User talk:Mandsford/Archive

Mandsford's Standard AfD Policy

1. If you have directed a comment to me in the AfD Forum, please do not look there for any response, other than my acknowledgment that a comment has been made, and a link within the Forum to my policy. My policy is "talk to me here, not in the AfD forum".
2. If you wish to leave a comment here, on my talk page, you have my guarantee that you may comment here without fear that I will "turn you in" for civility. My response to your comment will be also be on this talk page; not in the Forum, not on your talk page, not to an administrator, but here on my talk page.
3. I have been here since 18 May 2007 (see below) and have made thousands of edits. Perhaps you have been here longer, and perhaps you have not been here as long. I am no better, and no worse, than you are.

Perhaps not, but I do think calling me a "sonofabitch" was inappropriate. Question: Is this where I post comments to a rude person who has proven by action and knows-all-too-well that he is no better than others? Try Studying Peace More Often. John Yettaw JohnYettaw (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary: /* Mandsford's Standard AfD Policy */ I thnk Mandsford's "sonofabitch" comment shows more about himself that anyone he may have intended to insult. John Yettaw JohnYettaw (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC) See below.[reply]

I can only say that anybody can create the screen name "Johnyettaw" for himself, and that it is unlikely that the real John Yettaw would be worrying about an article on Wikipedia. Bless you, whoever you are. Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, I have been blocked before, for 24 hours in December 2008. No, I'm not ashamed of it. Although I was mad about it at the time, I'm glad that it happened. It made me realize that I like contributing to Wikipedia better than I like trying to show off my argumentative skills.
2. Finally, I have become friends with many people with whom I once exchanged harsh words. Chances are, we will meet again in another AfD discussion. I'd prefer to get along with everyone. We are in the Golden Age of the wiki, and it's one of the most exciting developments of the 21st Century. I want everyone to enjoy Wikipedia.

18 May 2007

Again, welcome!  →Ollie (talk • contribs) 13:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gans

Thanks for the article. I am wondering if you by any chance know how the Hitz family was connected to the GANS family? --Markbenjamin (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Crawford

Thanks for creating the article! While there is no "rename" function, there is a "move" link associated with every article. Using it moves the article (including the full edit history) over to the new title, and turns the current article into a redirect. Very handy. -- MisterHand 11:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

brilliant argument

on the Baldock Beer Disaster AfD. I just went there and said so, and I suggest what you ought to do now is to rewrite it as an article about a hoax, instead of just the italic heading, Remember, all the previous versions before it was caught will be in the page history. DGG 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, and now, it is considered OK to email the earlier people and say you greatly improved it, and please will they take another look. One of the reasons I liked that argument is that I realised I can use it regularly myself, not just about hoaxes, but for questioned articles on Wikipedia people. DGG 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the rest of the world doesn't think it's so brilliant. When we argue to convince other people, they after all are the judge. The way to survive around here is to regard this as a laboratory where you don't always expect things will go right, or a microcosm where willful idiocy can be entertaining. DGG 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I redirected your user page here because it's rather annoying to see a redlink in someone's sig. Hope you don't mind. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Mail Processing Plant

Thanks for the comment and I feel better not bitter now, I had the same problem when they wanted to delete me Wayne Ray because they thought I wasn't notable but twice as many people came to my defense and they cowered away. I have saved it and I think I will put it in the Talk page on Commons on the article by the same name, which if you think about it, is so boring it should be deleted LOL but I am in the mood of information is important to someone out there, Cheers WayneRay 22:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Stroller history

I stand corrected on that article. I will undelete it. Sr13 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An essay I've written

Hello. Though we are often on the opposite side of deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at User:Eyrian/IPC. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its talk page. --Eyrian 15:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I moved them to the talk page, where I hope discussion can continue. --Eyrian 23:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support for my list of Indian Women. moon 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Have some! --Irpen

Thanks! And please have some from me here for now until, perhaps one day, we can have a good chat over a real drink. Cheers, --Irpen 03:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientologist celebrities

You are now rich! Maybe, did you get anybody placing five dollars bets with you? I know I wouldn't have! lol Mathmo ^Talk 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I did not find the following comments ([1][2]) very kind; I viewed these as a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I was quite insulted as my dad has been a Los Angeles Kings season ticket holder since 1980 and I've been attending games my whole life, literally (since 1990) and I was insulted when you declared that I knew nothing about hockey. Ksy92003(talk) 02:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilbo

Nice work expanding Theodore G. Bilbo. He was a large character in state and national politics for a couple of decades and eserves a full entry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks ...

... for the compliment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlboro School. Best, Noroton (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Librarian extremely appreciative of the significance

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlboro School And thanks to you also for your comments & suggestions. Maplethelibrarian (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black concert T-shirt reference

Thanks for adding the reference. With offline sources, it is helpful to include a relevant quote. Could you add this if possible? The {{Cite book}} template makes this fairly easy and ensures a standardized format.

