User talk:Marcyu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Marcyu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

1 Notice

[edit] Notice

Archiving your talk page is fine, blanking it to remove warnings is considered blanking per WP policy -- Tawker 08:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madea's Family Reunion

The paragraph as it is can't be kept for a couple reasons:

Some of it is point of view. For example: "studio executives will probably again be closely examining the Christian demographic to which this production caters" isn't factual, it's your opinion, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. "mind-boggling gross" is also point of view and a little hyperbolic.
Some of it is off-topic. King Kong has little to do with the film and shouldn't be in the article, especially the unsupported assertion that the Kong hasn't broken even. Comparing the two movies is apples and oranges.
"studio executives will probably again be closely examining the Christian demographic to which this production caters." That is predicting the future, another thing not allowed in Wikipedia articles, as it is an encyclopedia.
continues to astound most industry experts = unsupported, unsourced. Plus, it's present tense. Things generally need to be in past tense, as its an encyclopedia.

What you have written is basically original research. You should read WP:POL, particularly the Article Standards section on the right. Thanks. Crumbsucker 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"I love how you edited the page in question with the information and links I provided." That is because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Also, justified text is unneeded for most articles, expecially this one. Crumbsucker 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, your current edit listed this film as LGF's 2nd highest opening, but that could change. Of course, and when it does, we can edit it, just like all the other info on Wikipedia. "To date" isn't really needed in this case, as it's not rapidly-changing information (OTOH, a film's overall box office gross is and that is why I used it there). it's really not a financial concern, but rather a market observation Your market observation was POV and assumptive. Also, you can sign your comments by putting four tiles at the end of your message Crumbsucker 10:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Who died and allowed you to undo justified text? It's not in any of those precious standards you hold so dear. Leave it alone. It is not your place to go about changing formatting just because you alone don't feel it is "really needed" (BTW, it's "especially" - learn how to spell - that's also another Wikipedia standard that you're not following; if you don't know the spelling, get off your lazy rear and look it up). And you may not come back to this page again - that's the point. Word it so if you die tomorrow, the page will still be valid. And I know about the four tildes (that's what they're called, genius). You can use it all you want, but it's not a requirement - stop telling people what to do. You should be spending that time learning how to spell.

[edit] User:Crumbsucker

Please do not vandalize user pages such as you did with User:Crumbsucker. If you have an issue with a user, keep the discussion on their talk page or article pages. Making statements about someone on their user page is completely inappropriate. Also, you should read Wikipedia:Talk pages - civility and signing are a requirement, not a suggestion. -- JLaTondre 12:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Crumbsucker. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Crumbsucker 12:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The number one rule of Wikipedia, as shown on every edit: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Factual statements are allowed. It is NOT a requirement to sign. If it was, I wouldn't be allowed to edit. Do you guys have a clique as a bunch of self-proclaimed proofreading wannabes? Because you guys have horrible grammatical, spelling, and proof-reading skills.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User:Crumbsucker, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Crumbsucker 21:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You must be a complete moron. You have no authority to warn people. I just warned you, too. Big Whoop. Stop bugging people and get a life.

I've blocked you for three hours for user-page vandalism, incivility, and personal attacks, none of which are allowed on Wikipedia. When you come back, please try to resolve your dispute calmly and civilly. If that's not possible, there are various methods of dispute resolution you can try. android 79 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove block notices. android 79 23:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted by policy, I can erase anything I want from my own discussion page. You guys are a bunch of control freaks who band together to stomp out anything or anybody who doesn't think like you.

[edit] Text justification

Apparently, you didn't yet read my reply to your email. There is no need to use HTML markup to justify text; you can set automatic justification of paragraphs in your preferences under the "Misc" tab. android 79 02:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Most people don't even know what paragraph justification is, let alone know how to code it. And I challenge you to find more than 1% of the readership here that knows how to use that "Misc" tab. All they know is that it looks prettier. Presentation is the key, and the Internet has not only made us the writer, but also the proofer and printer all at once. I've worked on newspapers my entire life since high school, with USA Today being my last stop. I have never seen such a vocal group of vindictive editors in my life.

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Madea's Family Reunion. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Mhking 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is nonsense. I consider it a personal attack that you consider my edit "nonsense"; hence, by policy, you are also guilty of vandalism on this page. This argument is circular. As for the Medea page, challenge each point directly and logically, but don't use such blanket terms such as "nonsense" and "vandalism" without backing it up.

I wouldn't call that vandalism, but you might want to be aware of the three-revert rule. android 79 02:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility and assumption of good faith

Please see WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:3RR, don't be a WP:DICK, WP:SIG your posts on talk pages and don't remove notices from your WP:TALK page. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you continue your pattern of vandalism, incivility, personal attacks, edit warring and general hostility to the Wikipedia cause, I will file a Request for Comment on your behaviour, and if you refuse to respond there, your case will end up at ArbCom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 10:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[Personal attack regarding age, assumption and accusation of vandalism removed per WP:RPA] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) .

