User talk:Cjmarsicano/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is archived talk. Please direct all discussions, questions, etc. to the main talk page. --Cjmarsicano 18:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cjmarsicano, I do not believe that the article on Neo Nazism on the Green Day page at all accused the band of such actions, however it posts the theory, and allows room for the reader to decide wether or not it is true. I would prefer you carefully read the article before disregarding it. It is a completely legitamate article regarding a theory that many people believe to be true, and I think the article is fine. Please post on my talk page if you disagree, however until I have a real reason besides what you think, I will do my best to maintain the article. Kerrysfrench

Contents 1 Minutemen 2 Copyrighted image 3 Minutemen bootlegs 4 Template:MikeWatt 5 Bootstrappers 6 Apologies 7 Bad Brains 8 Hazleton 9 Heya 10 hair metal stub 11 Restrictive copyright notices 12 Rainbow 7 13 Sanchny 14 Apple Mac FAC 15 New Template 16 Not this again 17 Re: Page Breaks!

[edit] Minutemen

Couldn't help but notice our mutual interest in the band. Just wanted to take a minute to say welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you enjoy yourself and will stick around to make improvements to lots of articles. If I can ever be of any help, please let me know. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted image

Hi cjmarsicano --

I'm marking your photo "Petra98a.jpg" for deletion, as you can't upload copyrighted content to Wikipedia unless it has been released under the GFDL. Your notation on the photo just mentions it's copyrighted to someone, which would violate this policy.

If it's been released under the GFDL then you can re-upload it and in the notations please mention this and offer some proof.

Thanks - Tempshill 7 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Hello again CJ,

Mike Watt posted to my talk page:

I in fact did take the photo you refer to and you have my full permission to use it at the wikipedia.org site.

mike watt

That's great, because it will improve the article. Unfortunately, believe it or not, this isn't enough. Mike will have to declare that he is releasing the photo under the GFDL, or completely into the public domain. As the "Upload File" page says, Please do not upload files under a "non-commercial use only" or "copyrighted, used by permission" licence. Such files will be deleted.

Here's why: For one thing, Wikipedia is being mirrored by several other for-profit websites that grab our content (including the photos) and host it on their own websites; some of these include ads so they can profit from this. More importantly, under the GFDL license (text here), it's quite legal for anyone to, say, create and sell a book full of Wikipedia articles, including all the photos, and all the profit will go to that person. Mike might not be OK with this. If he's OK with releasing the photo under the GFDL or into the public domain, then he should write this to you and you should paste it into the photo's talk page, along with the appropriate tag, like {{PD-release}} if it has been released into the PD, or {{GFDL}} for the GFDL. A complete list is at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

Sorry for the extra hoop to jump through, but them's the rules. One important reason is that there have been several efforts to create an offline version of Wikipedia (on DVD-ROM, presumably, for cost reasons) and the rights to everything in Wikipedia need to be clear for this to occur.

Regards. Tempshill 7 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

[edit] Minutemen bootlegs

Is listing bootlegs really neccesary? That seems to be borderlining on fancruft. It isn't really normal to list bootlegs in music articles (with a few exceptions, like The Beatles, but they're the most popular band in history). Conveying this information would probably be better achieved in the form of an external link to a discography website. —jiy (talk) 08:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MikeWatt

I've listed your Template:MikeWatt for deletion. While I'm sure you made it for the right reasons, I'm afraid I don't see the point in it. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:MikeWatt. Cheers. Flowerparty 21:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added my two centavos to the discussion at TFD (a Keep). The best think that you can do now is to convince other maximumwattage.com members to come to the Wikipedia and create some of the articles that are now red-links in the template.