Thanks again. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under construction

Could you help me make my list of countries whose flag has a star page Under construction? im quite new and i was wondering if you could help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezuidenhout (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Valley Bible Church

Wow, what a thought out response. Why the (bad word) aren't you an admin yet? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^(Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Block

As you pointed out, sourcing was easy enough... and I am myself surprised it had not previously been done. I went ahead and improved the articlr per WP:MOS, wikifying it, cleaning it up, and adding cites and sources reliable within his field to show both his notability past AGT and within his peer group. I think it's okay now. Any suggestions? Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing me the way to look. AGT is really no longer a indicatior of notability as it often does not show talent so much as simple outrageousness. Block's laying on a bed of nails while David Hasselhof stands on top of him is entertaining, but by itself not truely notable. However, you helped me go beyond that to source his notability in his field and recognition by his peers. Regards, Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 18:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks.... Your comments were perhaps just "harsh" enough to motivate without being mean. If the sources did not exist, the article would not have survived. I take pleasure in (no offense intended) finding that which a nom may not have. Sometims I am successful... sometimes I am not. In either case, Wiki gets improved. Thanks for the nod and smile. Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 00:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Radio

I found your list of cbs radio show subpage to this page on a "what links here" to a redlink for Joyce Jordan, M.D.. I am also working on golden age radio, and have started the franchise Casey, Crime Photographer as a full blown media franchise. It of course aired on CBS throughout its run. I am also in process of documenting Gertrude Warner, whichis how I got to Joy Jordan.  :-)

I just thought I would share that information for you and your projects.--K3vin (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not cool

Your tendency for being pedantic to an almost absurd level is curtailing relevant articles and denying people free speech on what was supposed to be the 'free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit'.

And you know what's even less cool? Making a brave remark but doing it anonymously. What's this guy afraid of? At least when I make a smartass comment, I don't worry about adding my screen name. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts...

I've just had six edit conflicts in a row with you at August 2003... perhaps it would have been better to wait until I'd finished integrating everything? I might just leave the rest too you, because it's a huge pain trying to refactor everything (and then wait five minutes to see it load, since I'm on dial-up!) Grutness...wha? 02:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• S'alright - and sorry if i sounded pissed off :) It was just simpler to do the redirects and copying over at the same time, saving an edit. I think it's pretty much done now - good work :) Grutness...wha? 02:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date articles

Thank you! I also find you to be a person who consistently makes good sense at AfD, even when we don't agree. In this case I definitely do agree, and I'll be joining the review discussion. Thanks for the heads-up! AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please don't make personal attacks on other editors, like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugs' Bunny. You've been warned before. Reyk _YO! 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to warn you, but I see it's already been done. I redacted some of it for you. This sort of thing is uniformly counterproductive. DGG (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why so hostile?

In regards to your rude commends on the AfD for the Chicago:1968 article, why have you deliberately violated Wikipedia's rules regarding civility? Clearly you have done this sort of thing in the past as there are warnings above on this very page. Please reconsider your words before you type them. It seems you are doing more harm than good with some of your responses. Supermarc (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I am blocking you for 24 hours for making this comment despite being warned about incivility. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I was told that the block expires at "07:35, 5 December 2008." OK, fair enough. It did. Then I edited for awhile, and then I got this message: The other user was blocked by Nick-D for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Mandsford". The reason given for Mandsford's block is: "Incivility". This block has been set to expire: 01:29, 6 December 2008. I don't get it.

Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow, nice talk page

Perhaps it's time to start an archive? OlEnglish (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was anything worth keeping, sure. Maybe I can just erase this and start fresh. Mandsford (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Every instance where Mr. Pibb has been mentioned on television

For my part, I liked (an agreed with) your comments in the deletion debate. I saw where someone responded to it with "WP:CIVIL please" and I can say that he's wrong. WP:CIVIL does not apply to statements made about an article, or to arguments, or to a line of thought. It does apply, of course, to statements directed toward a specific individual, such as calling someone "a big crybaby" in response to something they've just written, or saying "What the hell are you talking about", etc. There is no bar against humor (or, for those British people "humour") in discussions about the quality of what's on Wikipedia. Don't let someone's self-righteous comments deter you from speaking your mind. Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouraging comments. But honestly, snitty, saracstic remarks are a form of aggression that certainly violates WP:CIVIL even if they represent a valid position. While this sort of humo(u)r can artfully executed, and even help illustrate a position, 95% of the time such comments are not at all helpful, and just fuel drama. I was being blunt and aggressive, and the exact same things could have been said in a polite tone, so in my opinion the WP:CIVIL comment was justfied.

Thanks for writing. I do appreciate occasionally hearing editors who aren't big crybabies. I still wish Wyeth would send me my meds on time, but at least something good came from this. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What ever happened to being WP:CIVIL?

HEY NOW! You said, this appears to have been pieced together by people who buy a VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc. everytime the "Disney vault" opens. How rude. Sure, I'll admit that I own more than one copy of a specific title in two different formats, but that's only because I didn't remember that I already had it buried in the back of the DVD cabinet, unopened. (seriously though - you're right. And it was a funny line to boot. [insert smiley face here]) SpikeJones (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random appreciation

Just a note to let you know that your sense of humor hasn't gone unnoticed. :D Themfromspace (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my Father's house are many mansions...

Hey, the last place I expected to see John 14:2 was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_mansions. Thank you bringing the Daily Devotional to Articles of Deletion! You made me feel at home. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV affiliates

The AfD was closed as keep! Thank you for your support. I can now feel free to work on this without feeling like I am wasting my time. DHowell (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Blind Man

What a coincidence. I ran into the same guy, but it was at the Home Depot. He gets around!--Buster7 (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Groubani?

In this comment you used the word "Groubani" -- what is a Groubani? Geo Swan (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

District article.

