User talk:Marcus2/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've never met anyone with the same birthday as mine before! Morwen 19:58, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean. Certainly I could have said 'may be', I just didn't. By the way, in answer to the question on your user page, you can just click 'Log in' on the top-right hand corner, enter a username and password, and there you go... Morwen 21:23, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the explanation. So long as we're all square.  :) RickK 22:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi 65.73.0.137 - it seems nobody responded to your question on how to register. It's very easy. Go to Special:Userlogin and create a username. I hope you'll come back and join our dedicated efforts. You're most welcome. JFW | T@lk 15:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit - list your name and old IP(s) there, and the developers will change the attribution. BTW, I couldn't find your userpage! JFW | T@lk 15:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Marcus2, I'm really not sure how long the attributation change takes. Depends which developer is strolling around on that page...
Do you have any WikiInterests? There might be a WikiProject you'd feel like joining. Otherwise, these's always {{opentask}}:


[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

In any case, Welcome! JFW | T@lk 19:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Attribution

Hi, Marcus2. Yes, I see you have made your request for attribution of your previous edits at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. That will be done by a developer (there are only about five people who can do it), so unfortunately it may take a while. - Nunh-huh 21:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Baby Mario is Mario too, and the games he stars in are equally well Mario games. Fredrik (talk) 18:42, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Baby Mario is the same character as Mario, just in a different interpretation. I haven't read any other articles you've written (that I'm aware of), so I can't comment on those. If you want baby Mario not to be Mario, I suggest you propose the idea on Talk:Mario and wait until you have others' support. Fredrik (talk) 19:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


There is no material evidence (other than Nintendo's claim around the time Yoshi's Island's release) that baby Mario is Mario. In a bio I wrote (outside Wikipedia), instead, babies Mario and Luigi were twin sons of Wario, discarded and sent by the stork to other parents.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but it sounds like you're trying to say that some fan fiction you wrote is more canon than Nintendo's fiction. Your fiction has no place in Wikipedia, Nintendo's does.

There isn't any material evidence refuting this either.

What is needed is supportive evidence, not lack of refutative evidence.

Also, the original "Super Mario World" says that the real Mario met Yoshi in this game, and I have seen this happen in the game: Yoshi's egg cracks and he says, "Hello, my name is Yoshi. Bowser trapped me inside this egg."

Apparent contradictions are commonplace in fiction. Please just point them out instead of offering made-up explanations. Fredrik (talk) 19:28, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Luigi

Look, it's clear that Baby Luigi did, in fact, appear in Super Mario World 2. Please stop removing this. Meelar 21:17, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually, in Wikipedia, the general rule is not to remove information unless it is either patently irrelevant to an article or patently wrong. I'd challenge you to name one source that claims Luigi did not appear in Super Mario World 2 (note: this does not include fan fiction). If you can't, I feel that the info must stay. Meelar 21:41, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fiction or not, the usual standards apply. Please justify your edits with sources, or else the info must stay in. Meelar 21:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What source do you have that Mario did not appear in SMW2? Until there is one, we have to include that info. Meelar 21:55, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Even articles about fiction need sources. If you feel that this should be changed, you can try to start a discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump. However, I'm almost certain that the attempt won't succeed. And that's as it should be, as far as I'm concerned. People come to an encyclopedia looking for accurate, factual information--including on fictional characters. They want to know cannon, verifiable information. Meelar 22:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In response to your latest comment; Wikipedia's policy is clear: we don't write fiction here, we write about fiction. I'm going to second Meelar's suggestions that you bring the discussion up on the Village pump if you feel this is wrong. Also, please don't resort to personal attacks (saying that I should "get a life" was a mild one, but I'm confident this discussion could be held entirely free from them). Fredrik (talk) 22:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Date format

Marcus2, the original birth date format in George Garfield Hall — "(Belfast, 1925)" is the standard format for birth/death dates and places, not only in Wikipedia but in many other encyclopedias and such. Your version is awkward and repetitive. Please change it back. Thanks...
Jorge Stolfi 23:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More Mario stuff

First, I'd suggest you hold conversations on a single talk page, not posting your responses to stuff on your page on the poster's page and having them respond to you on your page. That way people like me can actually read the conversation. After all, a dispute on Wikipedia often needs third parties to step in to become resolved; all of Wikipedia belongs to all of us, so we all have a say as to what goes in it and how it's expressed, so we need to see what's going on when people are arguing about what belongs.

Secondly, I object to your suggestion that requiring sources does not apply to fiction. Fiction often has canon (that is, "official" fiction) and non-canon (fan fiction and, sometimes, authorized fiction written by a different author). On Wikipedia we discuss canon and usually hold authorized fiction similarly (but not always; for instance, so many people feel the animated series of Star Trek is non-canonical that anything pertaining to it has little place in discussions of official Star Trek continuity -- mostly because even the Star Trek guys hold this opinion). Because of this, anything about fiction has some kind of source -- either it's stated directly in the canon or it can easily be inferred from the canon. Therefore a statement that some may find objectionable needs to have a source to back it up. You can't say it's just "obvious" because obviously it isn't. --Furrykef 19:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] On Providing Sources For Fiction

from the pump

Hello. I wanted to disuss to you about loosening your concrete rule of providing a source. I do not believe providing a source is necessary for all articles, especially when it's about fiction. I believe that all that is needed to solve issues about fiction is logical reasoning. Please be aware of your policy and try to change it for the satisfaction of many people such as me. --Marcus2

If we started to have a policy that people could insert stuff, on any subject, without being able to prove what they say is true, then people would insert any old crap they wanted, and there would be no criteria for ever removing it. I don't understand the debates your having about Mario characters, but say I inserted that Mario was a radical trotskyite insurgent (manual worker, wears red, always fighting against entrenched capitalist interests). It's utter nonsense, but it could be said to be logical reasoning (for some value of "logical", which is surprisingly subjective). So it's not sufficient that something has to be true to be included - it has to be provable too (yes yes popperian pedants, it has to be falsifiable and not falsified). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please. Everyone knows that Mario is a hippie. Powerups from mushrooms and flowers, following which he fights a giant lizard? Meelar 23:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If you are looking for hidden fictional communists you need look no further than the smurfs. And there, I provided some sources too :) →Raul654 23:16, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
Urgh. Yet another strawman comes to life and goes off, ravaging the countryside. I should know better. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Popperian pedants? I haven't heard one like that since Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism."

            She said they were real, so he tried
            To prove they were real--and she cried
              "That's very improper;
              According to Popper,
            They only can be falsie-fied."

Dpbsmith 01:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About Mario being a radical Trotskyite insurgent, the logical reasoning you gave is ridiculous and has no comparison to mine on a different matter. Besides, this is POVish. Please change your policy, or at least let me edit the articles. --Marcus2

"ridiculous" you say :) Bah! prove it's ridiculous. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please watch the language. Not all laborers are Trotskyites, not everybody who wears red are communists, and Mario in no way fights against "entrenched capitalist interests." Eat your hat! --Marcus2

Nobody's stopping you from editing the articles, but you haven't really convinced people that we should change our policy of requiring sources on fictional material. As such, I have to ask that you continue to follow them. Best, Meelar 23:42, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Charles

Thanks for fixing the Ray Charles line on Recent deaths -- I tried a little but not enough ;-) -- BCorr|Брайен 12:56, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On Providing Sources For Fiction (renewal)

from the pump

If you would like to know my proposal see the original entry on the topic "On Providing Sources For Fiction. And I must say, I must complain about this policy when applies to all Wikipedia articles. My proposal still stands to change your policy slightly. The developers and and service people should at least be aware of this. --User:Marcus2

Well I AM paying attention, but this presumed controversy is certainly a mystery, as there are no links and Google doesn't help. Pollinator 13:52, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

If you are looking for the previous discussion, check "79" in the table of contents. And what do you mean by showing links and using Google? --Marcus2

How about a link to the page where this controversy started? I googled Wikipedia for the terms "On Providing Sources For Fiction." Nothing turned up. I suppose I could dig it out with more probing, but I have limited time on Wikipedia. If you are going to call: "Attention, All Wikipedians" you'd be wise to make it quick and easy to find the meat of the controversy. (BTW, don't expect instant answers to your questions. I signed back on to find a comment on my talk page that almost sounded like a demand for a quick response. I'm not online all the time; I do have a life.) I haven't seen anything so far that indicates that this is anything I could consider earth-shattering, so I'm going to retire from this issue at this time, and focus on things that are more important to me. Pollinator 21:45, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to barge in on you like that if that's what you think. The contoversy is of the articles Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and Bowser. Fredrik and Meelar argue the doctrine that Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, and Bowser met as babies and revert my edits that delete the mention. Meelar in particular said that I needed to back up the deletion with a source, after I had already explained what really happened in the history of the Mario Bros, which refutes the text I deleted. Since it's based on fiction, it isn't a big deal, so I was thinking that there should be an exception made in Wikipedia's policy. --Marcus

In other words; Marcus wants Wikipedia to contain his own fiction instead of encyclopedic facts about others' fiction. Fredrik (talk) 18:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I do not want to add my own fiction. I may discuss it, but I won't add it to the encyclopedia articles. --Marcus2

If the stuff you're adding is not your fiction, then whose is it? Provide sources. Fredrik (talk) 18:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Marcus, the argument you present doesn't seem very strong to me ("Since it's based on fiction, it isn't a big deal"). Imagine if Wikipedia didn't require a source for information contained in articles on fiction; what would prevent anyone from adding any information they felt like to it? e.g. I could add that Bilbo Baggins was a talking horse, or whatever. The articles on fiction would rapidly become useless. Verifiability is as important there as it is to articles about the real world. — Matt 18:57, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not adding anyone else's fiction either. --Marcus2

In that case, what exactly is it you are you proposing to add, and why are you wanting to change Wikipedia's policy on having sources for fiction? — Matt 16:27, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to add info. I'm proposing to delete what I think is a little false to me. --Marcus2

Marcus2 — OK, if you wish to be pedantic, modify. To change my example above, what's to stop me from deleting any mention of Bilbo Baggins being a hobbit? What use would fiction articles be if everyone could, by policy, delete anything that seemed "a little false" to them? — Matt 11:50, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Bros.

