User talk:Marcus22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please note: Vandalism or messages that ignore WP:CIVIL will be removed. So will anything else once I am bored seeing it. Rather like that old tree stump in the field... only, actually, erm, I still haven't gotten around to that...

Contents

[edit] Charles I of England

Nice work on the personal rule/tyranny area - any plans to follow up with further (major anyway) changes to the article? I think I must have been recording a spoken version of the article at the same times as you were changing the very words I was reading. :) That's the major downside to the recordings and part of why I'm hoping screen readers get more advanced in the near future - they get out of sync with the article so easily! Thanks. Moulder 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Services: Science, Management, and Engineering

Yeah, I know. I'm worried that someone might take it to WP:DRV, in which case it would probably be overturned. This is first time I've gone against the vote total to that degree. I do try to be a Fair Witness and just try to ascertain community consensus, really. But in this case:

  • It had already been relisted once, so I didn't want to relist it again. The fact that articles have to be relisted (and quite a few others come close) might mean that the numbers of AfD commentors are not up to handling the number of articles listed. Relisting articles might tend to exaberate this, leading to a snowball effect. I will relist a discussion a second time if I think it's necessary, useful, and important enough, but I'm very reluctant to do so.
  • I consider a "quorum" to be at minimum three commentors (plus the nominator). That is just my personal standard. Less then three commentors, I almost always relist. There was a quorum, but not by whole lot. When the numbers are low, raw vote total make less of an impression on me. 4-1 is not nearly as statistically significant as 8-2, in my opinion.
  • I look at strength of arguments as well a raw vote totals. In my opinion, the Delete arguments were not strong. Two were just "per nom", which could indicate that the commentor was just breezing through, and made a quick vote, releying on trust of the nominator, in the interest of making a quorum and avoid a second relisting. It doesn't necessarily indicate this, but there's no way to tell. (Don't get me wrong, the commentors were being helpful, and it usually is helpful.) I didn't give a lot of weight to those comments. If one discounts these entirely, which is arguable, you end up with 2-1 Delete, which is statistically insignificant.
  • The other two Delete voters' comments were better, but not very strong, while the one Keep voter was pretty strong, he seemed to know something about the subject and provided a link. I think this one comment was strong enough that one could say that the Keep arguments were somewhat the stronger overall.
  • Finally, although I'm not supposed to do this and usually don't, I did consider the encylopedic value of the article, and it seemed to have enough merit I was quite reluctant to delete the article.

So I think that the close was reasonable, although admittedly arguable. Herostratus 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I must have misread the page history. Herostratus 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If I knew how, I would delete the weird stuff someone added at before the registry section in the European Court of Justice - just a headsup that it needs removal...

[edit] Changes in the UK Conservative Party article

Hi. Please see my comments on the article's discussion page regarding three of those changes.... --longlivefolkmusic 23:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with hepatitis C

Would you consider revisiting this discussion? Current opinions run 10-4 in favor of keeping the article and I think all the serious concerns have been addressed. Respectfully, Durova 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFDs and "vanity"

Just a note regarding AFDs. The use of WP:VANITY and "vanity" in AFD discussions is now discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. Cheers and happy editing! Jpe|ob 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks. Marcus22 09:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandal revert

No prob! Happy to have a chance to test out Popups. Good luck with the vandal. :)

Maximilli, 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BNP

Sorry been very busy over the last couple of days and haven't had much time to spare to go into detail on the subject, hence my lack of reply. Just to clarify I've nothing against anyone trying to improve the article, just as it's a controversial subject it's better to talk first as there are multiple editors involved. I'll post some opinions later tonight. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just replied. Sorry again about the delay, hope we can move forward from here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind giving some input into the current discussion please? Emeraude and I seem to have reached some kind of consensus, but more opinions would be welcome. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BNP again

May I suggest that your edit to the article British National Party was perhaps a little unwise. As you are well aware, this is a very controversial topic and the discussion regarding the introduction seems far from over so it would probably be better to discuss changes on the talk page before making them. Otherwise, you risk your edits being reverted. I note that you have "no desire to enter into a revert war" but I fear this is what may result from making such drastic changes of the article. Adambro 12:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I more or less agree with what you say. The version I have put in can readily be reverted and if it is I shan't change it again. For a while at least. Hence, rest assured, no edit war. (But the discussion, to which you refer, as far as I can tell, was going nowhere. Certain editors are stretching the bounds of debate for their own reasons; redefining Wiki norms to suit and not agreeing to give a little or even at all. It amounts to no more than sophistry. And I want no part in such an endless and thus pointless debate). Marcus22 14:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your recent edits regarding Prod tags

Hello, I understand that you have recurrently added prod for deletion tags on the following articles:

I have removed all the prods you have placed. I was not informed on my talk page, that you had added these prods. I am the sole contributor to most of these articles and you failed to fore fill your obligation to, at least tell me of the prod, 12 times.

The subject in each instance is more notable than a large amount of articles that already exist, there has been a sizable amount of work and effort poured into these articles, and there is no reason for their deletion, and if there were it certainly would not be their notability. Do not re-instate the templates. If you still think they are valid, discuss it with me first. Dfrg.msc 09:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about not informing you. (See also response on your talk page). But please do not try to tell other users what they can and cant do, it comes across as rather threatening and, in any case, I shall just ignore things in underlined Bold. regards Marcus22 12:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I only underlined bold to emphasize my point. If I sounded threatening it was because I was upset about the prospects of my articles getting deleted. I hope to make them all B standard eventually. Regards, Dfrg.msc 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless they are deleted. I would ask you now to withdraw the nominations, it would be better for the encyclopedia if you helped me improve them, rather than delete them. It is a shame that you think it must come down to this, Marcus, please let me tell you that I have contributed many, many hours to these articles and over 250 edits to them. I do not want to see these legitimate articles deleted. Work with me rather than against me. Dfrg.msc 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not working against you. And if the articles survive AfD then that's fine; that's how Wikipedia works. But as far as I can see, there is nothing notable or newsworthy about any of the artists. Marcus22 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User_talk%7EMarcus22_8742.html"