I wasn't saying you can't edit the district article, I'm just saying that merging mid-discussion is a bad idea, just as moving a page mid-discussion is discouraged. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Thank you

Hi, there. I wanted to thank you for your suggestion to "keep" the article on Jonathan Hay (publicist). I have been desperately trying to keep this article from being deleted. I feel it was nominated hastly and the people who are suggesting it to be removed are not fully comprehending the resources stated, etc. (to put it nicely). So, thank you much for making your very helpful point about the article here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Hay (publicist) and for your suggestion in favor. Much respect to you for that.--Jklein212 (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Dear Mandsford, I really appreciated your comment here [3]. And I appreciate your efforts to. the whole bilateral AfD is attracting people that say keep or delete at every one without supplying any good reasons. or the whole "wait for discussion to end" people. Some of these X-Y relations are plainly non notable, yet people still want to keep them for the sake of it. others, and I commend your sources searches, some AfDs are probably more debatable, that's what's AfDs are for. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse LibStar's comment - thank you. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd just chime in here and say I agree with the gents above. A lot of these articles are crap, and should be deleted, but some are worth keeping. I seem to spend a lot of my time disagreeing with these guys, but I can agree with them here! It's good to have editors you can trust to actually bother to check for references before nominating or voting! HJMitchell You rang? 16:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Romania relations

Nice work on finding sources! Saves me a bit of work! Now then, let's see if I can't turn it into a half decent article. I seem to spend as much time at AfD as you these days! It's always good when you can find something that's actually worth the time of day amongst all the crap- as unlikely as it is that the creator gave a monkies whether Azerbaijan and Romania actually had relations! Good to be working with you again! HJMitchell You rang? 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Mandsford. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(sorry- I like to keep them together)

1909

Nice articles but please don't forget to categorize them. Uncategorized articles are hard to find. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes I remember

I remember about a month ago the "let's wait for new guidlines to be developed, should take 2-4 weeks". when it was apparent this was too hard, another noted deletionist wanted to impose a June 1 deadline so that no new AfDs could be nominated before then, and in a desperate attempt one user wanted to use WP:SANCTIONS against anyone nominating articles...here we are in early June, nowhere near new guidelines have been developed. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hurry. Wikipedia does not have a deadline after all. Best, --A Nobody^My talk 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on that token, there should be no impediment to nominating for AfDs. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should, because keeping articles in existence and allowing them to improve while other discussions take place is reasonable when no deadline exists. Deleting them and thereby interfering with any potential additional improvements or compromise solutions in the meantime is not. Sincerely, --A Nobody^My talk 00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so A Nobody, how long should we wait? till 2011? LibStar (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with LibStar on this one, ANobody. Even when there's a well respected person running a committee meeting, it's difficult to accomplish much. The people who put that one together managed to piss everyone off from the outset. It reminded me of what George Carlin called "The Task Force for Better Pancakes". The committee can kiss my Anglo-Indo, Greco-Franco butt. About the only thing I would have liked to see would have been an agreed-upon limit on how many articles could be nominated each day, but it runs fine the way it is. Mandsford (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? Too much tension now as is, perhaps if we redirected our energy into improving as many of these as we can first and then after having tried that, then we can move on and say, after going through them all as a team effort (no one editor necessarily has access to all available sources), then we can hopefully be able to say that we have as a team spent a good year or two doing what we could and then go from there. Best, --A Nobody^My talk 03:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But during the six weeks or so of watching that committee debate on some type of plan, we've reviewed nearly 200 of these Groubanis. In those cases where people are trying to fix an article, the result usually is a keep, or it defaults to keep. In those cases where nobody can see a merit to a stub, it is removed, with no prejudice to someone wishing to create something later. While those guys are talk about doing something, we do something. It's important to remember that the vast majority of these articles were created with no thought whatsoever by an editor whom I liken to a vandal, and the fact that they are nominated individually demonstrates that there is a feeling that some of these might be worthwhile, regardless of the motivation of the initial author. As you know, hundreds and hundreds of these were cranked out (here's a list of a 500 contributions from Groubani, with each "N" being a new article) [4]. I've read comments to the effect that there is some type of "deletionist agenda" behind cleaning up this mess, but I can say that the nominators have spent far more time examining these articles than Groubani ever did. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Network television schedules

Hi Mandsford,

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DUH!

A great idea, actually. —SlamDiego_←T 22:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Exactly right, on all counts. —SlamDiego_←T 23:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock / racism and archives

I bought a new disk drive recently. I am still boggling at the price: 7 pence per gigabyte! So at one level, what does it matter that this talk page is massive. On the other hand, it would be a lot better if you asked MiszaBot III to archive it for you.

In case you have not noticed, the rock / racism people (or at least one of them) have come clean and it was Australia like I said. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^My talk 03:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew)

Since you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew), you might be interested in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

your name sounds vaguely familiar for some reason. I really appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanne Foxe, especially the term "easy keep" which you coined and appears to be catching on. I would like to invite you to the squadron.

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

• Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.

• Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.

• The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles.
• Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it.

• Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.

|}

History of IBM

I think your AFD !vote is based on the false assumption that this is a "new" article -- it is not. We simply setup a Sandbox so we wouldn't be editing a live article (since it's a major rewrite). Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't help but note the irony of the "Welcome to the article rescue squad" section immediately above this one.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, take this

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your sense of humor...obviously. And for your genius opinions on WP:SPEEDY I observed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sniper and Cranes. I left you a question there, but it was rhetorical, don't worry about it. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I did this to my userpage (don't worry, I fixed the markup). If you disagree with this being there, or even userpages in general, feel free to remove it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, minion (okay, I won't call you that again). I've actually been sitting at my computer for several hours in a red-bull induced awakedness, constantly refreshing my watchlist, waiting for a response. Actually that's a complete utter lie. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mandsford. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last One (Aqua Teen Hunger Force).
Message added 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

warrior4321 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mandsford. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last One (Aqua Teen Hunger Force).
Message added 23:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

warrior4321 23:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline Update - expanding the Outline of Knowledge - 2009-10-05

• Dwight Eisenhower (572-64-0315) 11 others

• Lyndon Johnson (577-60-6128)
• Richard M. Nixon (567-68-0515)
• Gerald R. Ford (372-28-6532)
• Bernice C. Abbott, Houston TX, 7/14/13-12/26/06

• Ronald W. Reagan (480-07-7456)
• Thomas R. Ford; Melba L. Fisher (Mineral Wells TX); Paul J. Zavorski (Philadelphia PA) 6/24/23-04/27/06
• Mary B. Keller (Tucson AZ) 12/31/00-01/29/01
• Mary F. Iwaoka (North Hollywood CA) 01/01/00-12/31/99

XD

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I laughed out loud at this. It was too good to pass up without recognition. ;) JamieS93 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being emotionally erratic

In any case, just a heads up that I have moved the article to "Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy."↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.K.S.T.

