User talk:HamishMacBeth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Mikedk9109
And what perfectly good valid edit are we talking aobut here? Thanks. --Mikedk9109 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
May I apologize on behalf of this user, Mikedk9101, as I have had numerous problems with him. Mikedk got rid of a bunch of stuff off Mark Calaway page and upset me and was acting stubborn for a long time so excuse him. He is selfish and inconsiderate and can't help it Tonetare 22:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please excuse this user above me. He is just a user that trys to start arguments with everyone that he can. He is smart and obnoxious, and has a history of being blocked. --Mikedk9109 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this right, your saying this is a current event, so it isnt notable. It is, how about the Unforgiven bit? Thats not nearly as important. The people in Montreal have been booing Michaels for 9 years. They decided not to boo him. I say thats more significant than some Hell in a Cell match. So, it needs to stay. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if its not world wide news. Its still important to this article. And PPV's arent notable by nature. People just think they are such a big deal and are a must have in every wrestling article. --Mikedk9109 00:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't argue over everything. This is notable. Besides, I would expect this from an ignorant user who only has 169 edits. And thinks they know everything about Wikipedia, and wrestling articles. --Mikedk9109 00:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say I was Mr. Popular. I'm not on here to make friends. You don't know anything about my past business and it's harldy anything aobut some hissy fits why I left WP. You don't have any reason to keep deleting that except that you say its "non notable". I will continue to put it in. --Mikedk9109 22:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pinkpromo.jpg
You said: "Can you please tell me how you want me to sort this problem? I found the image as part of a press pack to accompany the music video, which I assumed was allowed under "an image freely provided to promote an item, as in a promotional photo in a press packet", but as stated, I couldn't find a relevant title in the drop down menu. Thanks! ... If you've got a problem with this image, I'd like an answer how to sort it please. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to prevent it being deleted. Thanks!"
-
- As indicated, you need a detailed fair-use rationale. The license text has a link to a page which describes this requirement in more detail. Thanks. --Yamla 00:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of famous tall men
The ppl getting added are not notable, and some incorrect info it being added. I don't6 see you editing there unless you log out to redit thus ignoring the £RR rule yourself(Halbared 14:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC))
Why have you removed Ian Thorpe . He is 6ft 5 and size 17 feet. He is probably the most famous swimmer in the world. PLease don't remove it. Google him type Ian Thorpe 6ft and it will show you. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Johnny Depp
Somebody keeps deleting a very popular cult role of Depp's (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas) from his notable roles, & adding a film where he has a very, very small role (Platoon) to replace it. I just keep reverting it back to what is sufficient for a notable roles section. I'm doing nothing wrong. It sounds childish to say "he did it first!," but the section was stable for a while before whoever keeps changing it began to. So, if you wanna get technical, "they started it." I don't believe an edit should be kept in "fairness" if it's an absolutely absurd, completely untrue personal bias (in this case, just because this person loves Platoon doesn't make a two minute role "notable" to an actor with as varied & popular a career as Depp). ―Anthonylombardi 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- You left the first message to me on my account when I was signed out, as an anonymous user, complaining about me reverting the notable roles on Johnny Depp's page. Just letting you know I'm doing nothing wrong. Anthonylombardi 10:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Admitted?" I'm not conceding to a crime here, I wasn't purposely signing out - I simply wasn't signed in & forgot to do so. My internet browser normally has me automatically signed in to all my accounts, & I was having a problem with my browser, & I was unaware that I wasn't signed in. I wasn't intentionally signing out to undo edits; rather, my browser gave me problems & I was fixing edits that were personally biased (against the neutral point of view rule). Anthonylombardi 10:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Height lists
celebheights.com has been proven on many discussion pages as unreliable, Please read This Thank You. DXRAW 12:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at our guideline on reliable sources, it says that Wikipedia is not a reliable site because 1) anyone can edit it and 2) we don't have pre-publication fact-checking mechanisms. The same is true of celebhieghts, so it is also not a reliable source, and shouldn't be used to support anything. DXRAW 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Inless that site removes the unsourced heights or cites every single height then its not a WP:RS. DXRAW 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Birth date and age template (Naomi Watts)
You said that this template has no point. I believe it does.