But what is your justification for thinking it false? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What justification are you talking about? Have I not already discussed it with you? --Marcus2

I'm just having trouble understanding. And it would help those who are just jumping in. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:18, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay, what is it that you have trouble understanding? --Marcus2

Well, you think that Baby Mario is not Mario, Baby Bowser is not Bowser, etc. Why is this? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Marcus2, being so deliberately evasive is not helping your cause any. I've been half-heartedly following this thread and have looked on the article's talk page and I still have no clear idea what specifically you are proposing or why you want to remove a statement from that article. older≠wiser 18:12, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In what way am I being evasive?! Anyway, my proposal is that Mario and Luigi were reared in Brooklyn, and therefore not orientated with the Mushroom and Koopa Kingdoms and Dinosaur Land (Yoshi's residence) prior to working as plumbers. And another thing, Baby Bowser likes to ride Yoshi. --Marcus2

A couple of things, Marcus. One is, where did you get your proposal above? Is it from an article or game published by Nintendo, or is it from somewhere else (if so, where?)? Two, the symbol in the middle of Bkonrad's signature means "does not equal" -- his signature actually means "older does not equal wiser", which I think you can agree to. Thanks. Jwrosenzweig 16:00, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, the proposal was based on numerous material from Nintendo. --Marcus2

Then there should be no problem with you including it in an article, as long as you cite or make reference to the specific sources from Nintendo that verify your information. If you can't provide any more detail than "numerous material from Nintendo", I'm afraid we'd have to call it "unverifiable". I'm sure you understand that. Jwrosenzweig 17:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All I plan to do is delete some info from the articles which keeps being reverted. And I do not remember the names of all the sources I've checked, but in an old Super Mario Bros. (the game Bowser was introduced) manual, it says nothing about Mario encountering Bowser prior to his kidnapping of Princess Toadstool and taking over the Mushroom Kingdom with his Koopas and their black magic. Also in Super Mario World for the Super NES, when the game is played and Mario releases Yoshi from his egg he [Yoshi] says something like this, "Hello, my name is Yoshi. Bowser trapped me inside this egg." --Marcus2

Marcus, the vandal bot that's been attacking Wikipedia attacked my talk page after I kept reverting its edits. It's protected right now, which is why the talk page doesn't work. I'll check back here for your replies, so you can just leave them here. Anyway, the Mario stuff: do the people who are adding the info back have a Nintendo source for the information? Some manual or article or game story? Or are they completely making it up? Jwrosenzweig 21:16, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Even if they had sources, previous sources may neutralize them, so to prevent further argument, I think I should edit. --Marcus2

If two sources (e.g. a manual and a game) contradict each other, we don't pretend one doesn't exist. Instead we present both and, if necessary, mention that they contradict each other. Fredrik (talk) 21:26, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Fredrik. If, for example, one ancient legend says that Lancelot killed King Arthur and married Guinevere, and another says that Lancelot left Guinevere, became a monk, and King Arthur got his wife back and lived happily ever after, we'd have to report both at King Arthur, identifying the sources clearly. You shouldn't delete information that has sources, even if you find logical inconsistencies in the Mario world. Add the information you have and cite its sources. I will say though, Marcus, that if your information is primarily that a manual "says nothing about" an event, that's not a major counterargument. If one Nintendo manual asserts something that another manual simply "fails to refute", I don't think we have a major disagreement. It would be like my arguing that a book on John F. Kennedy that doesn't mention PT-109 is evidence that the PT-109 incident is false. It's not necessarily. Jwrosenzweig 21:33, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ha! That's because you didn't realize that when Wario was introduced in the Game Boy game Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, it specifically mentions that Mario had known him previously. Also look at how this excerpt from the Super Mario Bros. manual reads, "Mario, the hero of the story (maybe) hears about the Mushroom People's plight and sets out on a quest...". From the way it's worded, it sounds like it's Mario's first real encounter with the Mushroom Kingdom. And in which way can you show two sources in this case side by side? --Marcus2

According to Game 1, A B C happened. According to Game 2, X Y Z happened. If A B C and X Y Z look stupid together, it's Nintendo's fault. Fredrik (talk) 14:26, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What's your response to my last response, Jwrosenzweig? I'd like to hear more than one viewpoint (not that I distrust Fredrik). --Marcus2

Well, I'd say you just point out what happens within each game, like Fredrik suggests. I might do a little to point out inconsistencies, and if there are well-known explanations from Nintendo, those would be worth mentioning. If there isn't any official explanation, perhaps you can offer one, but that would have to be sorted out by all the editors working on the page. And I'd say the wording you point out in the manual doesn't necessarily mean Mario's never been to the Mushroom Kingdom. After all, if I wrote "Jwrosenzweig, hearing about troubles in Chicago, set out for the city to see what he could do", would you assume I'd never been to Chicago? I'd say there's no real indication. So, yeah, generally provide sources and let our readers sort things out themselves. That's always a good principle -- we're building an encyclopedia that, as much as possible, tries to let the reader do their own thinking, rather than forcing an interpretation on them. Give them the facts available, and let them decide what it means. Jwrosenzweig 16:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

Well, it's definitely picked up since the election began (sometime around January, I'd say, was the uptick). Hopefully it'll die down again come November. Thanks for watching out for it, though. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mario biography dispute

It might be a good idea that we add something to Mario explaining/indicating that he isn't exactly a character with a well-defined biographical history, but instead shows up in many different settings basically because Nintendo thinks he's a great character to re-use in every other game they make (though it should be worded a bit more neutrally :) Fredrik (talk) 17:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? --Marcus2

The whole comment or part of it? I mean that I don't think the games are trying to tell a consistent story about Mario. There's little point in trying to write a biography about Mario that claims he raced go-karts between years X and Y and worked as a tennis referee between years Z and T. He has been a character in lots of games, doing lots of different things. Fredrik (talk) 18:03, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I did some editing. Did I fix the problem you brought up? --Marcus2

[edit] Louis XVI

Marcus, I noticed you added a picture of Louis XVI on nl.wikipedia.org. It is not clear whether this picture is in the public domain or not. Could you please clarify this in the description of the picture. You can follow this link to the mentioned picture. Thanks. 195.241.105.124 14:50, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is found under "Image:Louis_xvi.jpg". --Marcus2

I am confused. As far as I can see it only says New Image. Where can I find the copyright info? 195.241.105.124 07:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no copyright info as far as I'm concerned. It's a portrait. --Marcus2

I am not an expert on this area. I agree with you that the age of the painting means there is no copyright on it. But there might be copyright on the photograph of the painting. I know for instance that the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum has such a policy. Another example, the Hermitage Museum watermarks their images on the website and forbids reproduction without permission. So I think it is important to state the source of the image and the copyright-policy of this source. 195.241.105.124 09:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I found the image on Google, and it's better, since it's more familiar, it's in color, and more probably painted while the monarch was alive. Now, can you please stop perseverating on this topic? --Marcus2

Marcus, I would ask you to be more polite. Wikipedia is very careful about copyright status to ensure that we do not violate the law. When uploading an image, one must always give the particulars of the image's source. If you found the image in google, odds are in fact very high that it is copyrighted. When someone asks for an image's source, you must provide them with where you got the image. Otherwise it will be deleted. Too often, we have been told "oh, don't worry, it's not copyrighted" only to discover later that the image most certainly was. If you do not provide information about the specific site you got the image from (and preferably a note explaining what on that site led you to believe the image free of copyright), the image will almost certainly be deleted. In the future, please do post the origins and copyright status of images you upload at Wikipedia? It helps all of us by keeping this project entirely within the law. Jwrosenzweig 16:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley's Influence

I hope you're going to add something more to Elvis Presley's influence than Elvis Presley's influence on world culture has been immeasurable. The current text does not constitute even a stub article as it doesn't actually say anything other than one POV statement. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm only making a start. Additions may be edited later on (that's what the stub says). --Marcus2

Yes, but the example you're comparing to at The Beatles' influence is 1,500 words long. Yours is 9. You can't say his influence is immeasurable and then just leave it at that, even as a stub. It may get speedily deleted by someone else, trust me. One idea would be to start a temp article at User:Marcus2/Elvis Presley's influence and then move it across once you have a decent article written. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles' Influence

The difference is that that page was easily long enough to stand on its own; there was good reason to split it off of The Beatles. If you look at The Beatles, it's mainly a lead in to other, more detailed articles (similar to United States); whereas Elvis Presley is designed as one article. Maybe Elvis Presley's influence will get there one day, but for now, there's no reason to have it when it's already included in Elvis Presley. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at the change I've made (if it's not already deleted). --Marcus2

Well, that's much better. Personally, I see no reason to split it off from Elvis Presley, but I'll concede that it's a matter of personal taste. I've now moved to a "neutral" on the question of whether to keep or delete. It's just a question of having enough material for two articles. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Rude" edit summaries

Hi Marcus! I read your deep concern on my talk-page with some interest. The article on Jesus had been vandalized several times, and I was merely expressing my "anger" by writing "No bullshit". But "bullshit" is NOT a regular curse word. Jesus Christ is indeed "Our" (i.e. Christians) Lord! In the Gospels Jesus tells us that the only way to the Father is through Him, i.e. Jesus! Rienzo 15:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Still, "bullshit" is an inappropriate word to use. And you invariably are trying to force all people to believe that Christ is "Our Lord". He may be the Lord to Christians, but not to Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and others. --Marcus2 15:30, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do NOT wish to discuss this any further! These matters tend to get ugly... Apparently we have different opinions, and as you know "De gustibus non est disputandum"! Rienzo 15:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stop getting exclamatory with me, or I'll report your abruptness to an administrator. --Marcus2 16:00, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please, tell me! What's your problem? And remember, YOU started this!!!! Rienzo 16:07, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please stop being a baby. I will look up the guy who runs this site and complain to him if you don't cease your activities. Thank you. --Marcus2 16:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What "activities" do you refer to? Do NOT continue this pathetic discussion of yours. It only makes you look stupid to other Wikipedians! Thank you! Rienzo 16:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, you don't continue the discussion, and you don't try to make yourself look stupid. I will not cease criticizing you, since this is my talk page. I will only stop if you will never edit this page about this topic again. Thank you. --Marcus2 16:20, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking policy

Marcus, I am no expert on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process here, but I'm pretty confident that there is no precedent for blocking users based solely on rude or confrontational behaviour. Dysprosia 10:10, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do know that User:Hcheney did it at one time for a similar reason. Marcus2 10:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And also, User:Rienzo has vandalized my page and his own with nonsense. Marcus2 10:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy, to my reading of it, does not have a proviso for blocking users based solely the reasons as I have stated before. There have been instances where users who have committed useful edits and not-so-useful edits, who have not been immediately blocked for doing so. There have may been different circumstances surrounding the case with Hcheney (to which I am not familiar) Dysprosia 10:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In fact, Hcheney did it to me during the days I was User:65.73.0.137, when I used to be rude, which I no longer am. Marcus2 10:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't know the circumstances between you and Hcheney. If you're looking for some method of resolution to your dispute with Rienzo, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and possibly asking for mediation or arbitration. Dysprosia 10:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Hcheney did do wrong, but anyway, I'm not saying that Rienzo should be blocked [as of now], I'm only now concerned that he's always trying to give me the third degree. Marcus2 10:42, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

No problem. The offending user received a 24-hour block as well. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For the record, the user behind the vandalism was Rienzo with a sock puppet. Fredrik | talk 14:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is outrageous and slander, as well. Do you have any proof that I was the one who posted these rude words? Do NOT carry this any further, it is truly tragical for everyone concerned. Thank you. (And why are my correctly posted comments delated?) Rienzo 20:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Note: Tim Starling was the one who verified it (upon my request in a private message on IRC). Fredrik | talk 15:24, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot (really). Marcus2 15:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vfd lock

Apparently there was some sort of error that caused parts of the page to be duplicated. It should be fixed relatively soon. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:42, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff

Hi. I've looked into what you've said and don't see anything it would be appropriate to take action for. Perhaps you could provide me with more specific ifnormation? Morwen - Talk 00:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The point is, I'm wondering if you knew about how to use "Sysops" to block vandals. Marcus2 14:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] hasty moves

Hi!

