User talk:Mushroom/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mushroom. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

I was still writing that page before you deleted it!!!!

I didn't even get a holdon opportunity. Arg!!! Jimmy C. 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That person does not seem to be notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Have you read Wikipedia's notability guideline for people? Mushroom (Talk) 04:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

yes. I am writing the article about her. She is ranked 1st in the country in BJJ in her weight class/division for amateur tournaments, has a sponsor, has been interviewed by several people. I think that makes her notable. Jimmy C. 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Jim (talk • contribs)

If you want to recreate the article, you have to provide reliable sources for what you claim. Mushroom (Talk) 05:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why those sources were not reliable? Jimmy C. 06:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Jim (talk • contribs)

The article was unsourced when I deleted it, but I see that you have added some sources. Since you claim notability, I have removed the speedy deletion tag. Please note that some other editor might decide to take the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. In that case the deletion will be evaluated for five days. Mushroom (Talk) 06:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Jimmy C. 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Jim (talk • contribs)

Malevolent Creation

Hey, I'm a fellow member of Wikiproject Metal, and I was interested in this band. I have heard nothing of theirs, but I saw your name on the page's history. I was wondering if you could tell me some good songs/albums of theirs to buy/download. Please respond back to me on my talk page whenever you get a chance. Dark Executioner (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

I have replied on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 02:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Dark Executioner (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Hello

Thank you for your welcome :-). Cheers. Zulanka (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to do it. Happy editing! :) Mushroom (Talk) 23:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Crescent Sail Yacht Club

Hi..first try at a wiki so all help appreciated. You speedy deleted page on its first day because it did not assert its importance or significance. There are several of the yacht clubs on Lake Saint Clair (North America) with wikipedia pages, and I was actually trying to make the CSYC page more relevant by adding navigational notes. Is this just a case of needing a little tweaking, or is it a more fundamental problem of subject? Thanks, Dave. DaveSimon42 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note the Detroit Regional Yacht-racing Association page which lists its Member clubs, of which five have Wiki sites. The CSYC site would seem to be appropriate in that context. DaveSimon42 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the article. Mushroom (Talk) 23:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Isaac S.D. Sassoon

Hi! I redid the move because I noticed the talk page hadn't been moved and thought perhaps another article had been recreated with some things missing. Removing also restored the maintenance tag. Was it your intention to remove the maintenance tag? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't want to remove the tag. I just saw the user had created two identical articles, so I redirected the misspelled one to the other. I should have checked the page history first! Thanks for fixing it. Mushroom (Talk) 23:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Halton High School

Hello. I referred several schools to CSD as there is no context or content. I fail to understand how an address of a school constitute an article on wikipedia ? Other articles connected to it have at least some further information about the subject. I feel schools do have place on wikipedia, and always vote to keep on afd if there is at least some content. There is none on the articles I refrerred. Regards. Hammer1980·^talk 12:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. An article containing the sentence:

Halton High School is a secondary school in Barnfield Avenue, Murdishaw, Runcorn, Cheshire, England.

Has context, since it tells you exactly what the subject is and where it is. If it said something like "My school is very big and it has 100 students", then it would lack context, because it would be very difficult to understand which school the author is referring to. It has also enough content to qualify as a stub (and in fact it is tagged as {{school-stub}}), since it is not just a rephrasing of the title, attempt to correspond, or external link. It doesn't tell you if or why it is notable, but that's another matter.

For instance, an article saying "The Gerbrandy Tower is a tower in the Netherlands" has very little content, but enough to be a stub, and it has also enough context. You can't tell if the tower is notable, but you shouldn't tag it as A1 or A3. You should {{prod}} it as "possibly non-notable tower" or take it to AfD, so that its notability can be assessed. Mushroom (Talk) 13:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

CIPI Foundation

Hi Mushroom, I created a page "CIPI Foundation" by following examples provided by other foundations, such as Wikimedia Foundation. You soon deleted (CSD A7) the CIPI Foundation template. Can you explain why? Which rules should be followed? As we are beginners your feedback is much appreciated. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vala77 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia has notability guideline for organizations which states:

"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable."