My reasoning for using it is as follows:
- While editors may think that it's simple math that anyone can do on their own, the truth is many adults cannot easily do the math. I know several who would have to think about it.
- It makes an infobox, which is basically a quick reference, even quicker to use.
- It does no harm. Not very much space is taken up by "(age:XX)".
- It automatically links the date so that user preferences display the date correctly.
The template has already survived a nomination for deletion and passed by an overwhelming majority. I'm aware that it's not in WikiProject:Biographies but that doesn't mean that it's pointless.
Thoughts? Dismas|(talk) 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR warning
Please see WP:3RR. You are not currently in violation of this but you have made three edits to List of famous tall men in the past 24 hours and it is not clear whether this is simple reversion of vandalism. Nevertheless, I am providing you a warning because you are in danger of violating it. When two parties both violate 3RR, both parties must be blocked for the same amount of time. --Yamla 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
I've removed all his comments from my talk page if it'll put an end to this nonsense. Cheers, HamishMacBeth 12:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, I very much appreciate it. --Yamla 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gene Hackman
This resource is too inconsistent. Hackman cannot be reffered to as "English-American" because an English grandmother is insufficient. Someone else has told me that Alicia Silverstone, born to two British parents, cannot be called anything other than purely "American", period: parentage is irrelevant, birthplace is relevant. Steve-O, born in raised in the UK, with a British passport and birth certificate also must not have English appear anywhere in his article: birthplace is irrelevant, parentage is relevant. Yet thousands of people are referred to as "Irish-American" on this resource based on claimed (and uncited) Irish antecedants up to 300 years ago, an Irish-sounding surname, "Irish-Catholicism" (no-one can explain what exactly that is) and false rumour (Paul Newman anyone? Proven to have not a drop of 'green' blood). I am constantly reverted when I add the "English-X" category to articles where recent and close English links are noted and undisputed, yet am also immediately reverted when I question "Irish-X" in articles where that alleged link is not even mentioned let alone cited. Soemone claimed that Matthew Broderick's article MUST say he is Irish-American. Why? I quote (this is genius):
- "All members of the Broderick Family (at least in the USA) are of Direct Irish heritage, although I can't be certain that will continue to be true in the next few generations. I have yet to personally meet a Broderick that can't trace a straight lineage back to Ireland...it's not one of those silly generic American surnames. Wikipedia probably needs a Broderick family page. It's a fact his father James W Broderick was Irish American [no it ain't, his article doesn't mention it and the correspondent couldn't prove it], just as myself and my Father (James D Broderick I and II) are Irish American...just as James M Broderick III who lived downtown was Irish American...ad infinum. James and John are painfully common Broderick names. If only we had an easy online source to cite."
This is the logic that runs through Wikipedia. Silverstone's parents? Irrelevant. Steve-O's birth and upbringing? Irrelevant. Broderick's name: evidence enough, job done.
If I was paranoid I'd say there was a political agenda here: indeed, a few months ago the same person who prevented me from adding the "English-American" category to an article which stated clearly that the individual was born in England to English parents (but grew up and works in the US) then went on to reinstate the Irish-American category for the very same person - which I had deleted - because they have alleged distant Irish links on one side!! Born in England to English parents? So what, they grew up and live in America. But distant Irish link on one side? Top o' the morrrning toe ya, Irish-American!!! It's a joke.
End of rant. 86.17.247.135 01:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re:
It's really not a huge difference. A delete is a strong consensus to delete, usually 66% or better, not just a simple majority... so I see a keep basically the same way, my rule of thumb is two thirds of the comments should be in favor of keeping the article before there's a clear keep consensus. I also felt there were some policy issues at play here, and there were also many "list of" articles nominated forming a larger discussion, some of which were much more sharply divided. I guess it was pretty close in this specific AfD and if the article is nominated again free to mention the ammount of support for keeping, but ultimately it's more of a semantic difference than one that will really help the article stay around or not. --W.marsh 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