I moved the page Muscovy back to its previous title.

Please don't move pages without first proposing and arguing for the move at the talk page in question, and please understand that such a discussion better is to be given weeks' time to give us a chance to ponder the issue and get arguments also from less frequent contributors.

/Tuomas 17:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Muscovite Russia is a much better title. And there is nothing at all that is wrong with my changes. Marcus2 17:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Rienzo

Are you interested in endorsing this? RickK 04:43, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "endorsing"? Marcus2 12:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Endorsing the complaint; he means that you should sign it if you agree with the dispute statement and think the matter is important. Fredrik | talk 12:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Duo vs. Group

A duo is a specific kind of group, that is, one which contains exactly two members. It is not "not a group". If you would like to start categories for British duos and American duo they would certainly be appropriate there also. However that doesn't mean that they are not appropriate in the group category. Rmhermen 18:05, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. I didn't realize that. Marcus2 18:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.229.0.167

User:64.229.0.167 was a user using multiple IDs to vandalize the articles of several national football teams. The same vandalism had been made on the Germany national football team article by a very similar account number only seconds before, and I had warned the user. RickK 18:27, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood Jam

THe history of the article went into the (rather unstable) deleted revisions archive, where it's only visible to admins. As far as there being any truth to it whatsoever, no one is going to believe it unless there's some rock-solid references backing it up.

So far, the only reference for this existing is voices.fuzzy.com, and that site doesn't even list Hollywood Jam any more, as the administrator decided the database needed cleaning up. They've had a run of people posting false and/or profane information.

If you have some need to see what it was, I can provide you with a copy. But I'd prefer that Hollywood Jam just go away. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe I have seen one other website metioning it. It was talking on the subject of something to do with voice actors. Thank you for showing me your view though. Marcus2 00:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The short of it is that if it had in fact been made, there would have been reliable sources about it everywhere. It's not something that the animation nerds would have overlooked. Plus there's the implausibility factor. Like Disney would really let Mickey Mouse share a screen with Bugs Bunny, Homer Simpson, and both Beavis and Butt-Head. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Reagan

Please provide a source for your contention that Mrs. Reagan was born in 1923. If your source is a book, please provide the ISBN number so others can confirm your statements. However, due to the large number of official sources stating 1921, more than one source will be necessary. Gentgeen 19:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. Just give me a little time to look it up, then I'll get back to you. Thanks. Marcus2 19:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the way, you have just reverted the article 4 times in one day, which is a violation of the three revert rule. Gentgeen 19:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't aware of that rule, but what if it's for vandalism? Marcus2 19:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

At that point you get a hold of an admin, because vandals that are that persistent need to be blocked. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How's about we have both birthdates on the Nancy Reagan page. Marcus2 12:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FYI, I have multiple editions of the World Almanac and they have corrected their entry for Nancy Reagan. In the 2003 edition (ISBN 0886878829), she was born in 1923. In the 2004 edition (ISBN 0886879108), she was born in 1921. Chris N. 01:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Do not blank pages listed on VFD

Whatever your opinions on Elvis Presley trivia which i agree should be deleted you should never blank a page listed on VFD (or any page at all besides copyvios) with the text "DELETE" like you did here. This is agains policy and bad for numerous reasons. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:53, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

The reason I blanked the page was because it was nothing but a spinoff from the main Elvis Presley article, where it was already. Marcus2 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but no matter how stupid or absurd it is you're not supposed to blank it, as VFD is a place where people come, vote yes/no on pages and admins then carry out the work of removing them from the list and/or deleting them people need to inspect these articles and vote on them. It just looks bad when somebody has done that. I'm not saying that you had something sinister in mind here, at worst you were probably unaware of policies but just don't do it in the future --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:20, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC) ...The reason for this is that when admins ( at least i ) go to VFD to do maintenance we look at 5 day old votes, see if there is a consensus to delete and if so proceed to Edit to blank that section from VFD and go to the article to delete it, at this point i glance over the article to see if it really is worth something and if voters have just been uninformed. Which has happened in the past where people simply were discussing issues which they percived as fake which indeed werent ( i've forgotten specific cases ). Anyway having the page blanked adds an extra step there and thats the reason it's not done. ..Anyway, good work doing some maintenance on Wikipedia and dont worry, even very experianced people here make mistakes every day, which is the nice thing about community: to inform each other of things like this. By all means if i'm messing something up one of these days inform me too. Cheers --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:30, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

[edit] NES List

Great List of NES games work. There is an offical list of NES games up at the nintendo of America website that I might cross reference with your list. There are formatting differences between the NES list and the SNES list here: List of SNES games. I like how your columns are the same width, but the SNES article is much easier to read and edit in wiki format. If you have no objections, I may try my hand at coverting it to wikiformat (instead of html) like in the SNES article.

I also think there is a project here and creating a systematic way of making articles for games here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_Video_Games if you want to help that would be cool.

I've also been trying to get people from the emulation community interested in editing articles in our lists. Apparently a group of Pokemon enthuisasts are making articles for all the pokemon and their articles are huge ;). If you belong to any video game boards maybe ask them if they want to edit some video game articles. Bye for now, --ShaunMacPherson 21:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nice edit

To the "in the news" blurb about Klestil -- I knew the phrasing was awkward (I'd inherited much of it from an earlier editor) but couldn't get my frazzled brain to rework it nicely. Your wording is much superior -- thanks! Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Anyway I'm sorry to hear that Klestil has passed away. I just don't know how the doctors over there could screw up. I'm planning to start running for administrator the day Klestil was supposed to end his office term, July 8. Vote for me. See my main page for the details. Marcus2 22:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Marcus, I encourage you not to run. If you've become familiar at all with policy around here, especially concerning administrators, you know that most people are here at least 3 months before being made an admin, if not longer. It's never been less than 2 months. You'll only have edited here 1 month as Marcus 2 if you nominate yourself this week. Furthermore, self-nominations are held to much higher standards -- most of the time, a self-nomination needs to have been here 4-5 months to be taken seriously. It just takes a while for people to learn who you are and how you deal with things. A month (though it seems long) isn't long enough. I'm advising you on this because I think you can become a good admin here, but if you establish a reputation early of becoming someone who asks for adminship too often and too early, it prejudices people against you. Leave it alone, and I think someone may nominate you in September. If they don't, consider nominating yourself in October. If you self-nominate before then, you will be almost sure to make many people suspicious of you. Please take my advice seriously -- I've been around and seen this happen to a lot of editors. I think you do good work here, and don't want to see you discouraged. Asking for admin status this summer will result in your being turned down, and I can't see that not discouraging you. Keep up the good editing and avoid big conflicts and edit wars -- if you do, I'm fairly certain I'll be nominating you in September. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can see by how some things are not safe. The reason I considered running because apparently User:RickK ran for admistrator less than one month after editing (I saw his contributions list), and I have made more than 1,000 edits. Marcus2 23:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RickK was made an administrator long ago, when the project was much younger and the requirements were much looser (if enough of the old hands knew you, you were in). I was made an admin as things were changing, and was promoted after roughly 7 weeks. I'd never make it in now with the record I had then. It's just a fact of life here -- standards change with time. If you look at all the Recently created admins you'll notice that they have 3-12 months of experience. 1 month just doesn't do it, regardless of how many edits you have (and a number of editors want applicants to have 1500-3000 edits before they will support). I'm just trying to offer some decent advice. :-) Good luck. Jwrosenzweig 23:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Kerry

Simply put, the edits are partisan (e.g., linking to a GOP screed) and are removing valid information without cause. You are, of course, free to defend the changes. -- Hadal 17:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Hadal, one other thing, please do not mark your edits "minor" when you add or remove information of this magnitude. I have noticed this with more of your edits, see: Wikipedia:Minor_edit for more info. Cheers. -- Solitude 21:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What more of my edits have I made not minor though it's indicated? Marcus2 10:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You might wanna take a look at the Mario history, several of your edits there are not minor, only very small edits may be classified as minor. I have not looked at all your edits, I just noticed it twice now. -- Solitude 12:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
For that matter, look at your edits referenced below on Engelbert Humperdinck, please do not use the minor classification for those edits, especially when deleting text. -- Solitude 12:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] spelling guidelines

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling. Not hard to find. - snoyes 17:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Marcus2 17:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Engelbert Humperdinck

Why did you revert the edit to Leicester that said that Engelbert Humperdinck was from there? He is, and still owns a house just outside the city to my knowledge. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another claim of information nicked from the often unreliable internet. He was actually born in Chennai anyway, not Leicester. Marcus2 10:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I used to live in Leicester and it is fairly well known to the quarter of a million or so people who live there that he's a local lad. He may not have been born there but I do believe he may have spent a large chunk of his life growing up there, and the locals (which the anon you reverted may very well be one of) are very proud of the fact. You're right to say that the Internet is very unreliable, does living there count? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And look at [1], a direct quote saying he regards it as his 'home town'. Please stop vandalising. Thanks.

How do the people of Leicester know? I think Engelbert's father might have been from there, maybe that's where the mix-up is. The internet is known for its unreliability, and can't be really counted on for his career, even this link you gave me. Also the internet's also probably wrong about his recording career. I have seen an advertisement on TV for music from the 50s, and Engelbert was one of the artists featured. Also I've heard him talk in public while giving a concert in a basically American accent, and even sounds American in singing and style. And it's not vandalism. Marcus2 10:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of for fucks sake, he's mentioned routinely in the Leicester Mercury. Please grow up. 80.229.39.194 10:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Parts of Leicester are extremely close knit and a lot of people who live there know because they went to school with him, saw him down the shop, worked with his parents, played football with him in the park... And if a quote from the man himself at the BBC website isn't good enough evidence for you, (apart from me and apparently someone else who have lived there) then I don't really know how you expect us to prove it to you. Are all edits to this joint encyclopedia to be backed up by hard evidence from now on? Are you going to challenge every single addition from now on "because it sounds wrong"? That is a ridiculous argument. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Internet, internet, internet. That's all you ever hear from Leicester claims, it's all that. I will make no more changes until everything is settled on the talk pages, however, except for one, sorry. Marcus2 10:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would a scan of the Leicester Mercury article about him a couple of days ago satisfy you? Morwen - Talk 10:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or perhaps the biography section of his personal website? Oh wait, that's an internet source... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being a little abrupt, but as I've said, I did see an advertisement on TV for music from the 50s, and Engelbert was one of the artists featured. I was definitely not dreaming. And I'm sorry for cursing (as !@#$), but I didn't think what I was doing was really vandalizing. I always have a reason for deleting certain information, and here are a few reasons why I have trouble with it being said that Engelbert's from Leicester.
For one thing British pop music artists didn't flow into American music to a great degree until 1964, and I've already indicated that Engelbert Humperdinck's music was popular in the U.S. during the 50s. Now I may be mistaken about the Leicester connection because I have seen no proof that Engelbert was not a Leicester local, and it's possible that maybe there were a few popular British artists in the U.S. before 1964, but I have two more clues.
To my knowledge, Engelbert Humperdinck, after many years of contributing to popular music, was never knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.
An album, Nothing's Gonna Change Our World, was released in the late 1960s. This was at the height of Humperdinck's career. The album featured a medley of British artists, but Humperdinck wasn't one of them (the album featured such hit artists as The Beatles, The Bee Gees, The Hollies, Cliff Richard, Lulu, and others).
Marcus2 16:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have a copy of yesterdays Leicester Mercury at home. On page 3 (i think) it has a large article about Humperdinck's sponsorship of the County Air Ambulance service, and quotes from him saying that he considers Leicester his "home turf". If you want to call me a liar I can scan this in. I am not making this up. The burden of proof is on you. Morwen.
Okay, but what do you have to say about the additional information I offered? Marcus2 21:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see its' relevance. So, I'm sure he plays down the fact he was brought up in the UK in the US - it would make good commercial sense to do so. Maybe he's been offered a knighthood but turned it down. (and yes, that is me) Morwen - Talk 21:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean by "I fail to see its' relevance"? What about that TV ad on 50s music that I mentioned that in fact did occur? Marcus2 22:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, by the way. Morwen - Talk 23:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Anyway, the reason why I repeatedly said "the internet is often unreliable" is because whenever I have had information challenging previous information that can be found on the internet, which is always the case, I mistakenly take the blame on the internet. And believe me, I only try to make reasonable edits, never nonsense. Marcus2 13:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now the course has changed with my knowledge of Engelbert Humperdinck. The source of our old disagreement was that he was raised in Leicester. I now believe that Engelbert was previously a local from there. I do believe that he was reared there until he reached adulthood (I'd say about 18), and was attracted by California and American culture around that time, so he moved there quickly absorbed American ways. A few years later he started becoming well-known singing under the name Engelbert Humperdinck. The height of his career, however, came after he recorded "Release Me" in 1967. My real source of discontent is the fairly widespread twisting of the truth of his biography. It's possible that Engelbert Humperdinck may have some connection back in England, since he might be an international kind of guy. Marcus2 16:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Please provide an edit summary, thanks. Hyacinth 20:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Muscovy / Russia

