User talk:Mujinga/archive two

re:But he promised!
Thanks for noticing! Edit summaries are the only place on wikipedia where some light-heartedness will not be ruthlessly edited away. C mon 23:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input
On the infobox fields I tend to leave the empty fields as a prompt to later editor's who might know what to put in that the information is requested. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ok. thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Mujinga 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

LARC dispute
Hi Mujinga - Thanks for your offer - I've replied on my user talk page. NickW 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Any idea on what to do with this page? I'm told revert-warring isn't good, but I can't think of a way to stop Paki.tv from removing clarifying information. ==  Taxico  05:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah im a bit perplexed. i have asked two admins who seem fairly objective to give us an opinion (see here and here) and i hope either one or both can. im now unsure if we are dealing with vandalism or a POV dispute. but anyway, we will get to the bottom of it eventually. thanks for your involvement thusfar! Mujinga 01:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted on the talk page asking for some more information from all involved: . I have high hopes that we can resolve this! —bbatsell  ¿?  02:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ok that's great, thanks for taking this on. Mujinga 02:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try and help a little later. Grand  master  ka  22:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks! all help and advice is welcome. Mujinga 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

chunk 666
yeah, i was kinda surprised that it got deleted, after i threw in references and cleaned it up as fast as i could. it's easily as notable as any other bicycle club that has a page. oh well. let me know if you get it up and want help with it. cheers! Murderbike 04:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ok! do you still have a copy of the page somewhere? i also asked the admin who deleted it if i could see it. and was the article a stub? because if it was, under undeletion guidelines it can be simply begun again, whereas if if was a full article, going by the book, its better to apply to get it undeleted first, then clean it up.
 * how do you know chunk btw? i traded some zines with sara from portland following a carbusters conference in prague a few years back. they're a funny read.
 * what ref.s did you use? here are the ref.s i found just now, which i think easily prove chunk's notability:

Mujinga 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Critical mass: bicycling's defiant celebration - Page 208
 * http://allenink.ws/chunk666.html
 * http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=22224&category=34029
 * http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0612,tucker,72601,15.html
 * http://www.bikesummer.org/2001/calendar/
 * http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/august_2003/chunkathalon.html
 * http://www.news4neighbors.net/article.pl?sid=05/09/06/2046228
 * http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/9381/

hmmm, would it be in contributions history? i've never looked for a deleted page before. as for knowing them, i don't know any of them, have just been around them at critical masses in pdx and whatnot while visiting, and being "accused" of being a member because i was riding a tall bike. i don't THINK that it had a stub tag on it, but i can't be sure. oh, thanks for linking to anarchopedia, i had no idea that existed, and it looks like they could use some help. cheers! Murderbike 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * funny you should mention anarchopedia, i was just browsing it meself - and its not really an "alternative view of wikipedia" like the other links, so i'm glad you found it.
 * i checked your contributions but i guess a deleted page is taken out of the records. it can still be accessed by admins though. how large was the article when it was deleted - was it kinda stub sized?
 * i'm off now, have a nice weekend! Mujinga 04:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

if somebody would call it a stub, i would definitely say it was a big stub. god that sounds ridiculous. enjoy your week away! Murderbike 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion log
2007-01-08T08:41:48 RHaworth (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "C.h.u.n.k. 666" (vanity article about totally nn-group)

Page history

 * 2007-01-08T05:57:15 . . Murderbike (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T05:43:01 . . Murderbike (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T05:35:24 . . Murderbike (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T05:33:13 . . Murderbike (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T05:24:19 . . Murderbike (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T05:23:33 . . Murderbike (Talk | contribs | block) (External links)
 * 2007-01-08T05:20:00 . . Murderbike (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T05:16:55 . . Murderbike (Talk | contribs | block) (minor edits)
 * 2007-01-08T04:54:58 . . Janejellyroll (Talk | contribs | block) (rv vandalism)
 * 2007-01-08T04:54:45 . . Quackking (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T04:54:17 . . Quackking (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T04:52:49 . . Janejellyroll (Talk | contribs | block) (restored db tag, pls stop removing it.)
 * 2007-01-08T04:52:24 . . Quackking (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T04:51:36 . . Quackking (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T04:51:20 . . Quackking (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T04:50:41 . . Janejellyroll (Talk | contribs | block) (restored db tag)
 * 2007-01-08T04:50:14 . . Quackking (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T04:49:19 . . Quackking (Talk | contribs | block)
 * 2007-01-08T04:49:15 . . Janejellyroll (Talk | contribs | block) (db)
 * 2007-01-08T04:48:45 . . Quackking (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with 'CHUNK 666 (sometimes spelled C.H.U.N.K 666 or C.H.V.N.K 666) is, or was, a postapocalyptic chopper bicycle club in Portland, Oregon. While other similar social club...')