If the CIPI Foundation is notable, and you can cite multiple secondary sources covering it, then feel free to recreate the article. Mushroom (Talk) 13:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to say: if you are involved with the organization, please avoid writing an article about it, as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Mushroom (Talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Joan Curran

Hi Mushroom, You deleted Joan Curran - a page I prompted my mother to draft since there was a red link to her under Chaff (radar countermeasure). She is notable for this invention, among the many other achievements that led to her being granted a knighthood so there's a pretty good argument that she is significant! In fact, she's even referred to in Dan Brown's novel "Deception Point" as well as R.V. Jones history of radar countermeasures "Most Secret War".

I admit that the page wanted a few more appropriate links and sources listed but it was a work in progress! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac64 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: writing an article about a member of your family is strongly discouraged. That said, your words and a re-read of the article have convinced me to restore it. But please try to find more sources (I have found another obituary here). Mushroom (Talk) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mushroom... will do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac64 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Psychiatric Advance Directives

Hello, I made an entry for Psychiatric Advance Directives this morning. I wrote every single word in the entry between 8am-10am EST and spent another several hours making sure the text did not copy anything on the web or that I or any one else has published on the topic. These are important new laws that will affect 15-20 million Americans with mental disorders who require psychiatric care and it is critical that there be information about this on Wikipedia. Please review and if you could respond, that would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelbogen (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is very similar to one in this copyrighted article (which you wrote), but you are right, that cannot be considered a copyright violation and surely it is not a good reason to delete the entire entry. I have restored it. Mushroom (Talk) 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Spectrum Consultants

Hiya Mushroom. The above has been speedied 4 times now per G11. As I'm sick of seeing it I've salted it. I guess maybe only four creations is a bit hasty, but three seperate admins have all agreed it's G11. Just to let you know. Pedro : Chat 12:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done! :) Mushroom (Talk) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Orckr.com deletion

Hey, please explain the deletion of my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orckr.com I want it to be restored, as I 've never seen such an innovative caricature web servce on the entire internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caricaturist (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained it. Haven't you read my message on your talk page? Mushroom (Talk) 13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

English Admin category

Regarding the template, you'd best take it up with User:EdmundEzekielMahmudIsa, per this link [1]. As to my own user page, I rather liked it being there and wonder what harm it did? Hiding T 14:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as per CSD G4 (repost), since it had previously been deleted as the result of this CfD. Mushroom (Talk) 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Szantyr. Since you speedy-deleted Velvet Sky and Velvet Sky is another name of Jamie Szantyr, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted it, not me :) Mushroom (Talk) 09:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why?

.....Did you delete Velvet Sky there were other sources that backed up her claims than MySpace and she's certainly notable considering she is one of the first TRUE TNA Knockout wrestlers, remember this is an encyclopedia not a ditatorship why did no one care to notify me that my creation was being deleted--KingMorpheus (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who deleted it. Mushroom (Talk) 09:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Got a question for you. First though, sorry about that dodgy speedy on the football player. Can't even remember his name but you were right he is notable. I apologised to the user who created the article. Anyhow! My question is about naming of articles in English Wikipedia. I just marked Libčice nad Vltavou as Patrolled. I'm wondering if articles on English Wiki need to have English spelling in their titles? I've noticed a few articles lately with odd looking characters in the headings. Is there a policy on this? Sting_au Talk 13:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem about the player, it can happen :) The naming convention for geographical names is here: WP:NCGN. It says:

When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used.

