User talk:MartinRe/Jun06-Aug06
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Untitled
Yet more horrorific watchdog anticts by people like MartinRe on a community site. No one is above anyone else here, so please don't try to be, Mr. Re, less people resort to reporting people for editing and even more anarchy ensues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Syferus (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC) and then removed by the same editor after I had read it
[edit] 2001 vote
On the AFD discussion you wrote: "Delete the proposal WP:WAF describes this situation well, an extended film synopsis (without secondary sources) is too much like WP:OR, the impact of the film on the "real world" is more encyclopedic, but that is already covered in Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey. Regards, MartinRe 12:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)"
What do you mean by "without secondary sources"? I can not give you a proper answer/reply without a clear understanding of what you're saying. The charges made by an admin who shall remain nameless that the article is WP:OR is a lie. The matter was discussed at length over the past month with me providing a full listing of my sources -- more than once.
RSVP -- Jason Palpatine 14:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Far Eastern Games
Woops, that was a biggie. Thanks for fixing my screwup. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I never said it was a major screwup. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hi MartinRe,
Just wanted to say thanks for fixing the reference which I added to the F4J site. That was my first WikiEdit and I wasn't really sure if I'd done it right.
Regards,
Joel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.4.63 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ruth Kelly
It's difficult sometimes, but I'll try. Thats how I finished my last reply. Frelke 08:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD Nomination List of visible minority and aboriginal candidates in Canadian elections
I've nominated the article List of visible minority and aboriginal candidates in Canadian elections for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of visible minority and aboriginal candidates in Canadian elections satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of visible minority and aboriginal candidates in Canadian elections. Don't forget to add four tildes (˜˜˜˜) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of List of visible minority and aboriginal candidates in Canadian elections during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Ardenn 04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christianity Deletion
How could you stop the deletion within 15 minutes of the opening? All allegations were Wiki Policy. Andy Blak 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moved from Reportcard
Dude your not even from Greystones, you know nothing about the place... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.214.43 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zoltán Buday removal...
Verifiable information and related external links were removed, much.
--G-Spot 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE:Wikipedia talk Administrators' noticeboard
Well, my first experiment in editing other users' talk pages and comments was an overwhelming success. The The Promenader was very co-operative and gave me his permission to do this. (Please view my edit history) --Siva1979Talk to me 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Need help with vandal
Hi,
Thank You for your reaction with Neo-Nazism in Croatia. You showed that I was wrong, but thanks anyway :). BTW, that edit war resumed as soon as you removed that tag, but, what the hell, I can't keep an eye on every possible article on wikipedia. Nevermind.
Now regarding more recent problem, if you have some spare time. I explained the problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated vandalism on List of Croatians.
It would also be nice if You or someone else could try to find out (if that isn't somehow prohibited by wiki rules) who is the user behind IP 64.18.16.251 and put some warning on his "real" talk page.
Regards, Ante Perkovic 08:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
Actually I was told to add links like this to "verify information," either your rules are inconsistant, or none of you admins are agreeing at all and there is chaos; perhaps too much dictators and not enough dictation, or a "too many laws" mistake known in government.
--G-Spot 15:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE:Harp
I don't know what specifically you're wanting me to do work for. The harp in Ireland, per chance? Well, it's the art on the soundbox I think. I am not aware that the point in under any dispute, so you or someone else will have to do reading to find this out if you wish to satisfy yourself, and put in other references if you find any. The editor being reverted is the Irish nationalist puppetmaster Bluegold, so don't assume that his opposition means anything. - (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, hands up. I did create a couple of socks over a six month period, really I didn't know that it was against wiki ethics, I was pretty new at the time. I am certainly not motivated by any form of nationalism as Calgacus says. Nor would I ever call anyone a nationalist, and I would be disappointed if a person didn't regard their own nation dearly. Sorry that Calgacus has brought up this point, but I have to defend my exemplary character and honesty. Bluegold 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LOGOS
You commented earlier about my use of the LOGO Image:2001-Pre335 copy.jpg for the movie 2001 on my user and talk page infoboxes was inapropriate under Wik guidelines. I would appreciate a more detailed explanation. Other logos, such as Image:Pf logo.jpg are simalarly useed by others. -- Jason Palpatine 23:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming, redirects, and AfDs
Hi Martin; I'm afraid I don't really understand the Wikipedia rules on AfDs and redirects as you recently outlined them. When I created those original pages, they defaulted to initial caps, although both titles were proper nouns. When I renamed the pages (by moving them, although I'm not sure that was the correct action) and then tested searching for them, the titles would show up with a "Redirected from [original title]" -- e.g., typing "frank bennett" in the search box would bring up the page on Frank Bennett I created, with "Redirected from Frank bennett" under the title."
Frankly (no pun intended) the redirect bothered me, even if just aesthetically; it seemed unnecessary, as the Wikipedia search engine seems to be case-insensitive anyway (e.g., a search for "thomas hobbes" brings up the page on Thomas Hobbes). I understand redirects like "Theologian -> Theology," but I haven't found any other instances that are based on capitalization alone.