I've finished the story on Vijay and Vikram you so wanted to hear at Lying - The Root Of All Evils. Hurry, it'll soon be deleted! (yes, I know you've already been told about it, but my version's better), Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A horrible thought just came into my mind. You might think I'm trying (and failing) to be funny! :-( I'm not. I swear. I wouldn't even attempt that in your presence, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Really?. Or was that sarcasm? Well, you describing yourself laughing at a guy getting hacked apart with three axes made me laugh out loud. Actually, I'm still laughing, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was talking to myself (I talk to myself as much as possible, I once got a Barnstar for it). And there's a diff somewhere in my talkpage history, where Vicenarian (talk · contribs) acknowledeges the fact that when I call someone an idiot, it's a compliment. Well, it isn't really. But it should be, according to Idiot (person), Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I wasn't warned for what I did here (I was new, sorry), Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Month articles

Hi. I was pleased to see your work on the new month articles. I was wondering if a standard has been discussed for these, because I thought it might be a good idea to put the births and deaths under the date along with the events, instead of in a separate section at the end. What do you think? Deb (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I'll be glad to help, if you want help. Deb (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork! Deb (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For making me chuckle. Again.

Once again, I've bumped into you at AfD (Islam in Christmas Island!) and, once again, your comment tickled me so I thought, to hell with it, have a barnstar! You deserve it my friend! HJMitchell You rang? 00:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For making me laugh in AfD, particularly here HJMitchell You rang? 00:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! If only everybody approached editing with the same sense of humour! Someone should call a snowball on the Islam in Christmas Island article. HJMitchell You rang? 00:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[This...

...comment that I am destroyer of worlds (or planets), is really funny. I laughed when I read it. Nice. :) --JL 09 ^q?_c 12:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^My talk 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4

Re [5] a G4 would not be applicable, the article wasn't recreated, a prod was contested at DRV, see the log [6] --Tothwolf (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1972

I agree, those are all good ways. Another, of course, is searching within wikipedia! Deb (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Tech Redneck

The album went gold, not the single. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^(Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a distinction between the single and the album, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that they are the same title, and especially on such a highly promoted and successful single. Assuming that Wikipedia is a research tool, and really an encycolpedia, it would seem quite silly that no one can go Wikipedia to research the album without being able to get the details for the successful singles from the album. In the case of TenPoundHammer, he seems more concerned about the ambiguity with his article, which of course wouldn't really be much of an article without the singles associated with the album. Remember too that there wouldn't be a High-Tech Redeck (album), without the High-Tech Redneck (song). TPH's destructive edit on this issue (AND NUMEROUS OTHERS) are restrictive of Wiki content.Wikibones (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism

Hello, I've noticed your comment at the above AfD. I'd like to make clear that I put the article at AfD because it appears to be a duplicate/POV Fork of Arayot, and not because of whether the content was notable - the latter matter I have no dispute over.

Would you be able to revise your comment in light of this, or if you understood this in the first place would you be able to make that clearer in your comment?

Many thanks. Newman Luke (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Please don't reply on my talk page - I've got some complicated work-related things that need doing, so I won't be able to answer anything posted to my talk page for at least the next fortnight, and there's a bit of a backlog already.)

This looks to me like a case of two people working independently of each other, rather than someone setting out to write his own version of another person's page. Although I can see that Xyz's creation of his article (October 25) came one week after your significant improvement to Arayot (October 18), I don't see any evidence to support your choice of the phrase "appears to be a duplicate". Since we're on a talk page rather than the AfD debate, I would say that it appears that there's a history of confrontation between the two of you, but I gather that you feel that Xyz has set out to "duplicate" your idea. I don't see it -- he's heavy on Leviticus, while your article focuses upon a broader range of texts. I continue to believe that Xyz's article would work as a topic on the Book of Leviticus, rather than about Judaism in general. Mandsford (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean "duplicate of the subject matter", rather than necessarily "set out to produce their own version of the earlier article".

If it was renamed to Forbidden relationships in the Bible, I wouldn't take issue with it.

The problem with it where it is is that Arayot is an abbreviation of gilui arayot, which literally means have sex with (technically it literally means uncover the nakedness of) - the article title essentially translates as (people you can't) have sex with (in Judaism). Everything in an article about forbidden relationships therefore belongs under Arayot. It cannot be any other way. It would be like having Physical contact between the sexes in Judaism and Negiah, as two distinct articles.

