User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Moonriddengirl, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I've replied to your question at Wikipedia:Help desk. Cheers! WODUP 17:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your help! I've put up my first self-created page and nervously hope I've done it right. I went with a fairly easy first topic.  :) Now I shall probably return to cleaning up pages. Much more confident doing that! Moonriddengirl 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the simulacrum revisions!

That page need a rewriting bad. I've been wanting to do it for ages but it's always felt like too overwhelming an undertaking. Wonderful. DarwinPeacock 05:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It had good bones, but I had no idea it was going to take me all day. :) I considered cutting the magic section, since the only reference I could find to simulacra in that sense was the Golden Dawn of Hizballah--probably not a reliable source. I thought I'd give somebody else a shot at finding something first. Moonriddengirl 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to ESTJ

I like the revisions you made to this page, especially the very relevant external links (as opposed to the usual online tests/spam etc). I think I hear the other 15 personality type pages begging for your attention! (I know nothing about these personality types, I just got caught up removing spam from them.) Thanks again! --Chuck Sirloin 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Chuck. It's nice to hear. I tend to worry about stepping on toes. I'll probably take a look at the other types before too long. Moonriddengirl 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to INTJ

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you made a revert on the INTJ page. Thank you for watching out for us and doing so. However, there has been some discussion on the removal of the Socionics characteristics previously. There were two possible reasons. One reason was the Socionics section was just confusing, and the other was the Socionics version is actually INTj, not INTJ. At this point, I'm going to remove the more glaring problem for me, namely all of the squares and triangles don't mean a thing to the average reader. Please feel free to discuss this issue with me. Again, thank you for your good faith revert ^_^. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineneve (talk • contribs) at 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if I missed the discussion. RS Gracey cut the Socionics characteristics from a number of pages without explanation that I could find, and since I do seem them as relevant I felt reversion would probably be in the best interest of the article. I did look at Gracey's talk page and saw that several editors had addressed his or her cuts and that at least one type page had already been reverted. Consistency seemed like a good idea to me.  :) I'd be happy to enter into the discussion of segregating socionics from either Jungian type descriptors on the relevant page. And I have no objection whatsoever to cutting out the wonky (oops, there goes my NPOV) table. I cut the general table myself a week or so back, but left the specific ones because I didn't feel comfortable just hacking out the whole mess.  ;) I'll head over to INTJ to talk further. Moonriddengirl 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Repairing links to Parody

		The Original Barnstar
		In due recognition of her diligence and patience in repairing links to the Parody page which had formerly led to the spoof disambiguation page, I do hereby award Moonriddengirl with this barnstar, and offer her my gratitude as a fellow editor. Lucky number 49 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much! :D Moonriddengirl 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What!? You've only been here for a month or so and you already got a barnstar!? You're so good! :-) - Face 10:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: babies w/ barnstars

Haha, yeah, I know what you mean. I've been a member for about a year and a half, and even now, I'm still discovering new things. For example, I only recently found out that I'm apparently a WikiFairy. And two weeks ago, I asked on the help desk if there is something like a userbox that automatically generates your number of edits. When I saw the answers, I realised what a noobish question I had actually asked. Anyway, I do indeed think that most people consider it appropriate if you respond on their talk page instead on your own. I always post my answer on both though, so that other users can easily follow our conversation ;-). Cheers, Face 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I ran off to look for your question and responses to see why it was noobish (since it sounds like a good question to me!), but I guess they don't keep them around that long. In any event, I couldn't find it. What did they say? Moonriddengirl 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I wikilinked the word "asked" in my response. And I think it was noobish because I could as well have searched for it on Google. Also, I knew that a COUNT query is a heavy task for the database. I just didn't realised it at that point. If everyone would use a template which counts all your edits everytime you load the page, Wiki's database would be as slow as a little turtle. Or a snail perhaps. - Face 16:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Talk about noob questions: I didn't even notice the link. Thanks. That explanation makes sense. Moonriddengirl 17:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Martin