Why do you change all references to Muscovy to Russia, even in articles where it's clear that the earlier name is correct (for instance Vilnius, Hetman or History of Ukraine? Halibutt 17:15, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. I see you are doing it to even more articles. Why ? Kpjas ☤ 20:48, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The name Muscovy ceased to exist during the reign of Ivan III or Ivan IV. Marcus2 21:47, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) I have changed all from Muscovy to Russia from this point and after. Marcus2 21:53, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In fact BOTH names are used that period of Russian history (17th century). You can check it without difficulties.Yeti 19:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I know that both names are used in contemporrary documents, although the term Russia was also connected to other territories at the time. In Polish historiography the state is called Muscovy until 1717. That's why I was wondering. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:27, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured articles

Marcus, I didn't do the first revert, but I would assume that Raul reverted your edit because Elvis Presley never went through the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates process. To see a list of all articles that have been promoted through WP:FAC, look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:35, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

In the future, please take care to read instructions on pages before you post to them. They're not there as decorations. →Raul654 00:21, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Murphy

What license is the picture you added to this page under. You did not put any description on the picture page. Rmhermen 17:51, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Genyo

Dear Marcus,

thank you! I'm honored by your request and comment. Of course, I will do describe those details as soon as possible (in 2-3 days) after contributing a bit to the WWII Wikireader. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 18:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear Marcus,

please take a look at Talk:Russian history, 1682-1796#Reign of Aleksey I Mikhailovich Romanov. Use of "Rusia" and "Rosia". May it be considering as meeting your request in the first stage? Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 22:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Further on Russian history in 17th century

I've made a further comment under the talk page in strong support of Dr. Bug. Please excuse the intercession if unwarranted, but I wanted to add an interpretation of the differences in the correspondence he quoted. A. Shetsen 06:08, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] You little censor

Marcus, are you really allowed to delete discussion notes sensitive for you? Afraid of truth? Can't stand different point of view? Preparing to meet my expectations and start vandalizing? How Russian you are... AlexPU

You can't just delete talk without notice. I had to revert your changes because of this. You are very mistaken about your current perception of me. And by the way, I'm half Russian, Russian Jewish that is. Marcus2 20:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
But I've got your notice only on my angry demand. And I'm not mistaken about any single thing. Your Russian-Jewish background is a proof. I meant that, being a Russian Jew, you should be much more informed and critical about Russia, or, exactly, about Russian imperialistic ideology. You surprised me much by that confession.
BTW, If you wanna talk about my perception and your views about historical motherland - OK, it's a part of my research interests (since I study immigrants and their self-identification issues).
As for practical sense of my notice deleted by you, it was just a logic conclusion from the facts revealed by other Wikipedians. I.e. your intention to eliminate distinction between Muscovy and Russia is both unjustified and suspicious. Try to avoid such suspicions: edit carefully, don't fight other POV inside the articles, and avoid deleting critisisms about yourself. Remember, you are strictly prohibited from deciding what other people should think, say, or write about you. AlexPU
If you're going to be rude, I can report you. Marcus2 11:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also, I have trouble understanding why you get so worked up about me deleting your comment? I wish I didn't, but you left me no choice since you deleted almost my whole talk page with the exception of the "Muscovy/Russia" topic. Marcus2 12:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I haven't deleted a single word from any talk or article page. It was either a mistake or a provocation. Let's investigate. What evidences do you have to accuse me? AlexPU

To Marcus: AlexPU seems to be a hard case. He probably doesn't perceive when he vandalizes pages or insults people... Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 06:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To AlexPU: everything is recorded here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Marcus2&diff=5376582&oldid=5376580 Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 06:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It was either a server bug or provocation. I opened for editing "Muscovy/Russia" section only.
I also have some suspicions about who could stage that provocation. There is a large imperialistic country in Eurasia whose software experts considered the most qualified in the world. One of them could easily hack my password or even disguise under my IP address. I guess it is easy since Wikipedia is a non-profit project lacking money for information protection. I'll report this incident to Wiki moderators ASAP. AlexPU

[edit] Categories

See: Category talk:Classical composers. Hyacinth 23:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] France Tourism

There is evidence, consult WTO for that, don't make vandalism please try to verify youself before annoying others with your assumptions. Surcouf 20:33 CET 01/09/2004

Vandalism? This is insanity! You know, it's impossible to determine every single person who visits a country. There is no way to know! Marcus2 18:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Stop, you offenced me. I'll write about your franco-phobic vandalistic position to other Wikipedian admins, bye

Surcouf 21:01 CET 01/09/2004

It has nothing to do "franco-phobic" vandalism. It may be argued that the United States, a major tourist attraction, is more visited than France and Spain. Marcus2 19:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An official stat of a World Official Organization is an official stat of a World Official Organization, what should be argued by an alcohol interested child is quite different. More simply I mean that you are arrogant as ignorant. greetings
PS: Schweppes is far better than Ginger Ale

Surcouf 21:30 CET 1/09/2004

Are you saying I drink alcohol? I hate it. Marcus2 19:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
By the way, Schweppes is the same as ginger ale. Marcus2 19:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, Ginger Ale is the green bottle, when talking about Schweppes it means the Indian Tonic (yellow bottle). shut up and try true penne alla vodka instead...

Surcouf 21:45 CET 1/09/2004

There is nothing to explain, the World Tourism Organization is the World Organization for tourism (referenced on Tourism wikipedia page) and its OFFICIAL DATA for 2002 are reported following that link World Tourism Rankings. If you have some troubles with that data you should prouve what you think, not arguing... this is calling NPOV problem, you understand? WTO is an official organization, your mind is not!

Surcouf 21:52 CET 1/09/2004

[edit] Vandalism in Progress

It's bad form to delete yourself from the Vandalism in Progress page. RickK 19:43, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly the same thing and I see Rick beat me to it. In the unlikely event that you find yourself in a similar situation again the best thing to do is put a note on the page asking someone to remove your name. I check that page every day. I'm pretty sure Rick does too as do several other people. Your name would beremoved within a couple of hours. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 12:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit attribution

Hi Marcus. Can you make an edit from 65.73.0.137 to confirm it's you, please? This is required to reattribute edits. Thanks — Kate Turner | Talk 07:14, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by this, Kate? Please explain. Marcus2 15:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You made a request on Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit for edits from 65.73.0.137 to be reattributed to you. In order to confirm this is you, you need to make an edit somewhere from that IP (i.e., while logged out and using that IP). Thanks — Kate Turner | Talk 20:04, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
I did what you told me to do. I made one edit as 65.73.0.137 to Baby Mario, and then to Baby Luigi as Marcus2, then one more edit each to Babies Mario and Luigi. Marcus2 21:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, this has now been done. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 21:51, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hey Marcus2, thanks so much for your nomination! Unfortunately, as alluded to by Michael Snow, I can't approve of doing it at this time. At the moment I'm in something of a conflict and, in addition to inviting opposition from others involved, being in a dispute casts a shadow of doubt on anyone, right or wrong. Although I may never get consensus due to involving myself in controversial articles, trying now risks it being unusually ugly. Don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate you noticing me and saying the things you did! And I will say the experience was educational; it is sad to hear what some people think of me. But I'm going to remove the nomination. It's clear it will fail anyway. Best, VV 06:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Koopa Kids

I deleted the Koopa Kids individual articles because the main article Koopa Kid already has all that info.

Asides from a nickname, order of birth and a small (about 1 sentance) description, all the other information on them wass the same, repeated throughout each article.

Personally, I think all the minor characters in Mario should be merged into one article. Most of those arcticles are about three sentances or less, and, IMO, don't have much potential to grow. Oberiko

[edit] Seven Year's War

Regarding this edit, the Seven Year's War was the first instance of a "world war" as is indicated in the introduction. I agree with your edits taking it out of the disambiguity section, but I thought you may want to be aware that it really was, by it's definition, a "world war".--Will2k 21:18, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

That's the whole problem of it all. Some people think the definition of "world war" is a war based in Europe. Well certainly no Asian, African, or New World colonies fought this war. No wonder it isn't called "World War I". It's the European bias that makes it believed to be a "world war". No offense to you. Best. Marcus2 22:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, no offense taken, but you misunderstand. It isn't considered a world war because it happened in Europe. It's considered a world war because most of the world was involved in it in some way or another. Colonies in North and South America, Africa, and in Asia were affected because troops were needed from there to Europe. Supplies were in higher demand so labour requirements intensified (greatly affecting the slave trade), and conquest of various colonies were a focal point of the war (since some European nations became dependent on their colonies for supplies and economic stability).--Will2k 05:56, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation of the war. However, I don't think that the rest of the world other than Europe played a major role in the war. Marcus2 22:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you don't I suggest you reexamine the history of India and North America. Rmhermen 02:45, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rishartha Hates You

Who are we talking about? User:Rishartha Hates You? He can always get another user name. Evercat 11:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about him. Marcus2 14:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scooby-Doo

Fred Silverman really did name the dog after the Sinatra lyric. Scooby's creators attest to it on their official website: http://www.rubyspears.com/scooby.html

The lyric is "dooby dooby doo", not "scooby dooby doo", and if you don't believe me, I can give you a source of it by searching through Google. Marcus2 22:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of what the lyric *actually* is, Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, founders of Ruby-Spears Productions and the men who created the show, worked on its development for a full year before it ever aired, and met with Silverman frequently said it was based on the ad-lib. If it was misinterpreted, that's their mistake. They said that's where it came from, that's where it came from. What *is* 500% sure is that Silverman named the dog; not Ruby or Spears (or Hanna or Barbera). --b. Touch 22:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Please provide an edit summary, thanks. Hyacinth 00:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Composers

You may not have noticed that Category:Classical composers includes as a subcategory, for example, Category:20th century composers. This means that Pierre Boulez, among many others, have been categorized incorrectly by you: in a category and its direct subcategory (ie, as a subcategory of 'classical composers' '20th century composers', thus '20th century composers' means '20th century composers'). Please see: Wikipedia:Categorization, though I can no longer vouch that findable, correct, and clear information is contained in the jumble there. I was in error when creating some of the subcategories, as was the person who created '20th century composers', as category titles should stand alone. I will change the category to '20th century classical composers' and I would appreciate your help in correcting the redundancy. Hyacinth 00:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

See User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adminship. Sam [Spade] 14:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User page

Please don't recreate my user page - I asked for it to be deleted. Thanks — Kate Turner | Talk 00:16, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade

Sam knows what a sysop is and can do. He's been nominated several times and has withdrawn his nomination or been rejected several times. If you look at the nomination records you might see why. Adminship is more than a matter of how many edits you've made. AndyL 13:50, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zotvo and Favoald

Marcus, see my note on Talk:Rome#Zotvo_and_Favoald. (I would have preferred to reach you privately by e-mail but you have your e-mail disabled.)