Newman Luke (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you've been misunderstood. But when you write things like "duplicate, and apparent POVFORK" then it comes across as a statement that Xyz was "setting out" to do something, and that it was being done in response to your article. It's not quite as strong as suggesting plagiarism, but if I were him, I'd take it as an insult. If you didn't mean it that way, tell him. Truth be told, when I saw your articles being nominated, my first thought was "it's Xyz, getting revenge", but it turns out that it's a couple of other (in my opinion, mean-spirited and timed in a divide-and-conquer manner) editors. I get misunderstood all the time, but I refer back to the adage, "To be great is to be..." Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never took the reaction to the other articles as 'revenge' or related to this one. Indeed, I don't even think the reactions are connected to each other. The reaction to the marriageable age one is reasoned; I disagree with the reasons, but I don't dispute that the reasons have a rational and neutral basis behind them (even though I view the basis as flawed). On the other hand JFW seems to be approaching the child marriage thing from a judaism must be portrayed as whiter than white in all articles, no matter what time period they cover, and not even a hint of something that might be construed as very slightly naughty by anti-semitic extremists should be allowed to stand anywhere viewpoint.

But with regards to XYZ, I have mild suspicions that he's/she's actually a fundamentalist christian masquerading as an orthodox Jew. XYZ basis the article on the Bible, instead of on Oral Law; but in Orthodox Judaism, it is the latter that has priority, and the latter that is frequently cited in Jewish literature. The Jewish bible translations I've seen - including ones favoured by Orthodox Judaism - all refer to mishk'vei ishah as a sexual act, not as homosexuality in general; on the other hand several translations favoured by Christian fundamentalists translate it as homosexuality in particular.

An Orthodox Jew is likely to know several Hebrew words, and forbidden sex is very likely to be something that most Orthodox Jews know something about (its an obvious thing to be told); its therefore odd, if XYZ is an Orthodox Jew, that he should react with 'oh, yes, the Arayot article does seem to cover a similar subject', as if he'd never heard of Arayot before, and didn't ask any Orthodox Jewish friends/family/rabbis/people at service about the term when it was pointed out.

He bases the article on a book by Ronald L. Eisenberg, who isn't even a rabbi, he's just a medical doctor. And even that he admits to finding via google books. Which is odd, when there are hundreds of Orthodox Judaism websites he could have looked at, and which identify literature by poseks (respected authoritative rabbis) - its as if he mustn't be looking at any website discussing aspects of Orthodox Judaism - odd behaviour for an Orthodox Jew.

But with regards to the AfD. The problem is that Arayot IS forbidden relationships in Judaism. Its like Negiah vs. Contact between the sexes in Judaism - its exactly the same thing. And furthermore, since the article at AfD is (a) newer, (b) has only one source, (c) its source is so much less than a reliable source, (d) pushes a fringe point of view about mishk'vei ishah, it should simply be deleted.

Newman Luke (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JFW

He's (or She's?) done it again. He's put Illness among Jews up for deletion less than half an hour after it was created. I really don't feel JFW is assuming good faith, in fact I feel he's being deliberately as obstructive as possible. Do you know of any options that can be taken to do something about him? Newman Luke (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I work up an article in user space before letting the vultures see it. Although the Jewish Encyclopedia is in public domain, and although you've been working at paraphrasing the article as time allows, he/she is likely to win this battle on the cut-and-paste argument. If it were me, I'd take it back into the shop before people start voting to delete on grounds that have nothing to do with whether the topic is encyclopedic. What you do is copy it into userspace, blank the article, and leave a note on the AfD debate saying that it needs more work. Then you can bring back up a sourced article that's unlikely to be challenged. Mandsford (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people behave like vultures, they should be banned. Its not condusive to building an encyclopedia, which is the prime purpose of editing. Newman Luke (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to butt in (after all I am the instigator here), Luke is not taking on board my arguments that medical information from 1906 is next to useless from any perspective. The major "Jewish" diseases (e.g. Tay Sachs disease) had not even been described, let alone genetically confirmed. Just that I am eyeing Luke's other work with a healthy dose of suspicion does not detract from my argument that JE content on health is of no use here. JFW | T@lk 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, how did you find this comment?. Are you stalking?Newman Luke (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness to Mr. Luke, I don't think that he intended to make a 103-year old book his only source-- I would get the vapours if I believed that to be so. I'll have to say that phrases like "suspicion" (your word) and "as obstructive as possible" (his words) are kind of extreme. Both you and Luke appear to be wanting to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. BTW, I was originally going to write "wolves" instead of "vultures", and I didn't realize until doing an edit that your name actually is "Wolff". That would have been awkward. My advise to Newman-- "Use the source, Luke!" Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical statistics from 1906 are very useful. They tell you how the world was in 1906. That's incredibly useful to medical historians. And this is an encyclopedia. Not a snapshot of now. Newman Luke (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New Woodlands Preservation League deletion

Since you commented at WP:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League, you might also be interested in WP:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee (a closely related article in the exact same situation). -M.Nelson (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah

Your comments in the AfD discussion of Go'way made me laugh. LadyofShalott 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• M'too. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onboarding article re-write

Kudos to you Mandsford. Your new version of the Onboarding article gets down to the basic concepts, highlights some diverse points of view, and provides appropriate references for people looking to learn more. I think your work provides a good base for others to build on. Well done. Gbradt (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled religious predictions

Thanks for your comments on the AFD. I still think the article should be deleted, but I appreciate the fact that you gave some substance to the argument. Phiwum (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More old TV schedules for Brisbane

You commented on AfD of 1959 Brisbane network television schedule (weekday). Since then I have added 3 more to the list. If you would like to comment on them, here are the links. Articles for deletion - 1992 Brisbane, 1974 Brisbane and State-by-State Australian Daytime TV schedules. Later, I guess we can delete that template included in these pages as well. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisle Teens with Character AFD

on the Lisle Teens with Character AFD page you stated that you would change your mind if notability could be argued, I believe that its notability has been argued and proven. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, :) --Jhaseltine (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks and best wishes to you also for thanksgiving. : )--Jhaseltine (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^My talk 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gatineau Park invitation