There doesn't seem to be a widely used English name for Libčice nad Vltavou, so the title is correct. For other specific naming conventions, look at WP:NAME. Mushroom (Talk) 17:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I'll go have a good read of them. I was thinking also with the spelling re using the strange characters that it might be a good idea to do a redirect page. For example Libcice nad Vltavou comes up as a red link. Would it be wise to redirect it to Libčice nad Vltavou? Just for those of us who can't type the "č". Sting_au Talk 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. I have redirected Libcice nad Vltavou, Libčice and Libcice to Libčice nad Vltavou. I have also created a disambiguation page for Vltavou. Mushroom (Talk) 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. If I see any articles in future using the odd characters, I'll do a redirect. Providing there's no other article at the other page that is. Thanks for your suggestions. Sting_au Talk 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! :) Mushroom (Talk) 01:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message on my talk page, I will ask you when I have a query...the village pump maybe? --Editor510 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, feel free to ask me anything. Of course you can also ask at the help desk or village pump. Mushroom (Talk) 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The welcome for Gmajor77

I'm not so sure that Gmajor77 should have been thanked for his contribution a few days ago.—Mrand ^T-C 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. But I didn't check his edits, I just welcomed every new user who created articles on that day. And maybe he will change his mind and start making good edits: a few vandals do. Mushroom (Talk) 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:24 character dessler.jpg

Hi, Mushroom. I recently noticed that an editor tagged Image:24 character dessler.jpg with a Possible Copyright Infringement notice. I am hesitant to remove it as it calls for an admin to do that but the tag is used for articles not images. Also, the copyright information is clearly stated so can you please take a look at it? Thanks, Ladida 22:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. That user probably added it as an act of retaliation after this content dispute. Mushroom (Talk) 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mushroom. Ladida (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Tech Transfer Page

Hi, thanks for your welcome message on my talk page. As I've gone through the learning process, I have accidentally added a duplicate page, and I need your help to delete the page named: "Technology transfer Program, UC Berkeley" The correct page is "Technology Transfer Program" (all caps, and contains more links, internal and external). Thanks for your help! Itspubs 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have performed a history merge between the two pages and then deleted the first one. Mushroom (Talk) 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Advertising content versus information

Hi Mushroom:

It's nice to cyber-meet another Italian! My parents were born and raised in Sicily. Italian is my first language, even though I was born in the U.S. So hello (buon giorno) to you!

I need some guidance, Mushroom, and I come to you because you have worked on the page in question (for Marketwire). I am a former reporter and when investigating your content guidelines, I asked guidance of a Wikipedia administrator and I took a look at what others in my industry write (specifically PR Newswire and Business Wire). I'm puzzled, however, because someone names "DBarefoot" keeps changing the content I write...even though what I write is not anything more than who we are, what we do, and how we do it...AND is in the same writing style as the other top-tier newswires.

Can you help me, Mushroom, determine who this "DBarefoot" is...and to objectively and fairly represent the content that needs to be up there and is in line with what Wikipedia allows others to include? I would greatly appreciate your assistance.

Thank you! Pmilana8 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please avoid writing about the company you work for, as it is considered a conflict of interest. If you feel an edit needs to be done, write a comment on the article's talk page and put the {{request edit}} template on it: an uninvolved editor will review your request. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 10:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Links

Hi again, Mushroom. How do I stop a link coming up as a (1) or replace a link with text, like 'here' as in click HERE=>? Hope you can help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor510 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. To do that, you have to use this format:

[http://www.google.com Google], which becomes: Google.

I.e., you have to type a square bracket, then the link, then a space, then the text, then the closing bracket. For more information, you can read Help:Links. Mushroom (Talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please remember to sign your comments and to put them at the bottom (not at the top) of talk pages. Mushroom (Talk) 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Latest preview release/Browzar

Template:Latest preview release/Browzar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Korg (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I have added my comment. Mushroom (Talk) 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Flags

Hello. After reading the guidelines, I see that it is inappropriate to have the flags for the "born" or "died" section of a person's infobox. However, I think it IS appropriate on band pages, because it refers to the band's origins, not a single person's nationality. Very often, the country of origin for a band is a major part of their identity, and I believe that having the flag there shows that. And there is nothing in the policy forbidding that. Andy Campbell (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and I invite you to contribute to the discussion I started here. Mushroom (Talk) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Beast of Bataan