Bill 13:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I know nothing about this topic at all. Marcus2 16:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade

(Correcting place now, thanks IZAK 10:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC))

See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 10:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias:

  • From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
  • Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing" [2]
  • Attempts to sugarcoat racist views [3]
  • The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim [4].
  • Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)
  • Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
  • From Talk:Socialism:
    • "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism#protection). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
  • More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
    • Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    • Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
  • Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking [5].
That's okay, but it seems that opinion is divided between supporters and opposers. Also, I've seen that some admins are not always on their best behavior (Example: 172). Also, if this user sees what other people think of him, he may try to prove himself to be otherwise. I think I'd like to keep my vote the way it is. Marcus2 13:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucratship

Thanks for the offer, but I don't really want to be a bureaucrat, and I doubt if there's any way possible that I would get the votes for it. RickK 05:59, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 172

I've answered on my talk page, but i'm curious as to why you didn't just go to 172 directly? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 16:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Thanks, but I think I'll pass on it just now. Best wishes --Tagishsimon

[edit] What?

Sorry mate, I don't understand what you're asking. I put the Ono bit in because his name was John Winston Ono Lennon. There'd been a bit of debate on the talk page, but I'm dead certain that was it. Someone then took Ono out so it just read John Winston Lennon (which, fair enough, was his birth name), so I put the Ono back. Hope that answers you're question.--Crestville 23:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image needing tag

Hey there, could you please provide Image:W a mozart.jpg with an appropriate copyright tag. If you took the picture yourself, you can license it under the GFDL by adding {{GFDL}} to the image description page. Regards, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:48, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Jennings

While contestants are asked not to reveal the outcome of episodes to the press, there is little recourse they can take against audience members who do. Newspapers have no obligation whatsoever to the show, and will print whatever they think is reasonably verifiable and will sell papers. I'm not sure exactly who initially reported Ken's loss, or even if it was the 75th episode. All I know for sure is that he is gone by around December 10th. Did a woman beat him? I don't know for sure, but that's what I got from a source that is probably more reliable than most. I guess we'll see in a few weeks. And we'll see if the Final Jeopardy answer he is unable to come up with is H&R Block, as I heard it was. -R. fiend 17:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Cheney

Done. Christopher Mahan 17:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC).

[edit] Collectivisation in the USSR

I moved the page to where it was before. Here in wikipedia both British English and American English are used and both are considered correct. It's a well established compromise to leave all the pages where they are. Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ#Should_I_use_American_English_or_British_English.3F, Wikipedia:Articles using British English titles and other parts of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style series. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:15, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jeopardy

It airs at 3:30 in Chicago. Snowspinner 20:02, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 14:09, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rienzo

Since you have been involved with Rienzo before, you probably ought to see

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rienzo and his sockpuppets

CheeseDreams 01:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image tag

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. (And if you know exactly what this means and are really tired of the constant reminders, please excuse me. They will stop once the tagging project is complete.) Thanks so much. Denni☯ 03:47, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

I believe the image is from the public domain, which I've noted. Marcus2 23:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Can you add a tag for Image:Alfred moisiu.jpg as well? --Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


How about Image:Alfonsoxiii.jpg now? --Ricky81682 (talk) 08:53, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Supremes/The Primettes.

The Supremes only recorded one single as The Primettes: "Tears of Sorrow" (with its b-side being "Pretty Baby."). This record was recorded for Lupine in 1960; the four girls signed with Motown on January 15, 1961 as the Supremes. The name change occured a few days before their signing (at Berry Gordy's behest)and before any of their records were released. The first Motown single the girls put out, "I Want a Guy" (recorded in late 1960 when they were still the Primettes, but not released under that name) bills them as the Supremes. All singles and albums thereafter follow the same. In fact, their first album was issued in 1962, and was called Meet the Suprmees. You edited the page to say the name-change occured in 1963.

I have, as primary references, both Dreamgirl by Mary Wilson and the liner notes of the 2000 The Supremes 4-disc Box Set. I will take care of changing it back.

--b. Touch 05:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified images

Hi. You uploaded

but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Image copyright tags for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 21:28, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobic Vandalism

I have reason to believe that the following are all sockpuppets of each other

User:148.136.141.172, User:Rienzo, User:Baffinisland, User:Lady Tara, User:Nasse

I believe that one of them vandalised your user page back in June

if you wish to add evidence to the new arbitration against any of them, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo/Evidence

CheeseDreams 01:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolph Moshammer

I've reverted your edits regarding the date of birth of Rudolph Moshammer.

First of all, the 1940 date is correct, e.g. look at the (German) page [6] (go to Lesen Sie mehr!, on this page - it's described in the last two paragraphs).

Besides this, the date you wrote (September 1945) did neither match the actual date (September 1940) nor the date he said (December 1945).

Deleteme42 02:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As requested, a rough translation of the last two paragraphs of the page I gave as reference (not a perfect translation, I'm not a native English speaker...):

Older than stated

Moshammer was born on September 27, 1940 in Munich, this did come out some some years ago at a court hearing because of a motoring offence in Austria.

According to his own public statements, he was born on December 27, 1945, and would have therefore been 59 years old.

Deleteme42 21:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spyware?

There may be (may have been?) some spyware on your computer. See this edit by you to List of villains [7], and a short discussion of the problem at Wikipedia:Village pump#Spyware causing problems for editors. I didn't see the same problem in your last edit. gK ¿? 08:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion from today also appears to have been affected by spyware. [8] --Mrwojo 16:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Composer issues

Hi Marcus. I have revised Josquin's birthdate again (to about 1450); this is the current accepted date, as of late 1990s research. If you're interested I can send you some references (I don't know if you have access to the online Grove or not; if you do, they go into the issue in considerable detail; the 1440 date was based on a now recognized mis-identification of a Milanese chapel composer as Josquin, a person who is now recognized to be someone else). I haven't gotten around to fixing its appearance everywhere on Wikipedia yet, since I used to think the 1440 date was right myself. On another issue, I notice you seem to be insistent on categorizing composers as "Baroque" based on chronological rather than stylistic reasons; is this true? I don't have a problem with this as long as the composer's stylistic language is made clear in the article, though frankly considering Weelkes, or Duarte Lobo, as "Baroque" composers seems like a stretch for me. Happy editing, Antandrus 16:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I am "some sort of musicologist." It's called a Ph.D., though it doesn't mean I am right about everything.  :-) About Viraldini, please find me ONE print source that indicates that he exists. One. Just one. I'll march on over to our local research library and look it up myself. Or a source at ANY musicology publication, online or otherwise.
On a totally different subject, and I want to make sure we are on the same page here, I really appreciate your adding names of composers to the lists on the Renaissance and Baroque pages; they're not nearly complete and you're doing some great work, so thanks. Cheers, Antandrus 17:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, forgot to mention: the September 10 date for Purcell is based on his 18th birthday appointment as court composer on 10 Sept 1677 (I'm going on memory here; I'm at work, I can look it up later if you want; I can't remember all the details). It's considered to be suggestive, but uncertain, which is why Sept 10 is given in the Grove with a "?". This stuff changes all the time as people do more research and discover more stuff. Peace, Antandrus 17:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're right about misinformation spreading quickly on the internet: Humperdinck is a great example. Personally, I really don't like using the Internet for research; it's too unreliable, and I think you may have said something similar yourself at some time (was it about Humperdinck? I remember seeing your comment somewhere). I got suspicious on Viraldini because he wasn't mentioned in Eleanor Selfridge-Fields' exhaustive book on Venetian instrumental music, which mentions the most obscure composers; and then I went to that .ru site that you gave me the link for (have a look at the .jpg version of the Fughetta Chromatica--I really think that is by a current student at, say, the Moscow Conservatory--the same one that owned the IP address that put up the Viraldini article). There's also not a single mention of Viraldini in Grove, either the 1980 edition, all 20 volumes of it, nor the 2001 online edition. Btw I have a subscription to the 2001; if you ever want me to e-mail you one of the detailed articles, I will. Anyway I have to get back to work at my job before I get in trouble.  :-) Best wishes, Antandrus 18:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for expanding the Renaissance composers list! Have a great day, Antandrus 16:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your obsession with disclaimers on old people

Hello.I'm Louis Epstein (maintainer of the list of supercentenarians linked at the bottom of the supercentenarians article and contributor to Wikipedia from 12.144.5.2).I work with other people around the world authenticating claims to extreme age,verifying the presence of necessary documents.We are WELL aware that we don't know everything,and we are discovering more all the time.SOME of the disclaimer words you've inserted in the past are reasonable,but the edits you've inserted,and I've now removed twice today,really are excessive.You must have extreme contempt for our work if you can't even admit that the oldest RECOGNIZED living people are AMONG THE OLDEST LIVING people,period.That list is THE oldest living people who are documented;otherwise there'd be no need for the word "Among".And other records...the oldest ever recorded are THE OLDEST EVER RECORDED...if there were older unrecorded cases,the burden of proof is on the claimant.We're DELIGHTED to learn when there's someone older than we knew about. But the attitude that you seem to take is that what knowledge we do have,and work hard on getting,is something to be minimized.And in your way you are making our work harder by detracting from the status of the lists we want people to feel motivated to get onto.The historical demographic studies of life expectancies make it unlikely that there have ever been persons significantly older than the claims that have been documented.I don't claim authoritative knowledge of every supercentenarian there ever was,but for years I have worked hard to know as much as possible and to make people want to contribute more information.Your attitude works directly against the environment my correspondents and I are trying to promote in order to get more people around the world to seek recognition.An unrecognized claim should be treated with suspicion,and the claimant feel a need to see the documentation accepted.That won't happen if you keep altering the presentation of our data to minimize its significance. (By the way,I live just a little Northeast of you).--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpuff Girls category dispute

Hi, Marcus. I think perhaps we should get opinions of the Powerpuff Girls as superheroes or not from more people besides ourselves. In other words, I think we should list the PPGs on Wikipedia: Requests for comment so the rest of the Wikipedia community can help us solve our dispute. I know I'd be happy to have a resolution to this, even if nobody agrees with me. :) A good, neutral explaination of the situation on RfC could be something like "Two users are in a dispute over how the article should be categorized." If you have no objections, I can list it, and we can see where it goes from there. I'm asking here since you haven't responded to my last comment on the PPG Talk page for a while, and I don't want to be annoying by taking your silence as acceptance.