You are receiving this invitation to join other editors working on the Gatineau Park article, because you participated in the AfD debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and have thus shown an interest in this subject. The greater the number of editors who participate in articles, the better the articles become. - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gatecrashing and the Salahis

You made some wise comments about the probable outcome of the articles. In Wikipedia, there are conflicting rules that CAN be improved. However, there is some opposition to making there be fewer rule conflicts. Interested in trying to solve the problem? If so, let me know. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I think the not notable versus many reliable sources argument is common, particularly for the news of the day story. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Dye as merge. User:Barberio disputed this close and opened a deletion review, which was closed as the admin argued that merge closes are not considered at DRV. I merged the material to Newshounds and redirected the article; Barberio has reverted the redirect, though the material remains merged. A discussion on the merge is at Talk:Newshounds#Merge of Thomas K. Dye; your participation would be welcome. Fences&Windows 01:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello! I apologize for posting on your talk page, but I do not know if you have the discussion watch listed. Anyway, please note that I am undertaking a significant revision here using sources found on Google Books to add definitions of the characters as well as academic analysis of the concept in general. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^My talk 18:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)

Since you participated in the third AFD, I am letting you know about the 4th AFD. Ikip (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brits

Hi. Please consider removing your "Brits" comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dandruff_Conspiracy. I find it offensive and uncalled-for. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your note. I think it's probably a case of "least said soonest mended". Since you removed your comment I think I should probably also remove my complaint and your response, but please feel free to handle it otherwise if you wish. Thanks and best wishes, and have a lovely Christmas or other seasonal celebration or break (delete as required!) DBaK (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

right, assass. plot

I think you are probably right about merging the 3 articles. Each individual incident is too small, almost fit for a newspaper. Together, they are stronger. JB50000 (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^My talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^My talk 17:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world was this relisted after everyone had voted "keep"?

Because it had been listed for less than a day. Our guidelines are that it should be discussed for seven days, and then a decision made as to if it should be kept or not. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed for guidance. Sometimes there are views that are not immediately obvious to those iVoting, and may come along later when other people have had a chance to look at the discussion. Nothing is lost by having a seven day debate, but much can be lost by attempting to hurry things. If you have any further questions, let me know. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old AfD

Was surprised that you didn't make any further comments on the AfD for my dear departed (much needed) article on Womanising in fiction but then I read your standard AfD policy at the top of the page. Even though you vouched for the article to be deleted, I admired your eloquence but I'm afraid in terms of philosophy we defer greatly. You seem to be of the impression that we are living in "the Golden Age of Wikipedia" while I am of the rather cynical view that these days Wikipedia (as I said in the AfD) "is little more than a glorified online game." What would you say in answer to this opinion? Perhaps you can change my mind. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chilean_presidential_election,_2013

• Hi there Mandsford: I am writing to address an issue I have with the layout of this AfD. The agreed and disagreed bullets are actually comments made by the author of the article in question and not a vote. I added this as a note before every bullet after seeing your note and agree the layout of his notes is confusing. Any recommendations? I don't know what the "norm" is since this is my first AfD requeste and I'm new to Wiki. I would appreciate your input. Thanks! :) --Neon Sky (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you! Your formatting really helped and I voted, too.  :) Best, --Neon Sky (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently deciding whether 60,000 articles should be deleted. background

News items and announcements Contest

Featured editor: Teeninvestor Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

Want ads Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make a mountain out of a molehill (2nd nomination)

Can you please re-consider your vote per WP:HEY? Bearian (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian pederasty (2nd nomination)

You may be interested to participate in the deletion discussion since you took part in the first nomination. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work

You done good :} thank you Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article you previously commented in is up for AFD again

• I am contacting everyone who participated in the previous AFD to inform them the same exact article is up for deletion again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags_(2nd_nomination)#List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags Dream Focus 04:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italic languages

Per your comment that Italic languages is "about as timely as a horse-drawn carriage," see e.g. Indo-European languages and Italic languages. As you suspected, this is indeed a specialized term within linguistics. It's true that for people more familiar with type face than the intricacies of historical linguistics (that is, most everyone) this can be confusing. But it is nonetheless the term used within the field. Cnilep (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mandsford. You have new messages at Cnilep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

High Tech Redneck

Since you participated in the AFD for this article, I thought you might be interested in a discussion about it and a similar article here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^(Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPIR pricing games

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shower Game and a few more, since you've !voted before. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^(Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mhehehe

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Yet another Good Humor Barnstar, for this: [7] :D

Someones retarted

hey thanks for deletin my page, the bottle flipping game. to bad you missed it on that new show "minute to win it" on NBC. anyway i thought id say YOU USE PLASTIC BOTTLES SO THEY DON"T BREAK!!!! why would anybody flip a glass bottle thats dumb. its not evironmentally freindly (which this game is cause we use the same bottle as long as we can). so yeah way to be a jerk and all, but if stuff like some forgotten indie film for the eighties, or hitler can get on but a brand new game, which people are playing around the country, gets blocked. what the heck!! i thought wikipedia was better than that. and besides, half of the articles on this dumb site never see the light of day, so why the witch hunt on my page because of some stupid "snowball theroy" you know whta pat yourself on the back for a job well done. ill call the nobel peace committe and reckomend you for an award. if obama can win one for doin nothing, you probably are a shoe in to win. bravo. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bottle Flipping Game (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization for Shanghainese

Dear friend:

I invite you to take part in this debate. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rjanag/Latin_phonetic_method_of_Shanghainese#User:Rjanag.2FLatin_phonetic_method_of_Shanghainese

--ZHU Yeyi (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually a revert

I'm not sure if it is pertinent or not, but your edit here doesn't appear to actually be a revert.--Rockfang (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013

References from newspapers and political site have been added for numerous candidates. I urge retraction of your vote. Purplebackpack89 ^(Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on quality control policies

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Walk of Fame

Hi. Thanks for your positive input. The list is doomed as not a single person has voted to keep, aside, of course, from me.