In the logs of the article of Beast of Bataan, I noticed that it was marked as "patrolled". I was curious as to what this meant. I originally proposed the article for deletion, and now that it's been created again in defiance of the notability guidelines for films, I've contacted the creator. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPPLOG. I marked it as patrolled since it seemed appropriate to me, as it has a notable director and is listed on IMDb and other websites. Unfortunately I did not know about the shooting rule, so I apologize for my ignorance. Thanks for telling me. Mushroom (Talk) 15:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries; the guidelines were developed because there were quite a few stubby articles of projects lingering in development hell with no sign of movement. By being in production, it's a near certainty that a product will result, generating a more substantial article with production, reception, and what-have-you. Before that point, though, anything can interfere -- scripting issues, budget issues, and especially the ongoing writers' strike. We try to merge articles to the source materials' articles depending on the amount of substance. Director Neil Marshall had stubby articles on all his announced projects, but he's certainly not making them all at once. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly reasonable. Now that I know, I will {{prod}} those stubs when I find them in the new pages log. Mushroom (Talk) 16:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've set up Masaharu Homma#Film adaptation; perhaps a redirect can be created later. If you come across similar articles, you can check IMDb to see its status. If it says development or pre-production, it's not quite there yet. If it says filming, post-production, or completed, then obviously, it's OK. Use IMDb lightly, though... their updates aren't always accurate. For State of Play (film) (redirects at the moment), IMDb previously had it listed as "Filming" when it never actually began (due to Brad Pitt dropping out). Another good place to check is here -- I've been trying to keep an eye on these projects at User:Erik/FFW. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will make good use of those links :) Mushroom (Talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rockdetector

Hi, I have seen you have massively removed links to www.rockdetector.com. May I know how it violates WP:EL? Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 16:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided, point 2:

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

I don't think Rockdetector qualifies as a reliable source. See also WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) and WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Mushroom (Talk) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Has this decision been made by you solely, or have you taken the time to get the community's opinion on the issue? If so, please direct me to the page(s) where this discussion has taken place. Can you explain how you think RockDetector misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material? Thanks in advance for an answer. Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done some research on Garry Sharpe-Young, the editor of the website, and he seems to be a notable expert in the field (he has also published some books), so I have changed my mind. I was wrong and I apologize, but please consider that it is not easy to assess the notability and/or reliability of a website, and it is not possible to have a community discussion on all the external links (most of them spam) that are added to Wikipedia everyday. Anyway, if you check my edits you will see that I was not systematically removing those links: I was removing some different ones whose unreliability is certain and I found the Rockdetector ones along the way. Mushroom (Talk) 20:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. What are your arguments concerning all the other sources you removed on the Aarni article? Do your actions truely represent the consensus of the Wikipedia community? Thanks in advance for making research about the source before judging it a violation of a Wikipedia guideline/policy. Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have explained my arguments on the article's talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing references

I noticed that on Buizel, you removed what you said were unreliable and unofficial websites. In doing so, you removed links to Bulbapedia and Psypokes, but you left in Serebii.net. I'm curious as to why you left Serebii.net as an External Link, when it is just as unofficial as the others that you removed. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I left it because it was an instance of the {{Serebiidex}} template. I have nominated the template for deletion, and when it is deleted all its instances will (hopefully) automatically be removed by bots. Actually, I would have been more than happy to remove it, but it seems more appropriate to me to wait for the TfD to go through. Mushroom (Talk) 17:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, that definitely makes sense. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Metal reviews