Thanks for your time! --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 19:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Thanks for reading my article Adella Wotherspoon. What's the cool tag you added to the profile and how does it work? Should I be adding it to all my biographies? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a template that automatically creates additions to the category to when a person was born and when he/she died. Marcus2 17:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sainte-Colombe

I deleted link to Sieur de Sainte-Colombe because he is the same person as M. de Sainte-Colombe listed a few lines above. Sieur (sir) is an old French word (not used today except by lawmen) which was often combined with mon (my) to give Mon-sieur (mister) abbreviated in M. Sieur was *not* his first name, it is something like sir (probably same origin). Gérard 10:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fairly OddParents 'Villains'

If you don't mind, I really wish you'd stop removing Mr. Crocker and Vicky from the Villains category. I've always considered them villains, and therefore, they should be listed as villains. Nintendo Maximus

Not everybody considers them as villains, so that's why I've been repeatedly deleting the category from the article. Okay? Marcus2 14:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but those characters do villainous things (i.e. Crocker wants to enslave everybody; Vicky wants to cause bodily harm to those smaller than her), and are considered bitter rivals of Timmy, who is the protagonist. Therefore, they're villains, and therefore, they belong in the villains category. Just because some people don't think of them as villains doesn't mean they aren't. Nintendo Maximus

[edit] Adult themes and the Scooby Gang

Marcus2, Adult themes and the Scooby Gang is up for a vote on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion. I have been a contributor to the article since you created it on 7-JUL-2004. As you are the creator of the article, I would like to invite you to comment on why you moved the content from its original location as a subsection of Scooby-Doo into it's present stand-alone location. The vote is essentially whether or not to merge the content back into Scooby-Doo. Kevyn 03:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stevie Wonder

Stevie Wonder is, first and foremost, an R&B and soul musician. He later eventually crossed over into pop music, but he needs to be, for proper categorization, in all three categories. --b. Touch 14:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Mario and Luigi "believed to be" infants, etc

I read the earlier discussion regarding this on your talk page and I don't see why it matters. If Baby Mario and Baby Luigi aren't Mario and Luigi as babies, who else could they possibly be? If you want a source from the manual or something, I can get that. I realize that Mario's backstory is somewhat contradictory from one game to the next - Mario supposedly never met Bowser or the Yoshi clan before SMB1 and SMW, supposedly he and Luigi were raised in Brooklyn, etc. Regardless of this, Baby Mario is indisputedly that which his name suggests: Mario as a baby. Same deal for Baby Luigi. It's not for Wikipedia to make inferences about the backstory, but it's possible for Mario and Luigi to have grown up in the Mushroom world and Brooklyn without it being contradictory. From the way I understand it, Mario doesn't remember Bowser or Yoshi or the Mushroom world because he was a baby when he saw them, and the fact that he does stuff with them later, as an adult, is just irony. I also think it's fair to say that Nintendo has gradually phased out references to real-world material like Brooklyn as the Mario series has progressed, and the newer games like Yoshi's Island should take precedence over older games like Donkey Kong, Mario Bros., etc.

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit, but it boils down to this: a) Baby Mario and Baby Luigi are defined in various official Nintendo sources as Mario and Luigi as infants. b) This definition doesn't conflict with any previous information about Mario and his relationship with the other characters in his world. Andre (talk) 19:15, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is some evidence that supports my argument that "Baby Mario" and "Baby Luigi" may not necessarily be Mario and Luigi as infants. First of all, the full name of the Super NES game Yoshi's Island is Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. Also, there is more variety in color of Yoshis than in the original Super Mario World. Then also, it is assumed that Mario, Luigi, and Bowser are about the same age as Yoshi. Furthermore, prior to the release of Yoshi's Island, there is no indication whatsoever that Mario and Luigi had encountered Bowser, the Mushroom world, and the Yoshi clan, before Super Mario World and the Super Mario Bros. series. There is an indication that Mario had previously encountered Wario before Wario took over Mario's castle in Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. This is not the only time Nintendo trampled over what they said previously. Birdo, as Nintendo first said, was a male creature acting as a female. Later, the character was portrayed as female. Situations like these are only a matter of opinion. Marcus2 22:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
None of that can be used for more than food for far-out inferences. However, there are sources that state that Baby Mario is, in fact, Mario as an infant. Do you want to see them? Andre (talk) 22:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Why no response on this from you? Andre (talk) 04:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I do not wish to see sources that state Baby Mario as Mario as an infant. I am already familiar with these kind of sources and I have my sources to refute them. By the way, what does the sentence "None of that can be used for more than food for far-out inferences." mean? Marcus2 12:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Your "evidence" is not very solid, is what I'm saying. Yoshi's Island has Super World 2 affixed to it in an effort to increase sales - it didn't have that in Japan. This doesn't mean that Yoshi's Island isn't a prequel, and isn't evidence for anything. I'm not sure why one would assume Mario, Luigi, Bowser, and Yoshi are the same age - there's nothing to support this assumption. It's just that, an assumption made by you, and it can't be used as evidence for anything. As for indications of Mario and Luigi having encountered Bowser prior to Super Mario Bros., one would infer that, since Baby Mario and Baby Luigi are newborns during Yoshi's Island, they can't remember anything, and nobody recognizes them. However, this is an inference and it doesn't need to be stated in the article. There's an indication that Mario had encountered Wario but nothing beyond that, and if one believes the Nintendo Power comic series, Mario knew Wario as a child.
On the other hand, it says in many places such as the instructions, the box, the Player's Guide, Nintendo Power, promotional materials, etc. that Yoshi's Island is a prequel, Baby Mario = Mario as a baby, and Baby Luigi = Luigi as a baby. How could someone refute this? Andre (talk) 18:04, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Belle vfd

Now that the article isn't about the Powerpuff Girls reference any more, but is instead about the pre-existing DC Comics character who was mentioned in the episode, can I convince you to change your vote? DS 21:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted

R+S Syndrome has been deleted. Fuzheado | Talk 23:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feelings revealed on article talk pages

Hi Marcus: Whilst I agree with you that it is inappropriate to treat article talk pages as condolence books, I think that it is kinder to point this out on a user's talk page. Irrespective of how harsh you think you were being, Jooler was upset by your criticism and I imagine that s/he would appreciate it were you to apologise for that distress at User talk:Jooler. --Theo (Talk) 18:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears that I am mistaken in my assessment of Jooler. His response to me was also unconstructive. Even so, I still believe that guidance such as that you originally offered him at Talk:John Mills is best conveyed on user talk pages. --Theo (Talk) 19:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to the following left on my talk page - I'm sorry if I may have offended you. I didn't mean to, and I never knew you even met the man himself (John Mills). But please remember not to do the same thing again the next time. Marcus2 21:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Try to remember not to be a total arse next time! I'll do what I bloody like. I have been editing at Wikipedia for years. I know what talk pages are for. My comment on the talk page was doing no harm to anyone whatsover. There was abosolutely no reason for you to stick your oar in and try to look superior like I'm a bloody vandal or something. Now #@?@#?#! grow up. Jooler 06:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Marcus: I admire you for making the apology and I am dissapointed by the the boorish response from Jooler. It seems that even years of editing at Wikipedia have not shown him all the benefits of courtesy. I have decided to disregard his offensive behaviour. At best he is too distressed to remember the prevailing etiquette, and at worst his normal behaviour is vexatious. In my opinion, no-one deserves the kind of message he left here. It seems to me that your behaviour has been adult enough throughout this exchange. You made a tonal mistake initially and you were then big enough to own the error. I do not think that you were trying to look superior and I can see no basis for Jooler's inference that you, or anyone, thought him a vandal. I think it best for all concerned if we assume that this was a brief aberration by Jooler and all get back to building the most remarkable encyclopedia we can. --Theo (Talk) 17:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An apology which repeats the same high-handed message is no apology in my opinion, hence my reply, the fact that I met John Mills is neither here nor there with regard to Marcus's comment. But as far as I'm concerned this is the end of the matter. Jooler 22:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

It looks okay to me. Did you do something to fix it, or are you still seeing something wrong? RickK 19:48, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

It looks fine to me too. I guess there was some little glitch. Marcus2 20:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last note regarding your Doujinshi participations

Thanks a lot. The decision wasn't what you voted so you just removed the article yourself. Really "smart". Harg 20:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ...But since it's merged into the original article...I gonna settle for this. Thanks for your time.Harg 20:17, 10 June 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Mario/Baby Luigi

What is this nonsense? "Accepted by Nintendo"? Mario and Luigi aren't real people, Nintendo has created them and every aspect of their lives. Andre (talk) 18:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
And in case you weren't aware, Mario & Luigi 2 confirms the identities of Babies Mario and Luigi. Andre (talk) 19:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Femme Fatale (Powerpuff Girls)

Could you please show me where the wikipedia community reached consensus as to the non-notability or non-encyclopedic nature of this article. Nothing is mentioned on its talk page.

Please go through the proper wikipedia channels to have the article removed if you believe it should be. The redirect was inapprioprate in the that several articles linked to this one and the Femme Fatale article was irrelevant to those links.

This is not your personal wiki; please don't CAPS SHOUT at people.