As to your concerns about proof of who does and doesn't have a star, I got that info from List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. If you read my comments I specifically suggested including only Oscar nominees for acting and directing, but no one is interested. (Hermione Baddeley, Warren Beatty, Cher (has star with former husband Sonny Bono, but not in her own right), Hume Cronyn, Gladys Cooper, Ellen Corby, Daniel Day Lewis, Louise Fletcher, Jane Fonda (probably due to politics), John Gielgud, Ruth Gordon, Lee Grant, Sydney Greenstreet, Margaret Hamilton, Lila Kedrova, Elsa Lanchester, Hope Lange, Marjorie Main, Hayley Mills, John Mills, Robert Morley, Mildred Natwick, Nancy Olson, Estelle Parsons, Thelma Ritter, Flora Robson, Margaret Rutherford, Simone Signoret and Diane Varsi are/were all Academy Award winners or nominees. Obviously there are plenty of other names as well.) Yours. [e-mail] (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. -- if a new list or category can be created some suggestions re name have been:

• Academy Award winners and nominees without a Hollywood Walk of Fame Star
• List of notable film actors without stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame
• List of notable award winning film actors without stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame [e-mail] (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea for a list-- seems like all the people who hate it are sitting at a computer on a Saturday instead of having fun, while people who would like it won't be logging on until Monday. I can understand that it would take time to find sources. My suggestion is to move it to userspace (I.e., "User:Rms125a/Oscar winning actors not on the Hollywood Walk of Fame"), bring it back out as a list of Academy Award winners, then gradually add in nominees, director winners, director nominees, etc. Mandsford (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Feller Fart Smeller: And Other Spoonerisms

So you really think that I would advertise? Joe Chill (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued-- no participation in the writing of the article nor in the debate over whether it should be deleted. I'd laugh out loud at the idea that a successful author would take on a screen name from the Batman franchise. Poor Jon Agee, notable enough for his own article, but his fans want to write about a book called "Fart Smeller" instead. Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article under my old username. I thought that this sentence would make it obvious. This rudeness is exactly why I'm barely on Wikipedia now. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks for the clarification. Mandsford (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE Colorado Dimensional Signs

"You wouldn't class the work of Colorado Dimensional as signage; 'works of art' is a far more fitting description..."; I'm glad they put in a link so that I can learn more about how Colorado Dimensional can work for me and grow my business, do they take Visa? If someone wants to make a bland encyclopedia article about a notable corporation, that's fine, but this is as close as one can get to "unambiguous advertising or promotion". 

Do they take Visa?

Just because someone says something about a UNIQUE product and just because someone is an industry mag DOES NOT make you either the "Wikipedia Police" - just shows your ignorance about the subject.

That is the whole purpose og Wikipedia.

Smart alec comments are not required and you shall be reported for the insult and ignorance of accepting a reliable source - no matter how glowing.

"This rudeness is exactly why I'm barely on Wikipedia now."

Seems there are more than one contributor sharing the same opinion.

124.188.85.91 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are all entitled to opinions, including your opinion that I am "ignorant". You may direct complaints to the Administrators' Noticeboard if you wish to do so, but my criticism was of the article, not of any of the authors. Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE Colorado Dimensional Signs

I think you should re read the guidelines:

(removed)

Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.

124.188.85.91 (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into an argument with you. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Double Bullseye

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Buy or Sell

An article that you have been involved in editing, Buy or Sell, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buy or Sell. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Clearance Sale

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Dimensional Signs

Is this getting closer - removed all "marketing" and now contains only FACT -

Would like to get to a point where deletion can be removed.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimaki (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning an AfD...

I believe that you have stated that this article should be deleted. In your statement, you said that you would like to see a Civil War section and some more information. Could you tell me exactly what type of information you would like, and what aircraft flew during the Civil War? Jeremy (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well(es) done

Mandsford, I tip my hat to you. :) Take excellent care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People Aged 85 and over

When I made the page, I used a Wikipedia formula that automatically updates people's ages every day ({{age in years and days|1920|5|9}}- . People included on the page will have their age changed every day on the page by this formula, so it will be a chore to no-one. I hope you reconsider your choice to delete the page. Have a good day.

I had to defend the {{age}} template 2 or three times at afd, after I created it. Now it's in tens of thousands of articles. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streets of St Louis

		The Original Barnstar
		Your flexibility and compromise is a fine example to us all. And the naming seems especially euphonious - so much better than all those dull List of .... titles. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of the victims of the Albanian communist regime

'oy there. Saw you changed your thinking in the above-referenced AfD -- and with good basis. Not why I'm here. Just want to mention that apparently the list has a serious issue that I didn't know about when I nominated it. There were, now according to the article and according to one person in the AfD, an estimated 10,000 victims of this regime. I do not know if this changes your thinking or not, but wanted to make sure you were aware. Cheers! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objects visible from space

Thank you for the kind words and suggestions. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sopranos wiki

Good catch. Poking through all those articles I never saw it. (If I disappear, my remains are in a quarry in Joisey.) Eudemis (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Objects_visible_from_space

I liked your comments on the bottom. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The American Pageant AfD

I enjoyed this:

Sports fans are assertive. Book fans are wimps. Sports fans take action and talk their way into forgiveness if they get caught. Book fans meekly ask for permission. Sports fans say things like "I'm gonna write about the 2010 Mud Cats baseball season, whaddaya gonna do about it?". Book fans ask things like, "This book has been published regularly since 1956 and it's in its 12th edition... uh, would it be okay if I wrote an article about it? Please?"