Hey thanks for letting me know. I did see it. I bookmark all my prod's and DB's and checked on it to see if it was deleted or not. I took a quick look at the new article and thought it looked very good. How did you figure out the truth? Postcard Cathy 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi, you edited my vandalism at the article, Beautiful soul. Well I don't understand why you all like to fix vandalism. WHats the fun in it? its really nerdy and boring. Try vandalism, its fun. I have been a vandal for 3 years and i consider myself a pro vandal. TRy it and you will see how fun it is. best wishes Kornokreep 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)kornokreep

I prefer repairing vandalism, thanks.  :) Apparently you prefer being repaired, since I hadn't reverted your vandalism to Beautiful Soul until you called my attention to it. We all have our hobbies. --Moonriddengirl 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the bad edit on the N3 page, a bug in Safari made all text after a euro symbol disappear! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.46.87 (talk • contribs) at 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Kinsella

Thank you for working on the article on Douglas Kinsella. You did a great job improving it. Now if only the anon IP vandals can stay away. --Renrenren 01:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got it on my watchlist but it seems to be watched by very few individuals. So the past couple of days have been a constant struggle to keep the article clean. This page as well as Shit From Hell and Warren Kinsella have often been attacked by vandals. There is a lot of info about this on talk:Warren Kinsella. I'm pretty sure these anon IP edits are from the same gang. Obviously, they are by the same editor.--Renrenren 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

3rr violation

For future reference, it's better to report 3rr violators at WP:AN3 than WP:AIV (whatever the edits were, they weren't vandalism). ugen64 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind introduction

Regards Headdie 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

David Yurman

Hello there, I think there is some confuion. I recieve a message from you regarding DAVID YURMAN. (My log in is Libertytowerone). I made the changes to the information because birthdates and other information that should not be listed were in fact listed.

I included our most recent info regarding our company and I see that it keeps getting reverted.

Please contact me - thank you.

jandrew@davidyurman.com

Sorry

My error in deleting a section of the Manitoba article. You are right , it was not intentionnal. In fact, until you pointed it out, I had no idea I had done it..

Blondeonblonde 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Prawn farm massacre

Thanks for your intervention. I am having a hard time with reverts without explanations. Please keep a watch on the article. Thansk again Taprobanus 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for the revert on my userpage :) --Oxymoron⁸³ 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "warning"

I hope that you've calmed down now. Having read your blanked discussion page, I'm guessing you may have reacted in anger to the combined stress of dealing with some guy who was a jerk to you and with having an article tagged for speedy deletion. Both of those things would sting me, too. Or maybe it was something else entirely. But whatever's going on, it's not worth trying to deface everything. You've done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't need to lose you. As a fellow D&D player, I'm impressed by what you've done. Moonriddengirl 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Got your "final warning." But I feel I am within my rights to get rid of articles that I have created and written.Malcanthet 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AND...deleting my contributions as I see fit (I had other names other than my current one).Malcanthet 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But we don't own our articles once we release them on Wikipedia--that is, we retain copyright of what we've written, but the terms we agree to puts it out there to be edited and used by others. If you're the only contributor to an article and want it deleted, you can request that. (In fact, blanking your own article is considered a request for speedy deletion.) Once it's been contributed to by anyone else, it's common ground and mass text deletions become vandalism. I can see that you've started a lot of articles--certainly more than I have, though I've done a few. They look like good articles. Wikipedia has a broad audience that will appreciate them. Moonriddengirl 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much

I just want to thank you for the revert on my user page. Apparently I made someone mad, so I guess I am doing my job. Thanks for doing yours! WildWildBil 02:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tommy Shaw

Thanks for reverting the junk that the anonymous users kept putting in on his bio page. Whoever it is seems intent on trashing the page and now they're attacking my own user page. His bio should be locked from editing by new or anonymous users but I don't know how to initiate that.--Bamadude 21:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a semi-protection lock on the article now and I added back in the tour date info as you suggested.--Bamadude 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