Jackliddle 17:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry that I CAPS SHOUTED at you. I will follow the procedure and put it on the vfd. Marcus2 14:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Jackson

Marcus2, it looks like you were the one who renamed Randy Jackson to Randy Jackson (American Idol). For reasons given at Talk:Randy_Jackson (American Idol) I think this was a mistake. See my intended course of action and let me know if you object. Wasted Time R 12:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic 2

Er, why did you move the Sonic the Hedgehog 2 page from Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Mega Drive) to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Genesis)? Mega Drive is the name of the console in most places, it's only America* that uses Genesis. There was absolutely no reason for the move. --Nick R 15:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Genesis is more relevant than Megadrive. That's what it's known by in the US. Marcus2 18:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At the moment, the discussion on Talk:Sega Mega Drive and Talk:Sega Genesis is heading towards Sega Mega Drive being the main article for that console and Sega Genesis being used only for North America-specific information. If that happens, we'll change the Sonic 1 and Sonic 2 pages to be consistent with that. Fair enough? I don't want to end up with a revert war here!
Oh, and I forgot that Canada uses Genesis too. I suppose in English-speaking population Genesis is more used, but if all languages are included, most people would use Mega Drive. God this is petty. :)--Nick R 19:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for your information (because red links may appear here): After the Sonic 2 article was copy-paste moved several times (I've found 5 different article versions) I've started to clean up that mess. Before I've started, the actuall consensus is/was:

--32X 14:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theo RFA

Hi Marcus: Thank you for supporting my candidacy. I am pleased to be supported by someone with whom I interacted over something so potentially vexatious. I am glad to see that you had no more trouble with Jooler.—Theo (Talk) 14:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpuff Girls 'Villains'

Will you stop removing Mojo Jojo, The Rowdyruff Boys, and Princess Morbucks from the Villains category?! Just because you don't consider them villains doesn't mean they're not villains! - Nintendo Maximus

For the love of God, not everybody considers them villains! Marcus2 20:31, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't mean they're not actually villains. And since they're constantly doing evil things, therefore, they're villains. - Nintendo Maximus
That was a tricky one to respond to. Anyway, it depends on how you look at what's evil and what's not. I think that the plots for these characters for doing what you call "evil things" are ridiculous and ergo, not evil. Anyway the things that Mojo and Princess do are ways to get back at the girls, and the things the Rowdyruff Boys do are too trivial to be evil, hence my "idiocy" summmary. Marcus2 20:36, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Oh, but Darth Vader just went crazy evil. Does that mean he's not a villain? -- A Link to the Past 20:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing the infobox template from the Powerpuff Girls. The existance of an infobox on some other cartoon is irrelevant. If you want one on some other cartoons, make it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Mario/Baby Luigi

Let me ask you - if Baby Mario and Baby Luigi aren't Mario and Luigi, then why, praytell, do Mario and Luigi meet Baby Mario and Baby Luigi in Mushroom Kingdom, in Mario & Luigi 2? And why do they look not exactly the same as they do in Yoshi's Island? I'd say this new plot has debunked the idea that Mario was born in Brooklyn. It's entirely possible that they were raised in Brooklyn (like, say, their parents abandoned them for whatever reason), but I'd be lying if there were any room for the theory that Mario and Luigi were both born and raised in Brooklyn. Also, Baby Bowser must be Bowser, because he is in Mario & Luigi 2, and they encounter him, who is the main villain and kidnapped Princess Peach. Unless there are, in fact, two Baby Bowsers, this must be Bowser, and all three of them must be Mario, Luigi and Bowser. -- A Link to the Past 06:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out that Kamek said that Baby Mario and Baby Luigi would rise up and defeat Baby Bowser if left alive. There are far too many similarities for them to be different people. -- A Link to the Past 06:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

I've been considering putting you on the Request for Comment page. From what I've seen, you're giving people trouble all over Wikipedia. Deleting the Power Puff Girls template because Dexter's Lab has none, changing SMB3's release date considering the several links showing that you're wrong, compared to you saying you're right, and of course, the Baby Mario issue - you've constantly demanded that Baby Mario and Mario be established as different characters, which would be a poor idea. For one, it's already been shown that Baby Mario and Mario are the same, because for one, they are predicted to cause trouble for Bowser, and for another, Baby Mario and Baby Luigi are shown to be them in Mario & Luigi 2. Clean up your act or I will be sure to put you on there. -- A Link to the Past 04:14, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

20 days later, and you still don't reply. Any reason? -- A Link to the Past 04:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think I'm doing okay lately. I'm sorry I didn't respond to you earlier. I'm staying out of trouble for the most part. Marcus2 22:11, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I see you've fallen back into trouble. One more time, and I can't guarantee anything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two notes

Don't mean to be rude, but I undid all of your "vilian" removals. I know you don't believe vilians exist, but it's both a. not minor and b. not beneficial to the encyclopedia to not be able to find villians by category. If there's another way we could work things out (perhaps a note in the villians category about how they are "widely belived" or "often considered" to be villians, but opinions on each character may differ, and talk about what makes a "villian" and what makes someone misunderstood? Thoughts?

Secondly, please don't delete comments from your talk page. Hipocrite 17:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how it couldn't be any more clear-cut. Villains do evil, are oft selfish, and generally work against the hero. Their boo-hoo! origin and/or mental insanity doesn't change that in the slightest. --Apostrophe 04:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
You never responded to this, and are at it again. Hipocrite 17:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I never responded to you. I did what you said by leaving most of the villain categories the way they were, and not marking them as minor edits. Anyway, Montgomery Burns I don't think is as recognized as a villain. He was never arrested, as far as I know, and no one said he was a villain. Marcus2 12:26, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Burns is a evil character who seeks pleasures that result in harming other people; he has also worked against the Simpson family more than several times. Being arrested isn't necessary to confirm him as a villain. --Apostrophe 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Why are you changing all of the Animation Villians to just Villians? You don't like being more descriptive? Hipocrite 17:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
This is irritating me as well, especially since the villain category is already overwrought as it is. I would certainly enjoy an explanation. --Apostrophe 04:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Many of the "villains" in category are "animation villains", and I doubt anyone would ever look up "villains" by "animation". Marcus2 12:26, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your points. It doesn't matter in the slightest if they're not going to looks up "Animation villains" (which is a difficult thing to attest), it's a subcategory of "Villains" and "Animated characters". It's not as if it's a lost category. --Apostrophe 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mendelssohn f.jpg

This image that you once uploaded is now available on Commons. I just wonder if you have any more info on the image. Where did you get it, from a book or something else? Do you know who the painter was, and when it was painted? It's been a long time, so I guess there is a fair chance that you don't remember. In case you do, though, it would be great to store this kind of info along with the image. / Habj 20:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please get a clue...

Dear Marcus2. I'm copying this here so that perhaps you'll understand.

"Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi is part of WikiProject Webcomics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion."

Quit pushing it being "not notable enough". You're not notable enough.

I'd be overjoyed if you'd quit keeping us up in the future.

Harg 06:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your explanation, but I have a few concerns. Why are you saying that I'm not notable enough? And what do you mean by "keeping us up"? Marcus2 12:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've been a little open-handed with redirects haven't you? What I say is that you never gave a reason why 'your' opinion should count more than of all the people who've been working on the article. Harg 17:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery articles up for deletion!

I noticed that these articles:

  • Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots
  • Gallery of Super Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots
  • Gallery of Sega Mega Drive and Sega Genesis screenshots
  • Gallery of Sega Master System screenshots

that you worked on in the past are now are up for deletion. Would you vote in favor of keeping these articles? They show the history of the advancement of video game graphics over time and are useful as a source of images for graphics for video game articles. --ShaunMacPherson 19:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classical music of the United Kingdom

Hello. I wondered if you'd be able to help us with the above article. It's the current UK collaboration of the week. I know you're not from the UK, but I noticed you had contributed to a few classical music articles. Would appreciate your input to build up the page. Best wishes, --bodnotbod 22:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dalí

Hello. Dalí was a Catalan and a Spaniard. If Category:Catalan painters is a subcategory of Category:Spanish painters, then Category:Salvador Dalí should be a subcategory of Category:Catalan painters. In my opinion, a double categorization is also suitable. But in a sole spanish categorization there is a loss of information. Best wishes. --Joan sense nick 02:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monteverdi

Hi Marcus -- yes, Monteverdi's music is classifiable as Baroque, at least after about 1605. His first several books of madrigals are in the late Renaissance style, but after he began using the basso continuo (book 7, 8 and 9 I think) they're definitely Baroque. He fits into both categories (just like Roy Henry is both medieval and Renaissance, as I see you noticed). Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baroque music.

Quoting...

Baroque music describes an era and a set of styles of European classical music which center between approximately 1600 to ca 1750. This era is said to begin in music after the Renaissance and to be followed by the Classical music era. Baroque music forms a major portion of the classical music canon, it is widely performed and studied and listened to. It is associated with composers such as J.S. Bach and Claudio Monteverdi. During the period, music theory, diatonic tonality, and imitative counterpoint developed. More elaborate musical ornament, as well as changes in musical notation and advances in the way instruments also appeared. Baroque music would see an expansion in the size, range and complexity of performance, as well as the establishment of opera as a type of musical performance. Many musical terms and concepts still in use date from this era.

I actually was concerned by the sudden complete rewrite of the first paragraph, which I can't find any justification for, plus the arbitrary removal of the last sentence from the Styles and Trends section.

I am not an administrator, I simply happen to be involved with fighting wikivandals. Your edit tripped a "possible gibberish" warning, so I decided to take a look at it. I reverted for the reason outlined above.

Last point: the implied threat in your reversion edit summary was unnecessary and inappropriate. I'd suggest you use a more civil tone in the future. Happy editing. Tom Lillis 23:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am awfully very sorry. I'll do my best in becoming more polite from now on. See one of my edit summaries after I put that unnecessary threat in my edit summary. Marcus2 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't contest that contribution at all. Glad to see we're square on the misunderstanding. Best of luck. Tom Lillis 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] music history

Hi Marcus,

That 1600 date for the beginning of the Baroque is a useful approximation, but yes, there were a few composers working in arguably Baroque styles before that (e.g. those in the Florentine Camerata in the 1580s and 90s, who were the developers of monody, and also a few in the Ferrara school, and you could even make a case for some of the Venetians, like Giovanni Gabrieli, in the 1590s). Conversely, composers persisted in writing the smooth polyphony that defines the Renaissance style in a few places after 1600, places such as as England and Portugal (Portugal had a strangely late flowering of its own native Renaissance style in the early 17th century). Regarding WF Bach -- I always thought of him as both early classical and Baroque, but I'd have to listen to some of his music, and I'm at work right now, away from my books and music ... happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! --Most of CPE Bach's music is usually classified as Classical era. He was a representative of the stylistic movement called the empfindsamer stil (or Empfindsamkeit) which is grouped with the Rococo, or pre-classical; typically all those mid-18th-century movements are discussed in music histories under the heading "Classical" rather than "Baroque". I'd definitely put a 1766 piece in the Classical era. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Frankie Valli seems to have been born in 1937, according to everything I can find; you might pass that one by User:Tuf-Kat to see if he has any insight. Ask the person who believes 1934 if he has a print source, and not just an internet fan site, as a backup. Regarding Heinrich Schütz--he's definitely an early Baroque composer, although he composed a few works in the prima prattica late Renaissance style. His Cantiones Sacrae motets opus 4 (1625) are basically sacred madrigals, and sound a lot like Gesualdo. Regarding Beethoven, the 3rd symphony does mark the beginning of his middle style period, which is usually considered the beginning of the Romantic era (or one of the beginnings!) so I think you're right about that. Best, Antandrus (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The thing to do would be to explain in the article that there's some dispute and attribute different years to the appropriate sources. For what it's worth, the Rock and Roll Almanac by Mark Bego says Valli was born May 3, 1937. That's the only source I have that gives a birthyear for him. Tuf-Kat 17:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frankie Valli

Marcus, your behavior on the Frankie Valli article is inappropriate and to threaten to be able to block someone that you are having a content disagreement with is not acceptable behavior. Are you an admin? If not, stop making threats to block people. If you are an admin, threatening to block someone you are having an editing disagreement with is also unacceptable. Take it to RFC or to the Talk page. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Also, please remember to cite references or sources to the content you insert into an article - and don't remove somone elses sources because you dont 'think' they're accurate. If you're going to assert that, at the very least back it up with a reference. And there's nothing wrong with a reference being 'french' either :) Agnte 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Marcus2, please discuss any changes you wish to make to Frankie Valli's bio before making them. This back and forth is not worth its trouble. I am sure you have something to offer but I can't tell when all you do is replace what is written without any supporting documentation than to refer to Gene Sculatti, not the complete reliable source you make him out to be, and, other anonymous sources. With liner notes from varous recordings, as well as multiple magazine sources, and even Sculatti, we can come up with a really good bio. Thank you.

