology" article
18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend overwriting the article, since you'd need to be sure that AfD codes and whatnot carry. I'd just make changes directly to Konee Rok, as you did here. :) Also, please note that you might want to consider contributing to the deletion discussion, found here. Before contributing to it, I'd suggest reading over Wikipedia:AfD#AfD_Wikietiquette and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It will give you a much better idea of how to formulate your argument to conform to the standard, which may have more influence with other contributors. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contributed to the deletion discussion like you recommended =-) hopefully that can help. At what point would the nomination for deletion as well as other nominations be removed. IE: Myself and others have added several article links, shouldn't that remove the "This page has few or no links to other articles?"
The nomination for deletion will not be closed until the deletion discussion is over. These typically last five days, at the end of which an administrator will determine whether a community consensus reading of policy as related to the article is to delete or keep it. I'll go remove the wikilink tag if that concern has been addressed. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for taking the time. If there's anything else you can recommend to bring the article to code, I will certainly trust your advice. You seem to be an "old hat at this." no pun ;-) Cityvscity (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl. How are you? I have one problem: Can we consider 'Newspaper column' as a literary genre? I don't think so. Please look at the biography of Bolesław Prus. If you find any errors, please correct them. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not regard "Newspaper column" as a literary genre, but I suspect that's a matter for consensus in the project or at the article. :) I looked at the biography and went through the first several sections. The biggest problem I saw relates to punctuation, especially with the placement of "ref" tags inside the punctuation. WP:REF tells us that reference tags go outside punctuation. I fixed those I encountered in the first section, but left the rest. There was also a little irregularity in that section with regards the placement of punctuation in quotations. WP:MOS indicates Wikipedia's usage there. I noticed in the first section a couple of assertions that I felt could do with attribution and tagged those. I may finish reading through it later, when I have more time. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the distinction; however, I wasn't sure of what to go with. No speedy really applied. You're right, though; I should've just used a custom reason (citing the unavailability of reliable sources and so forth). Thanks for pointing out my mistake! Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺ 13:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also considered that option. However, my search for "Golem Relictus" on Google brought up a smashing 6 results; same with the UK google search. It seemed highly unlikely that anyone would be able to find any verifiable sources. In retrospect, since it didn't fit a speedy I probably should've waited for the AfD to complete. Sometimes I make stupid decisions. I'll keep a check on that. ;) Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺ 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page
However Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for purposefully misrepresenting fellow editors in a bad light.<br\>
WP:Talk_page states that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.<br\>
And I am certain they are also not meant to be used in the way Griot is using his. Please have him either remove all conversations between me and him from his talk page or leave the whole conversation exactly as it originally was. If you are not an Admin or cannot handle this for me can you please direct me to someone who can. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see that you've filed a notice about this at ANI, in effect requesting admin assistance there. It may be that an admin viewing that note will follow through. My first inclination, though I am an admin, would be to suggest that you begin with attempting to discuss the matter with Griot. Most approaches to dispute resolution begin with attempting reasonable conversation with the other editor. I see that you have somewhat discussed your concerns with him through edit summaries; have you considered leaving him a polite note requesting that he either include the entire conversation or remove it altogether, in the spirit of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? While that guideline supports Griot's contention (in edit summaries) that he has the right to manage content on his own talk page, it also supports your request that you not be misrepresented by changing the context of the significant exchange. In your place, I would leave a new note civilly asking him either to restore the context or to remove the entire conversation for that reason. I realize that many of the editors involved in these articles are quite passionate about the subjects and that there are extreme differences of opinion; I am also aware that there is a long history between the two of you. Even if he started it (I don't know; I haven't looked back that far), Wikipedia:Etiquette tells us that "if other editors are not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than they are, not less". Maybe Griot will surprise you and honor your request. If not, there are other alternatives you may pursue, probably beginning with Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. As the ANI frontpiece indicates, it is the place "to report impolite, incivil, or difficult communications with other editors". An ability to show a good faith effort on your part to resolve differences cordially first will serve you well there. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hello Moonriddengirl. Thank you for your contributions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome for what I've done, and I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to it. I'm dealing with some lingering respiratory infection, and I'm editing in abbreviated bits of time. Wiki-withdrawal! I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow my time, which means about 10 hours or so. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Worst day today
Hello, Moon ridden girl. I've had a horrible day today at school, and that horrible day started in biology. I need cheering up.:'-(Kitty53 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and guidance
Hello Moonriddengirl. Thanks so much for your guidance regarding my deleted page. I have used the information you have supplied and have written to the appropriate admin to discuss the article's deletion and to hopefully have it reinstated (or at least get some clarification on it). I also appreciate your guidance on the signature formatting. Your time and efforts helped quite a lot (and I greatly appreciate the kindness in your note - some of my colleagues and I have found other messages to be less friendly). --Germahughes (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad if I was able to help. :) It can be daunting, learning Wikipedia's systems. I see that you nicely approached the deleting admin, and I'm happy that that worked out for you. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