Sounding the alarm and then trying to vote-stuff is a very common tactic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but all that usually does is antagonize the regular Wikipedia editors and harden their choice to a delete vote. You probably should warn people from maximumwattage.com that if they are going to go to the TFD discussion and make comments, they should familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia a little before they make their comments. Just little things, like signing with the four tildes helps. And do suggest that they make comments only and not try to vote, because if they're anonymous IPs or have just signed up for a User name, those votes will be discounted. BlankVerse ∅ 16:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In this regard, please do not recreate the template again. Recreations of substantially identical content, under any title, are speedily deleteable under CSD G4. Thanks. -Splash^talk 23:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Eat me. Cjmarsicano 05:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a single reason I deleted your templates, and that is the consensus of the community dicussion on TfD (and the fact that you recreated it in substantially identical form). It's not personal, it's nothing to do with Mike Watt (I'm too much of a geek to have heard of him), and it's nothing to do with wanting to destroy anyone's work. Even the nomination of the template and the debate was nothing personal — you shouldn't feel that it is. On re-reading that debate, it is fairly clear, from the backing that the nomination received, that the template was felt to be unnecessary, which is to say overspecific. Templates, articles, images, categories and redirects get deleted all the time: it's not out of spite, it's just to keep the standards in the encyclopedia at the level the community wants them. Sometimes an individual's work loses out. But there's so much stuff here to write about, particularly given your enthusiasm, that you can soon make up for a lost template.

I have seen other templates that are larger than yours, and some of them I would prefer deleted too, but they are not and were not part of the discussion. If you think they should be deleted, take them to TfD, but note that you've already been warned about making a point and that nominations made on that kind of basis are almost certain to fail. It would be better if you did not remake the template because most forms of it that I can imagine you'd be happy with would be subject to the same TfD debate as has already been had. Instead, work on the articles in question: there must be loads of stuff an enthusiast can add to them and to related articles. In short: don't let a minor thing like a template disturb your enjoyment of editing Wikipedia, and look for positive things rather than negative. -Splash^talk 17:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering what your thinking on this was? -Splash^talk 14:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. I didn't have my coffee yet either, and it's the end of the working day here! Well, I was kind of wondering if the (short essay)/answer I gave you above had explained things at all, and whether the template(s) are still angering you. I was sad to see you hadn't changed your copyrighting back over. -Splash^talk 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC) PS I still didn't work out what generated the "you'r harsh" message I got!

Ok, cool. Now that we understand each other better, and since you evidently worked hard on the template (and the articles, I just read a couple), I can tell you that you can have the template back, if you like, as a page in your userspace e.g. [[User:Cjmarsicano/Template:<name>]] on the condition that you promise not to add it to any articles either now or in future (saving some significant change in circumstances). At least that way you haven't lost it completely. Anyway, if I can help out any time, let me know. Helping is better for the soul than deleting, trust me. -Splash^talk 15:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I have some sort of vendetta against you or your template, or indeed Mike Watt. That's not the case at all. The reason I tagged the new one was that it really looked very similar to the one that was deleted. And there'd be little point in a deletion process if we were allowed to recreate stuff unchallenged. I'd hate to think you'd resent me for it. In fact, I've seen your edits on a number of the pages I'm watching and should really thank you for the excellent contributions you make. Please don't let this irritate you for ever. By the way, I'm not a sysop if you were including me in your previous licensing notice, but I'm glad you changed your mind. Flowerparty■ 16:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bootstrappers

Hey, I've got a Bootstrappers EP (Mike & Kira, if memory serves) is this on your todo list of Watt projects? Pete.Hurd 05:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I should put it on there. Don't know why I didn't. (I don't have a copy :( ) BTW, the Bootstrappers were Watt, George Hurley, and Elliott Sharp. Kira wasn't involved. Cjmarsicano 05:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll dig it out of the vinyl bin if there's anything I can add, rock on Pete.Hurd 05:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Hey there, just thought I'd apologise for putting the wrong things on the album infoboxes on the Morning Musume album pages. Today was the first time I'd ever created pages on wikipedia, thought I might help out. Thanks for changing them for me. By the way, what colour do singles need to be?

Sploggers 05:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Brains

I notice that you added reference to another article, and piped it (The Bad Brains); if that's the correct name of the band, should the article itself be renamed? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Not necessary - just what's up now is fine. To be honest, I don't even remember in which article i used the "The Bad Brains" pipe. Cjmarsicano 04:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hazleton

You're quite welcome; actually we get a *lot* of this kind of vandalism on Wikipedia. When I'm RC patrolling I always check anon edits to US place articles for exactly this reason. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heya