[edit] Remove unencyclopedic entry.

Ok. What's the big idea? Before I start another edit-war, i am giving you an opportuinity to explain your actions. Why did you "Remove unencyclopedic entry" my edit? The facts presented are correct. -- Jason Palpatine 01:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the facts may be correct, since you probably know more about it than me, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is not the place to tell stories. And heck, probably no one will even be interested in it and read it, so it makes no use, unless you wanted to create an article about the special yourself. Anyway, Happy Holidays! Marcus2 01:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Baudouin I of Belgium.jpg

Hi, please add a source who can verify that this photo is public domain. Thuresson 15:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please add a source for this photo so it's possible to verify your PD claims! Do not remove the unknown tag unless you provide this source !! --Denniss 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please add a proper source, nl wiki claims PD because of en wiki does so. There's no source over there ! --Denniss 05:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eng. Hump'k

I recognized your edit as something i recently reverted, so i'm offering this exploration before reverting again. The purpose of LoPbN is as a navigational tool into WP biographies. For the sake of a standard format, every entry gets a name, vital stats, nationality, and notable occupation. Only those who are likely to be mistaken for people with the same name get more. "Singer" is all that is needed to distinguish him from the composer, and even if "pop" were needed it would never be linked, bcz aiding the finding related articles is the job of the bio, not of LoPbN, and clarifying what "pop" means would not further that navigational purpose. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 03:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept your explanation. Thank you. Marcus2 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy DeVito

Marcus, I see that you made some very substantial edits to the Tommy DeVito article, which I am about to revert. With regards to Tommy's date of birth, the conventional wisdom (which is what you are citing) was culled primarily from label PR during the group's heyday and has him as being born in the mid-30's. In actuality, Tommy (currently alive and well and living in Vegas) is 77, and was born in 1928.

The bulk of the edits, however, were your wholesale removal of the paragraphs on why the band broke up and Tommy left the group. While it was all hushed up at the time, eveyone has since come to terms with it, and indeed they (all of the living members of the Four Seasons, including Tommy) have collaborated on the new hit Broadway musical Jersey Boys, which lays it out pretty explicitly...and was written from Tommy's own (as yet unpublished) autobiography. So, I'm reverting that edit and returning the details, which are accurate, acknowledged by the participants, and in no way detract from Tommy DeVito's musicianship, nor from his deserved enshrinment in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Thanks. Yorker 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Stevie_Wonder.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stevie_Wonder.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double Dare network?

Hi,

You edited Double Dare to say that it originally aired on WHYY-TV. I have two problems:

  1. Although it was filmed at WHYY studios initially, that doesn't mean it ever aired there. Do you have any citations?
  2. Even if it did air limitedly on WHYY, that's not the spirit of "original network." "Original network" is to distinguish original runs from syndicated runs, not to be nitpicky about what wavelength the first episode was broadcast on.

If you have a response, please leave it on Talk:Double Dare.

Thanks, SFT | Talk 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EG Daily

In the Elizabeth Daily talk page, I asked you not to spam me again, but I had no idea that your user talk page had so many comments on it, so I guess that explains why you didn't think it objectionable to bitch at me on my talk page. I shall retract the "spam" comment when I am done posting this. I restored a link, you re-deleted it, and your justification was this:

Because it is defunct and has vanity. Wikipedia should not engage in website imperialism.

Well, first of all, I don't know what your definition of "defunct" is, it's been recently updated to include news of a movie currently in production. And is there something in Wikipedia's guidelines that discourages linking to official sites that have vanity? If so, please provide a link. Second, in the article Wikipedia:External links#What_should_be_linked_to, the first item says "Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one." There's no mention made of how recently, or how often, a site needs to be updated to remain "current". And third, what is "website imperialism"? I asked in the "bootcamp" IRC chan, and nobody there had even heard the term before.

So if you're going to try to lecture me on guidelines that apparantly don't even exist, perhaps you should pay a little more attention to guidelines that do exist. For example, in the article WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host.2C_blog.2C_or_webspace_provider, it says "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." Your user page, however, contains tidbit like "I am a radical non-alcoholic. I have decided to hate alcohol forever. I don't like how it tastes." This, to me, seems to be in direct opposition to the "not a blog" guideline.

Reading the extensive comments on this page so far, it seems that you like to skate on thin ice now and then. I'd suggest that in the future you make more of an effort to follow the actual Wikipedia guidelines, and not your own opinions and whims. - Ugliness Man 11:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently E.G. Daily doesn't update her personal website that often. It still has a copyright date of 2003. Anyway, I chopped it off (once again). The main reason: the site is a big mess in accuracy and stupidity. And "website imperialism" is a term that I coined myself. Marcus2 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
So you've decided to arbritrarily go against specific official Wikipedia guidelines based on a term that you invented? Bravo. Just because someone overlooked the changing copyright date doesn't mean that the site doesn't get updated, because if you looked at any of the content of the site itself instead of formulating an opinion based on a brief glance, you'd find that there's information on recent and current projects. Your ice is getting thinner. Ugliness Man 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foxxy vs. the Board of Education (Drawn Together episode)

Please clarify what it is that you dispute.Raymondluxuryacht 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I am disputing the 'fact' that there is a list of characters from different production companies in the hospital scene in the episode. Marcus2 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Check Talk:Foxxy vs. the Board of Education (Drawn Together episode) for my input SFT | Talk 08:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By ice getting thin, I think both me and Ugliness Man are referring to seeking RFC or some other appropriate action. This is not a threat, just an honest assessment -- for your benefit -- of what might happen if this continues.

Your contrib history (and this talk page) are filled with your inappropriate edits and contentious attitude. Everyone who's commented about you or your edits would much rather you consider your actions and adjust them than themselves seek formal action. But when we implore you to do so, and your responses make vague accusations about "nonsense and untruths," it makes it very difficult to remain civil and/or laid back.

Quite simply, you are creeping ever closer to problem user status, and I beg you to take action yourself rather than waiting for the action of others. SFT | Talk 13:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Powerpuff Girls Trivia

I just received a "warning" from you over a sentence I've re-added repeatedly to the Powerpuff Girls trivia section:

You have repeatedly readded this sentence, "In the "Crazy Mixed-up Puffs" episode, there is a scene in which Buttercup farts." This is either inappropriate or it isn't true. You better stop readding the sentence or else you will be blocked. Marcus2 13:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

First, your warning is absolutely inappropriate, as this statement is 1) entirely factual, and 2) thoroughly appropriate, as Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED. Please refer to its guidelines in regard to what Wikipedia is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

Being such, it is not your, or anybody else's place to remove factual information that you, or any cross-section of the public might find disturbing or offensive, especially given that the omission of this information would make the article less informative. Again, refer to Wikipedia's guidelines for the removal of profanity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity

That said, I have re-added the statement along with a supporting reference (http://www.rowdyruff.net/transcript_cmup.shtml) to support this fact, in case anyone questions whether it is true or not. Any further removal of this statement will be referred on to a Wikipedia administrator for disciplinary action.

--Fred.

Update: Having received your response and apology, I understand your confusion over the warnings previously listed on my IP address's talk page. This IP address is used by myself and two of my siblings through a family router, so unfortunately, there have been some serious inconsistencies in terms of communication and behavior. Most of the previous warnings regarding vandalism were their doing, with the exception of one case in which a group of political activists were acting blatantly out of line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy and tried "warning" me for removing some of their destructive and heavily-biased entries, and were later blocked by an administrator I referred the issue to. At any rate, I accept your apology.
Best wishes,
--Fred.

[edit] G# major

You wrote on an edit summary of yours that you composed a piece in G# major. How is this key possible?? Its key signature would have a double sharp, and I don't think key signatures with double sharps are used. Georgia guy 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As you should know, my G sharp major piece did have a double sharp in its key signature. It's my new 21st century jingle. Marcus 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Upload a picture of it to put in your user namespace. Georgia guy 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I can see your curiosity in this. However, I do not have a scanner. What I can do is dig up the composition, make a photo of it, and upload it onto the computer, if you'd like. Marcus 23:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpuffs (again)

Gidday. Well, Mate, I noticed you have a bit of negative bias when it comes to the PPG and other articles which mention them or are directly related to them. Examples are: 1, 2, 3 and 4, among what I'm assuming are numerous others. It's a sad state of affairs, Mate. Anyway, I'd just like to let you know personally that you are: °Incorrect about them not being superheroines. °Incorrect about their enemies not being villians (super or otherwise). Incorrect about the notiblity of The Powerpuff Girls and articles related to them.

Yeah, I think that's about it. Have a nice day! ACS (Wikipedian) 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powerpuff Girls

You said I am: "°Incorrect about them not being superheroines. °Incorrect about their enemies not being villians (super or otherwise). °Incorrect about the notiblity of The Powerpuff Girls and articles related to them." But since the characters are fictitious, the first two do not apply, and it is a matter of the individual's opinion what they should be considered. And why do you care so much about the matter of the Powerpuff Girls? Some articles related to the Powerpuff Girls are notable; I can agree with that. Marcus 11:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't even, dude. "ince the characters are fictitious, the first two do not apply"? Do you even realize the outrught stupidity of that. The concept of a "villain" isn't exclusive to reality and certainly prominant in fiction.

In fact, your comment of "it is a matter of the individual's opinion what they should be considered" is actually backwards, in a sense. Villains outside of fiction are a matter of opinion. Villains in fiction are usually designed to fit the titles given to them. In other words, villains in fiction are designed to be such, and fit certain archetypes, stereotypes, et cetera. Villains of reality are usually labeled such unneutrally. For example, some might label our very own U.S. president a villain. However, since he's real, wasn't made to be one (and probably isn't such a bad guy intentionally, if at all), use of such a word in reference to him is POV.

Furthermore, I ask you to point out one real superheroine. Oh wait...they're all fictional. A superpowered human, no matter what their gender, isn't likely to exist now or anytime soon. Besidesm if your disagreement was with fiction in general, why only target the PPG (characters) and articles related to them? You could have taken it up with Wikipedia at large and its policies rather than wedging war with innocent little girls. No. You're biased, dude. I'm honestly sorry if you cannot see that. BTW, before I go, here are my examples of your bias, just in case you "missed" them: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Wait a minute. I just took another look at your talk page. The PPG stuff is most prominant, to be sure, but your bias extends to a lot of other articles. Dude, for your own good, turn back off this self-destructive path of yours. Believe me, I know a thing or two about it. Just because a character is on a children's cartoon (such as fairly oddparents, ppg, et cetera). I read your have aspergers. Dude, if it's inhabiting you from making sound editting decisions take a Wikibreak.

Anyway, I'm serious and correct about your bias. Your wrong in several cases and it'll kill your reputation if you don't realize your mistakes and try to change, man. Contact me if you have any questions as to how to improve, or just need someone to talk to. Believe it or not, I'm actually quite a good listener. ACS (Wikipedian) 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erm, archive?

Comment Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

I think your talk page was 100+ KB. I'd seriously consider archiving. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)