*Grins*

Thanks for the smile! It really brightened my day. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Omniperor

Just a courtesy note to let you know I've marked this for speedy delete as {{db-nonsense}}. (I've probably got a lower tolerance than you :)) Let the admin decide whether to CSD or PROD, I thought. I've left your {{prod}} in place. --ROGER ^TALK 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for speed of light response (impressed!). --ROGER ^TALK 16:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WILL YOU MARRY ME

WILL YOU DATE ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.52.65 (talk • contribs) 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kelley O'Neal

I removed the speedy tag from this article because it asserts that he was a member of a grammy award winning group, so not a speedy candidate; I don't think he's notable, just not a speedy delete: take to WP:AFD and it'll probably get deleted there. Just dropping a note to explain why I "undid" your tag. Keep up the good work. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy note, but it wasn't actually my tag. I found it on the bottom and moved it to the top, above the existing "hang on." A look at history suggests the page was created with it. How peculiar! I wonder if it was a speedy deleted article that the author recreated in toto? Moonriddengirl 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It may have been speedied before; it's a sufficiently common name (maybe) that any number of nn people may share it. Anyway, just one of the mysteries of the universe. :-) Carlossuarez46 18:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly full of mystery. :) Moonriddengirl 18:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bamadude

You should probably tell your friend Bamadude that he shouldn't remove discussion from talk pages - lest you appear unfair. --66.32.110.184 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You already did that, didn't you? I seem to remember seeing the word "idiot" in the summary. A review of Wikipedia: Civility might be in order. If you have a dispute with him regarding Dennis DeYoung, vandalizing Tommy Shaw is not the way to resolve it. Perhaps arbitration might be helpful if consensus can't be reached. Moonriddengirl 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out the "civility" in his posts - read the Styx talk page, for example - once again, in the spirit of fairness. This person is a long time abuser with a personal agenda. He switches identities on wikipedia and uses weasel words and the like to spin his agenda accordingly. When he gets caught he reappears as someone else. Always the same - accusing people of vandalism until they get so mad they actually start vandalizing things like HIS talk page. Just informing you of his history. --66.32.110.184 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with getting so mad that you vandalize things like people's talk pages is that when third parties notice, they're not going to know the history. I'm not typically active on the Styx pages; I encountered the mess on Tommy Shaw on routine vandal patrol. If somebody is pushing POV changes on a page, Bamadude or anybody else, I think it's best to go through the dispute resolution process. You might also want to appeal to Wikiquette alerts and solicit outside help. I would assemble evidence before doing either of these. I know how emotional (and maddening) working with other editors can be, but it can make the whole process go more smoothly if everyone keeps calm. If nothing else, it will help you present your case when you appeal for help. 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this anonymous user (who I believe actually is a long-time user as they know the rules very well) voicing an opinion about any article on a talk page as that's what it's for, and opinions about articles are necessary to help keep it going on the right track, but it's not for abusing other users or discussing items not pertaining to the article. I also think they are confusing me with someone else (who I know, BTW) as I've used only this ID for myself and if I ever posted anything anonymously, it's only because of the rare few times my PC didn't log me in automatically. I welcome any constructive criticism (as you know personally from just a bit earlier when you suggested a change), but it would be beneficial if this user would log in and stand behind their words and promote positive changes to the articles they edit instead of being negative and resentful of an article that in the grand scheme of things means almost nothing to very few people. It's kind of funny (and actually sad) to watch this user squirm when someone reverts their hate-filled, abusive commentary that has nothing to do with anything except trying to make their own self-esteem rise.--Bamadude 00:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope the situation winds down, whatever happens. There's a good long block on Tommy Shaw, and if this user feels like he or she has a legitimate beef with you, maybe he'll express it without incivility. I haven't read the talk pages or tried to iron out any of the history of the dispute. I'm quite busy enough on my normal little vandalism patrol. :) Moonriddengirl 01:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the posts and decide for yourself if anything they posted is civil or legitimate. I can't imagine how anybody would think so.--Bamadude 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen much civility to be sure. But I have a hard time keeping track of the various 66 identities--there are so many. Personally, I do my best to be civil to everyone. It doesn't necessarily keep people from being jerks to me (being on vandal patrol, I've run into my share), but it does help me remain detached. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons may only be an essay, but it works as a guideline for me. :) Moonriddengirl 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I went to the user page of this person and asked them to make their case explaining what their problem is with my posts and lend credence to their own posts. I'm trying to "make the peace" and maybe calm them down enough to explain themselves so this edit war can end now.--Bamadude 01:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. I hope it works out for you. If not, you might consider letting it rest for a day or so to see if it calms down with time. I've recently run across a really nasty wikifeud, and they don't help anybody. Presumably most of us are here for the same thing: constructing a decent encyclopedia. :) Moonriddengirl 01:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for cleaning up my letter to Badbilltucker. Also, I want to have a Ph.d. in library science & psychology, so that's common! Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) That guy was on a real tear. It's always a mystery. Moonriddengirl 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