The album reviews listed are being used to establish the artists' notability according to WP:MUSIC point 1. They constitute a published source of which the band is a primary subject, and I have no intention of seeing them removed from the article. Chubbles (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They violate WP:RS and especially WP:SPS. Unless you prove that they are "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", they can't be used on Wikipedia. WP:MUSIC clearly states that the sources must be reliable. And even if it didn't, WP:SPS is an official policy; WP:MUSIC is just a guideline. Mushroom (Talk) 05:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline whose subject matter, for this purpose, basically defaults to WP:SPS. Which reads as follows:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The reviews cited are relevant to the band's notability, and are not contentious; they are album reviews. They pass all of the above criteria. I will post this notice on the talk page of the articles in question and restore the links. Chubbles (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please wait: those are the criteria for use "in articles about themselves". The subjects of Ablaze My Sorrow and NonExist are bands, not websites. And that's WP:SELFPUB, not WP:SPS. WP:SPS states:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Mushroom (Talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, you've got no case for metal.de. That's a third-party website with a physical mailing address that does professional reviews. Satan Stole My Teddybear, perhaps. I'm going to check the others as I go. Chubbles (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Laut.de is routinely used by the German Wikipedia to establish notability. I'm restoring that, too. See de:laut.de. Chubbles (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked the sites of all the other reviews in Ablaze My Sorrow. I removed SSMT because they only have three contributors; the others have clearinghouses, most have physical addresses; one even publishes a paper magazine. I hate to think what havoc you've wreaked on pages that aren't on my watchlist; are you really removing Rockdetector, one of the best sources for metal out there? Chubbles (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Four quick answers:

Having ten or fifteen writers does not make a website reliable: SSMT, novometal.com, deadtide.com and powermetal.de are certainly not reliable, and I think metal.de isn't as well. All of them are self-published, none have offices, an organization or stuff like that, and the physical addresses are those of the editors. None of them are edited by someone who has published a book on the subject. Anyone with no experience in the field could start a website like those, write a few reviews and I don't think it would qualify as a reliable source for an encyclopedia. And they are also not notable, as per WP:WEB, so if you tried to create an article about them it would soon get deleted.
I am not removing Rockdetector. I removed just a few links to it (5 or 6 maybe), before discovering it was a reliable source. I explained it in the discussion above.
If you accuse me of creating havoc for a few wrong link removals, I could say you are undermining the credibility of Wikipedia by using unreliable sources. But what's the point? Actually I think you are improving Wikipedia by creating good articles and stubs; I just disagree on your use of those sources.
I would like to go on with this discussion but I am definitely too wikistressed, so I'm going on wikibreak right now. This is my last edit this week (or maybe this month). Bye.

Mushroom (Talk) 06:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moonblood links

Hello! What was the reason you removed the link http://www.verticalpixel.net/moonblood/ from the webpage of Moonblood? that link seems quite useful! Diego Torquemada (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that website violates WP:EL as it is a fansite written by a non-notable individual, it is not a reliable source and it is also dead. Mushroom (Talk) 01:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the welcome. :) See you around the wiki! -- Tom H12 (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It was nice to see the first message in my talk page was a helpful one! {Jazzmaniac (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)}

Re: User:Melsaran/UBX/Latin plurals etc.

Are all contributions made by banned users deleted even if they're useful? -- Menti fisto 05:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. However, if you need to access the page, I can temporarily undelete it. Mushroom (Talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't absolutely need that specific page; I just needed to know the rationale behind the deletions... I don't see how useful contributions aren't good even if the creator is banned - the articles created before the ban aren't deleted, no? So should any other good contributions I guess. -- Menti fisto 08:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. All contributions made after the ban are deleted anyway, regardless of their usefulness (see WP:BAN). User:Melsaran/UBX/Latin plurals was created before the ban, but I deleted it anyway because it was in the user's space: all user subpages are generally deleted some time after the ban. Mushroom (Talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion you should save the useful stuff, and if all of the banned user's subpages need to be deleted at least save the content somewhere else - like, you could save User:Melsaran/UBX/Latin plurals somewhere on User:UBX. -- Menti fisto 18:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)