For future reference, then, is there a way to rename a page that doesn't involve all of this? Thanks. Inarcadiaego 01:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Answered my own questions. Thanks for your comments. Inarcadiaego 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DRV Process
Hi,
My own method is simply to read the debate first (usually long before I close it), and ensure that each side has an argument of merit. If that is so, then I do close by the numbers; in the case where one side's argument is specious, I do a more thorough investigation of the status of each commenter, to look for disqualifiable votes. Arguments of merit can include the introduction of new evidence, as you know, which occasionally gives the impression we're "re-arguing AfD", even when it isn't really so.
The reason I don't object to DRV is that, normally, it only serves as a forum to discuss "whether debate should begin again." Under such circumstances, a simple majoritarian system is reasonable and expedient. I make DRV closures as soon as permitted under the rules because I realize the forum is mostly a through-stop, a place of transition, and not a final decision-maker. Of course, DRV is a final decision-maker for the dismissal of superfluous pleadings, and I'm sure you've noticed the many of these. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Notice, by the way, pursuant to rules and your concern, I've pretty much stopped commenting on active DRVs (with a few exceptions), so that I can close them cleanly. :) Xoloz 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Boldness
Hi,
As usual Martin, I can't disagree with you; there is an argument to be made that the whole question was outside DRV jurisdiction. One factor you may not have noticed, though, is that the DRV had been previously closed (by Drini) and reopened (by Rossami.) I took that reopening (endorsed at DRV talk) to be an indication that a decision needed to be made. If someone had to render a decision here, and it was going to generate this much animus, I suppose it is just as well that I bore the blow: I am not faint-of-heart. It is probably true that I reacted a tad bit defensively to the resulting storm. I don't think the warnings were out-of-hand, though: the way to resolve these matters is through discussion, not revert first, talk later. I actually had a productive discussion with Cyde in the midst of the insults flying around me, and it would have been very nice if that might have been had in the beginning. In any event, the redirects aren't (and never really were) of great consequence. The zeal with which their adversaries have advanced the cause against them does have me a bit depressed, but no matter. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NatWest Three
Thanks for the swift formatting work you've done on the NatWest Three, especially the conversion of my awkward refs to cites. If there some tool you use to do this or is it just hard work? --Michael C. Price talk 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cross-namespace redirects
You are receiving this message because you previously voiced your opinion on a Redirects for deletion of a cross-namespace redirect that was originally deleted but then went to Deletion review and was then relisted at RFD. This is a courtesy notice so you are aware that the issue is being discussed again and is not an endorsement of any position. --Cyde↔Weys 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Okay, I looked over the situation as best I could in half an hour or so, and I think it makes sense in context: The article (and sundry other redirects I created) was/were deleted due to cross-namespace references, correct? I'll be sure to be more careful in the future, and the issue makes sense to me now that I'm looking at it more broadly. Sdr 02:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ToP Dab
If you find support in the Dab documentation for a ToP Dab on Dee L. Brown, pls let me know. (For the sake of fixing my understand, or fixing the documentation.) My argument is that people who want Dee L. Brown will go to Dee Brown but not (to any extent worth the clutter) the reverse. Thus Dee Brown must be a Dab or have a ToP Dab, but Dee L. Brown may have one only it if is to help reach other people named "Dee L. Brown" (including e.g. Dee Lamont Brown).
--Jerzy•t 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ok, I am sorry... if you find anyothers let me know.
The title. Sorry about that. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I apologize for my blunder. I appreciate you correcting me :) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism and warnings
Hi - I saw your recent comments at Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings poll.
How would you respond to Calton (talk · contribs · block log) and his behaviour on 3 August. Have a look at the history of his talk page. He is a useful vandal fighter but abusive to those who don't see quite his shade of black and he removed warnings which in my view were well deserved. Is he a vandal? Because this is a personal example, I don't think it particularly fair to take to the poll for debate. But then having been told to get bent and remove complete bullshit, by a troll and his enabler in user summaries plus his contributions to my talk page (that I have not refactored), I might yet take it there - I don't think I owe him anything.
Calton was warned on 3 August for such gems as vandalized nothing, you reading-impaired Perry Mason-wannabe, and your sudden shock SHOCK over POV-pushing would be hysteriically laughable if it didn't cause so many problems. [1] For a request from me immediately following the above edit to Please stay civil [2] I was abused for being a troll enabler ... So, was he right to remove the warning? - was it vandalism if removed by a prominent vandal fighter? Vandal fighters are not one bit comfortable with being called vandals, which is why I think perhaps we need to find a more neutral definition - for example, just removing warnings given in good faith relating to specific edits is not allowed. (I did eventually block him and he did in fact in my view cool down as a result.)
This is a similar message to one I left User Viridae. As above, not sure it is appropriate to take one user's behaviour into such a public forum as the poll and associated discussion pages. However, my experience with this user certainly influences my thinking - hence since you are involved in the debate my bringing it to you here. Regards--Arktos talk 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Timing error
- Thanks, Martin.Rich Farmbrough 23:57 25 August 2006 (GMT).