I have a somewhat heavy heart in opposing Mike Watt - you've clearly put a lot of time into it, and it's a high quality article! I myself know how difficult it can be to get an article to FA status. That said, I'm only objecting because of the references! Can I ask where you got your info from? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hair metal stub

hi. you asked why i sent hairmetal-stub to sfd. the number of stubs isnt the important thing tho it is one factor. i sent it to sfd becuase it wasnt proposed as part of the current split in the music categories and was likely to get in the way of the splits that were going on as part of the stub heirarchy. we havent even got a metal-stub yet, tho ones likely soon. if you want a new stub type then you should have proposed it in the normal way like it says to on all the stub info pages rather than just makeing it and crossing your fingers to hope it will fit with all the other stubtypes. BL kiss the lizard 07:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restrictive copyright notices

Your point about making your contributions less permissive than the GFDL raises an interesting question about your notice to that effect, which I raised at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#User_page_copyright_notices. You might want to take a look at the reply I received. Alai 03:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow 7

No problem on hiding the infobox, and cheers for letting me know on the general infobox procedure. Now that it is hidden it saves a minute getting made in February when released. Sploggers 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sanchny

Can I ask exactly why the two of you are arguing so bitterly? Johnleemk | Talk 14:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay then, just one question: Can you clarify this ([1]) for me? It seems to be a violation of FAITH (and it appears to be the earliest record of interaction between the two of you) but I'm hoping there's an adequate explanation for it. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've reviewed the discussion between you and Sanchny (archived at User:Cjmarsicano/What an asshole!, I believe) and while I don't really have an opinion on who is right, I don't think Sanchny could really be said to have harassed you. (Besides, what happened to WP:BITE?) Seniority isn't really important here — what's important is to treat all editors with respect. It's of course a tragic error that you accidentally inserted a malicious comment that can't be taken back, and just as tragic that Sanchny originally missed the apology. I'm glad to see something of an agreement on the article has appeared, but it disappoints me that you created a special user subpage just to insult Sanchny. Our time could be better spent on more productive efforts, as I'm sure you're aware of, and it doesn't help anyone to call Sanchny a "dumb motherfucker". I suggest you remove your remarks, apologise for them, and let the record stand on its own. (You'd probably want to rename the archive, too.) If you are clearly in the right, your case isn't hurt at all by removing some immature remarks that could very well hurt it. Always try to claim the moral high ground and be the bigger person. Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I won't say I'm completely satisfied, but I at least understand where you're coming from. Thanks for the clarification. Johnleemk | Talk 17:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

== Mediation ==

A request for mediation was filed regarding your personal attacks towards me. This was before I noticed that an admin had contacted you above; hopefully one of these will help. --Sanchny 15:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, as I've said before, I don't really want to get deeply involved in this matter. It seems to me the both of you are being absurdly pedantic over a problem resolved a long time ago. Be the bigger person and walk away from the argument. So what if Cjmarsicano claimed he would revert the change? If he does do it, then bring up the problem. Otherwise, just ignore it. And so what if you think this guy is cyberstalking you? Don't feed the cyberstalker. Please, both of you, just grow up and forget this whole thing ever happened. As long as either of you do something to bring this up, the problem will never be resolved. Johnleemk | Talk 09:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Mac FAC

Thank you for voting for a very strong support of the article! This article has undergone a lot of redesign. Also, may I invite you to join WikiProject Macintosh? We're currently focusing on the Apple Computer article. --HereToHelp (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone contributes at different levels, if you just look over the focus once in awhile it's fine. It look like you've already figured out how to join. Our current focus is Apple Computer, our former focus and FAC is Apple Macintosh. Welcome aboard. --HereToHelp (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Template

Thought you might like these new templates:

{{User apple}} produces

Mac This user is contributing using a Macintosh computer.

and

{{User:Scepia/Apple-g}} produces

This user thinks Apple Inc. products are cool.

Enjoy! --t-bte288-c 02:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not this again

As I was reading and editing the Morning Coffee page just now, I noticed Evil Morning was back on the template. I thought we had come to an agreement about that. What happened?

I wasn't monitoring the template. I noticed that the code was there when I went to edit the link to the Early Single Box, since the link in the template was misspelled. The Early Single Box link that I edited was right above the commented-out code. What was the point of leaving the code in there? --Sanchny 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

But what's the point of leaving the code there? --Sanchny 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We had agreed to leave Evil Morning off the template. So why would you have to retype it or go back to it? --Sanchny 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Page Breaks!

Thanks for the tips mate, glad to have a fellow H!P fan around to help me with the wiki knowledge. I'll get around to fixin all the breaks and stuff soon. Sploggers 07:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)