I think there's a lot to it, and what you were saying in the rest of that comment. We have disproportionate coverage of the most minor of "notable" sports figures compared to academics and of sports matches to books and other phenomena related to quieter pursuits. LadyofShalott 02:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Gen AfD

Thanks for your support, and positive attitude. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Earthquakes in Germany

Hi. I've nominated Earthquakes in Germany, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. PFHLai (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC) BTW, if you have them handy, please add footnotes and refs to the "Geology" section. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both of you, Mandsford & Yngvadottir, for your [[Wikipedia|collaborative writing of an encyclopedia article]] on earthquakes in Germany. The article is not FA-quality yet, but it has a very good start and most certainly qualifies for DYK, a section on Wikipedia's MainPage to showcase new additions to the encyclopedia. Please feel free to add more stuffs such as the 1951 Euskirchen quake to the page. I could see the article grow into a GA in the near future. (It has ITN potential, too, but for the sake of the people who live in Germany, I hope it never will get there.) Keep up the good work! Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onboarding redux

Can I impose on you to take a look at the Onboarding article? Seems like we've got an anonymous user promoting Kaiser and Associates. Given my conflict of interest, I'm hoping you (or someone else) agrees with me and can revert out the changes the user at 74.96.73.111 made to this article on May 28 and 29, which seem far more promotional than value-adding. Appreciate it. Gbradt (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good approach on the onboarding page. Seems to take the best of the idea without the blatantly commercial plug. Thanks. Gbradt (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Earthquakes in Germany

On June 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Earthquakes in Germany, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD/Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game

Hello sir. In your comment at this AfD, you mention that other perfect games don't have have a separate article. That is incorrect. There is an article on Sandy Koufax's perfect game. I wonder why that one is singled out, especially since there is no article on the most famous perfect game ever, that by Don Larsen. Given the rarity of perfect games (only 20!), perhaps there should be an article on each one, as well as near-misses such as those by Harvey Haddix and Ernie Shore. Just my 2 pfennigs. Thank you for your time. — Michael J 19:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make valid points about the need (or lack thereof) for separate articles on each perfect game. After all, what else is Don Larsen known for? ... Nice chatting with you. — Michael J 19:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMEJ

Since you voted on the AfD, I bring this to your attention. The AfD for WMEJ has been reopened, primarily by Guy, but also User:Stifle. Guy has also gone to AfD Review (see here). This is clearly an admin wasting the community's time and ignoring clear consensus and notability. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem!

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentlemen's agreement

Sources don't support your contention. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you might like to take another look at Gentlemen's agreement/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentlemen's agreement since I've added some content and references to the article. Thanks! Cheers! Location (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please formalize an AFD for me.

Bonsai Kitten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.96.249 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America

The article List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America has been submitted to the Articles for deletion process.

As you were involved in the previous deletion discussion for this article, I thought I would inform you of the new discussion;

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America (2nd nomination)

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists

neutral notification

For making me laugh over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I wonder if this also counts as technology manipulation...Claritas § 21:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology

Wouldn't mind if some technology is manipulated to delete this one.

While I disagree with the sentiment, I have to admit that was quite witty. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Baba and the square root of 1600 thieves

made me laugh. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Foot odor

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^yak 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I have renominated Jehovah's Witnesses reference works for deletion (third-party sourced material already merged to Jehovah's Witnesses publications) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works_(2nd_nomination), and have mentioned your previous participation at the first discussion, the result of which was No consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Lake (California)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you very much for rushing to the rescue of this "Not so longer obscure article" Cedar Lake Mlpearc powwow 15:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you very much. What a wonderful job. I feel so bad, after yelling "HELP". This was my last edit to Cedar Lake[8]. Four hrs. after that edit I was in the hospital getting prepared for an emergency appendectomy. I was just released from the hospital yesterday afternoon. All went well and I am fine. But I still have praise for you and everyone that participated in the AfD. My wife set up my laptop when I got settled in and my browser opens to the last page it was on when shut down. It was Cedar Lake. After I signed in I had a message waiting for me at my talk page, so I went there first, when I came back to cedar lake the first thing I noticed it wasn't flagged for deletion :). What a wonderful "Editors to the Rescue" collaboration. Again Thank You Very Much. Mlpearc powwow 15:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guidelines

Please consider familiarizing yourself to these as your linking on an article to content that has been removed from that article is against all of them , please do not do that again, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (removed per request)

Your keeping a list of my edits here could be seen as harassment would you please remove it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable request. Consider it done. Mandsford 12:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd go as far as considering it harassment as the above was apparently compiled in good faith before this report was made which contains most of this info. However, I think this entire section could be archived or removed by the talk page owner as a gesture of good faith. Toddst1 (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and taken it down. If an admin wishes to remove the edit from the history, that will be fine too. Mandsford 12:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't seen any reason to oversight it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would appreciate that, also rather than broaden our dispute it would be better imo to discuss and solve the original issue between us which is the list of Afro latinos and perhaps joining in the discussion on the talkpage with any ideas you have for solving the original issue would be a good place to start perhaps moving forward in a spirit of goodwill, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]