Please be aware that the preceding comment was interpreted as a personal attack and assumption of bad faith. Additionally, please sign your posts on talk pages, as a matter of talk-page ettiquette, and do not blank your talk page, as it is seen as hiding previous comments. If you feel the need to clean up your comments, please look into archiving them. Finally, you must know that personal attacks are never okay on Wikipedia. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. That includes making prejudiced comments based on age. Additionally, unless you have a very good reason to believe that an edit was made in bad faith, it is not to be considered vandalism. Please make an effort to follow our community policies such as no personal attacks, civility, assumption of good faith, and Don't be a dick. Make an effort to cooperate with the Wikipedia community, and the Wikipedia community will cooperate with you. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overcoming difficulties

Hi Marc, thanks for contacting me for help with the difficulties you've been having. Getting locked out with a block is a temporary thing that will soon pass, what needs work is preventing it from happening again. You'll have developed ways of doing things that have contributed to your success in newspapers, magazines and web publishing, but these approaches may not always work in the harsh world of reaching consensus with others here on Wikipedia. The first thing to focus on is civility: you may feel impatient or annoyed with people, but friendly politeness will help to persuade them of your case. Another aspect to get to grips with is the no original research rule – something that works brilliantly in a magazine won't meet the needs of Wikipedia if it can't be fully attributed to a notable source. There's a lot of policy and good advice available by following the blue links in earlier contributions to this page, and these policies have been well debated and tested. Put the effort into studying and implementing the advice and policies, and I'm sure you'll make an excellent contributor. I look forward to seeing you around, ..dave souza, talk 00:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request in hand

I've seen your request on my user page and will aim to get something organised as soon as I can, though this is a new area for me. For goodness sake take it easy and show that you can work with the polite restraint that's most effective on Wikipedia. Will be in touch, ,,,dave souza, talk 23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Archiving"

If you are blanking your user talk page to archive it, provide a link to the archive from your talk page after you archived it. Since you failed to do so, the blanking is construed as an attempt to remove the warnings against you (particularly in light of all the line breaks that you put in). Continued attempt to remove the warnings (without proper retrievable archival) will be construed as vandalism and be dealt with as such. --Nlu (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rory096 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page and/or replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Rory096 01:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is not your property. It is against Wikipedia policy to remove warnings. --Rory096 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to

Guidance is at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Will try it out myself now. ...dave souza, talk 15:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion request

Well, the search has educated me a bit and I've found guidance at Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?. As you'll see there's a tag to put on your page to request deletion, and there's a question of evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. Feel free to add the tag, but the quickest way of achieving some discretion is to archive your talk page: just done mine, and it's fairly painless. In the past people who have had a record of transgressions have fully redeemed themselves by their care, politeness and helpfulness in further actions, and it's a learning process for all of us. Best wishes, ..dave souza, talk 19:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

"Archiving" by insert that many line breaks with intent to obscure the warnings against you is simply bad faith. I have no intent to play games with you any further, and have reprotected the page for the time being. However, the page will be unprotected at some point (either by myself and another admin), and carrying out the same behavior with the intent to hide warnings against you will be considered vandalism and will draw another block. Please rethink your behavior. --Nlu (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of 1 week. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please also be aware that since you've used the account only in a non-productive manner as of late (you've been given plenty of time to make productive edits but failed to make any), that if this behavior continues when the block expires, the account will be blocked indefinitely. --Nlu (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your failure to sign comments (and in fact, removing attributions) while you clearly know how to sign also appears to be a way to avoid responsibility for your comments. Continuing to do so, and it will be construed as vandalism and dealt with as such. --Nlu (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block by Admin Nlu

I do not believe my signature in and of itself can be construed as a personal attack against Nlu, as he so claims. I also believe that the initial block of 6 months for merely using my signature was a gross abuse of admin privileges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) .

Since then did I claim that it is an attack against me? It's an attack against all admins. --Nlu (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no "initial block of 6 months". Despite making this claim repeatedly, you have not provided any evidence for it. The pseudo-signature is clearly unacceptable according to WP:SIG and WP:POINT, and the block was entirely justified. --ajn (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You claimed my block was due to a personal attack. As defined by Wikipedia, "a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments". When an entire group is criticized, as is the case with my signature, no single person is being depicted in a negative light. For instance, the statement, "all Canadians smoke pot" is a stereotype of a national citizenry, but no single Canadian can correctly claim to have been personally attacked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) . 07:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And admins aren't persons? --Nlu (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Each admin is a person, but collectively, they are a group. The reason person-to-person attacks are not acceptable is because it singles out an individual and verbally abuses him/her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) . 15:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User_talk%7EMarcyu_3c28.html"