to RHaworth
I see you deleted C.h.u.n.k. 666 on January 8, reason given - "vanity article about totally nn-group". Now I didn't see what state the article was in, but I can provide references from reliable sources which prove the group's notability (such as an article about it in 'The Village Voice' and a reference from the book 'Critical mass: bicycling's defiant celebration'), so I would like to recreate the article. We can put it up for deletion review, or I can create it again if it was just a stub. I saw this right now and I'm probably not going to be online for the next week or so, so there's no immediate rush, but i wanted to contact you as a first step. If you can let me see the article as it was, that would be helpful. I will inform Murderbike and Quackking because they seem to have been involved, although I'm not aware of created the article. Cheers, Mujinga 04:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article looks to me like totally pretentious nonsense: what does "post-apocalyptic" mean - we have not had the apocalypse yet and how does it apply to biking? "Anarchic mutation of the politics of Reed College" - meaningless. "Intellectual goth robot war freaks" - crap. You did not even define the first term - when I see the phrase "chopper bicycle", I think of this.
 * The fact that Quackking kept removing the speedy delete tag did not help. But if you can manage to re-write it in encyclopedic style, by all means put up a draft in "user:???/C.h.u.n.k. 666" and take it to deletion review. I have emailed you the final version. -- RHaworth 07:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for your reply, i find it curious you deleted my original message on your talkpage - are you really an inclusionist? as stated above, im starting a quick wikibreak (probably til jan23), then i will be busy rewriting the article. im confident it can be rewritten in an encyclopedic syle. thanks for mailing the original version over. as also stated above, i had nothing to do with the article before, but if certain phrases confused you, perhaps you should have contacted the article creator and suggested clarification. you are indeed right to think of chopper bikes - if interested, i suggest you check out tall bikes, where you can see a foto of a chopper frame recycled in quite an exciting way. cheers, Mujinga 13:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing deletionist about the deletion - I just like to keep a discussion thread in one place - but as a minimum I should have said something in the edit summary. OK, I may even vote to re-instate, if you can get rid of (or at least define) all those pretentious phrases and correct the links to TAZ and choppers. Also, try and get permission for at least one photograph. -- RHaworth 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks, i will keep u informed ... Mujinga 12:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

from Quackking
I am fed up with this place.

I tried to create an interesting article (FYI, I am in no way associated with CHUNK 6.6.6., being a plus 50-ish multiple century (that is, 100-mile-ride) bike rider with a variety of interests, among which I do NOT include practical applications of anarchy) and the insinuation that it was some sort of vanity piece says a lot more about the person who said it than it does about me. The so-called 'removal of delete tags' or whatever you refer to, was not malicious, but in fact was a natural reaction by a fairly competent software dude (me) to what I thought was unexpected and unexplained behavior by the wiki engine - as soon as I realized that it was a PERSON putting in the delete tag I stopped removing it.

The smallest search of Wayback would immediately have revealed that the 'pretentious' phraseology this Hayworth character finds so non- whatever, was actually part of the manifesto of the group, a literal quote from their organizing documents (or whatever passes for the equivalent in an anarchist bicycle strike force.) Ditto the references to 'post-apocalyptic', and it is a serious violation of any editorial code worthy of the name to avoid substituting the editor's version of what is normative for that of his subject in a story. (Not to fly my flag, but I have published tens of dozens of articles in big trade papers, general circ mags, op-eds in the Christian Science Monitor, Detroit News and the Boston Globe, etc etc. I may not be Shakespeare but I also ain't chopped liver.)

Similarly I posted what I thought was a reasonable, inoffensive and informative piece on the etymology of the word 'Hoodsie', as is used in Boston slang.

Whack! 'WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DICTIONARY' was the kindly comment which accompanied that particular commissar's judgment. Oh, really? I can point to dozens of similar definitional entries. But apparently there are those who have, in fact, woken up as Pope, and who enjoy swanning about waving 'delete flags', like some invisible squad of Red Queens in the increasingly unbreathable air of this through-the-looking-glass wonderland. 'Off with her head!'

These supercilious attitudes that seem to characterize many of those who appear to occupy the chairs of authority around here have chased me away. Puts me in mind of a 60's bitch slapdown between aging gays (again, I am not one of them either.) The only actual positive feedback I have seen here was relating to the first thing I posted, but I am afraid to even mention that, since it now seems highly likely that by calling attention to it I will doom it to a summary execution.

Remind me again of 'wiki standards'; is that some sort of digital version of the Academe Francais?

I thought not.

Good luck with reviving the post, but another French phrase (translated here) seems likely to be the reward - 'The more you kiss their ass, the more they shit on your head.'

Goodbye.

reply to Quakking
goodbye for good or just for now? i also found it a shame that the chunk page was deleted but having seen it now, i can understand why. it could definitely be done better. its at the top of my 'to do' list, but for a few real-life reasons i dont have much time right now. hopefully soon that will change. what i have done so far is to dredge up some references and the page is sitting here. if you have time/inclination to help me pull it into shape, please do.

for the rest, your rant does ring some bells round these parts, but please dont get too depressed with wikipedia. there is a battle for knowledge going on and if we dont fight it no-one else will! Mujinga 10:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From rururudy
I reinstated the page and copied over your work into the 'about' section. I added some other links and stuff... we'll see how it goes. Also, I created a new category: bicycle gangs. :) I am affiliated with a different bike gang.  Rururudy 07:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

reply
hey thats awesome, nice one!! i was moving pretty slowly on that one so im glad you did it. if i have time/inclination i will try to add stuff too. cheers and happy biking. Mujinga 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Links to and promoting attack sites
Hello, per Harassment/posting of personal information, links to Wikipedia Review are disallowed. It is an attack site that cannot be linked to, advertised, or promoted, supported by previous ArbCom decisions. I've removed this link and promotion of a hostile site that attacks and attempts to out the IRL identities of Wikipedians from your user page, per this:

"Posting information on, or implying how to find, or simply posting the address of a website which publishes such information is also harassment, regardless of whether the posted link is live or just a bare URL. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor."&quot;

Thanks for your understanding. - Denny  ( talk ) 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of User talk:Raerth
seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Beanfiled
Excellent work. I had the misfortune to be there and the good fortune to start the article and great to see your excellent efforts, SqueakBox 18:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

--thanks for the (very fast) reaction! i have edited the page before and now im just whacking in a few references from the links section - shame that the person who left the "fact" tags couldnt have done that himself or herself ... Mujinga 18:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

TerrorStorm
I have asked for a deletion review of TerrorStorm. Since you showed interest in the discussion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)