gladiators

hi i have been putting up aguments for the gladiators page to be like the way you like it for a while and to day i have put the page like that today with less imformation what do i do have more or less imformation gladboy

Moonriddengirl, Gladboy and I have been having a disagreement over the level of unverified detail that was formerly in the article. I think we've come to a solution and from my point of view his edits were constructive and useful in moving towards a more streamlined and relevant page. I understand that his not using the edit summary was the main reason for your revert but I wanted to assure you that his edits were in good faith. Have a great day :-) Docta247 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me. :) Gladiators is not on my regular patrol. The edits that you're making may well be legitimate, but if you don't explain why you're cutting so much text out in the edit summary, which is the box that appears before you save the changes, people on vandal patrol see the big red numbers and presume you don't have a good reason. If you've discussed these changes on Talk:Gladiators and there is consensus that the text should be removed, go ahead and cut it. Just put something like "see discussion page" as your explanation, and the folk on vandal patrol probably won't be so alarmed. If I'm not clear, please let me know, and I'll try to explain myself better. Moonriddengirl 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your point of view. My thanks for looking out for all the articles that you patrol. Docta247 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Age Revisions

Why did you mark my additions to old age as vandalism? Both entries are directly related to old age. Please explain your rational. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredhands (talk • contribs) 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you've misread the edit summary. It says Reverted 2 edits by 69.245.210.232 identified as vandalism to last revision by Sacredhands. using TW) (undo). The edits by 69.245.210.232 were identified as vandalism, not yours. Yours was the one reverted to. :) Moonriddengirl 01:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with JJonz

Dave has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dave 14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Whale's vagina

I am shocked that you tagged for deletion such an obvious good faith, well-written and useful article, plus by doing so you may have caused irreparable harm to the editor's teen-angst-quotient;-) Seriously, thanks for being apparently the only editor willing to jump in at the deletion discussion (you know which one). I expected there to be contention but not such a lack of response. The issue is really brewing. We have almost 2,000,000 articles and we need to start removing unsourced stuff and especially unsourceable stuff but no one seems to want to actually do the dirty work and so many just don't internalize that this is an encyclopedia. I bet I can write a 'sourced article on every minor character in a famous piece of literature. But that never happens because adults don't obsess over ever aspect of such works the way teenagers apparently feel the need to memorialize every toothbrush mentioned in a static fictional universe. It's very frustrating when policy is squarely behind you, logic is squarely behind you, but you just can't get it done because leaving it alone maintains the status quo and requires no work, while attempting to remove requires thought and struggle. Oh well.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

thanks for helping me get started on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody of Ithaca (talk • contribs) 30 July 2007 (UTC)