User talk:Mkdw/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Portal:Current events/Canada

I'll look at it. I'd like to ask you to look at Portal:China too, especially its FPC :P

-----

Thank you for the help on the article. I have a random question? How did you make the quotation marks on your userpage? Can you please tell me the wikihtml to it? Orthodoxy 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

RfD on a couple of yours

Two of your "Vancouverite" redirects are up for deletion at WP:RFD. Note that this is only for the redirects, not for the essay itself. —Dgiest c 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bio

I removed the director statuses from all pages to reflect the showcase article page. Anyone should be able to maintain the portal. If there aren't any suggestions, the first to come gets to pick. — Selmo (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Drawcia

That's not what the AfD is for. It's for when you want the content deleted, not for when you want it merged. The content is already merged, and no one has explained why the character needs an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. AfD is for discussing DELETING the article only. Also, let me ask you - why does it need an article? What makes Drawcia notable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry about that, reverted one revision too far! Bobo. 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Example.ogg

I'm confused. Does that Media:Example.ogg actually belong on the Urdu page? I was under the impression that that Example file was simply that, a default example of an OGG file, and not belonging necessarily to any article. Please help as if this is actually a usable file for Wikipedia articles I will delete it off my vandalism-catcher. Bobo. 05:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I do not understand the reasoning behind reveritng my edit [1] without any reason explaining why. Hbdragon88 05:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I see on that page is the prohiting of fair use images (Images on user pages). Given that Sanger is a public figure and has not minded an image of himself (see this edit where he edited the caption of but did not remove a now-deleted fair use image), I do not think that the usual privacy concerns would apply. Hbdragon88 05:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I still don't see any harm in adding it to his user profile, but whatever, I'll drop the issue and perhaps email Sanger himself to add it. Hbdragon88 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wha?

Did you think my edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month was vandalism? Did I just update the project incorrectly? It is my first time... -- Scientizzle 05:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind--you've reverted it back. Thanks! Have a nice day.. -- Scientizzle 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism on my userpage

Thanks for that. That's quite seriously the fastest vandalism-zapping I've ever seen, using tools notwithstanding! Keep up the good work. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

revert?

Hi, the User LSWSjr is a friend of mine in RL. I was demonstrating to him the use of userboxes, as I mentioned in his talk page. WookMuff 07:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the userbox, especially since it incorporates homosexuality of that user, it is best that you respect Wikipedia:user page and allow that user to add it himself. If you wish to demostrate userboxes you may do so on your own userpage or in a Wikipedia:sandbox. Mkdwtalk 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it really just means a love of the character of Hans Moleman from the simpsons, "Gay for moleman" being a quote by Lisa Simpson from said same. Do you think the show is really implying that Bart Simpson is homosexual? WookMuff 07:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I know the man in rl. I am not going to revert it back, but I think you are being ignorant. You see lots of vandalism in a day, you revert said vandalism, good for you. But you seem to get a lot of complaints, and I wonder how many of them are unjustified and how many due to your apparently high handed reverting of pages without regard to circumstance. WookMuff 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars reverts

Is there a certain reason you reverted those redirects? The list page can easily describe them. Wikipedia doesn't need articles for each and every character: that's why the list of characters page exists. Also: Wikipedia isn't a video game guide, it doesn't need all these character articles (many of which probably won't and can't be expanded much). RobJ1981 07:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my user page

It's funny to watch him in action via the history file. He made two fresh entries near the top, then went to the bottom and saw he was busted from the day before. --CliffC 13:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Adopt-a-User Program

Good afternoon (GMT time); I've been browsing the Wikipedians requesting adoption category, and your name caught my eye. I'd be honoured to adopt you under the adopt-a-user program.

Please do have a look at my contributions, my user page and the Classroom that my other adoptees use and where I post some useful tips, lessons and where they ask their questions.

If you think you'd get along with me, just drop me a message at my talk page! If not, don't hesitate to drop by anyway, if you've got any questions or just want a chat.

Hope to hear from you soon!

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 14:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

odd userspace deletion candidates

Why do User:Mkdw/Header and User:Mkdw/sandbox6 appear in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? I haven't got the faintest, any idea? Femto 12:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Defcon

Undeleted! That's what I get for not checking 'what links here' with my own userspace stuff :) And speaking of userspace stuff, you gave my delete button a work-out yesterday... :) – riana_dzasta 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Portal Quote section

I added a quote here, and after I looked at its history, I saw that it hadn't been changed since January It saws that you are director. Since the page is so empty and unused, should I just add it into the actual quote list anyway Canadianshoper 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove that link?

Moved to Talk:Matt Sanchez. Mkdwtalk 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, I've posted a comment on the deletion proposal, for the record I think hes notable enough so that he should be kept, but feel free to comment back on what I posted. Also, yes I can imagine that you do get a lot of vandals on Wikipedia. However if you had read either the article or the talk page (neither of which are very long) you would see that the discussion of his prostitution had already been brought up and accepted by the two main authors of the page, so it was more than a little bit careless of you to revert my edits as if it were vandalism without even bothering to read the context. -ThongWearer 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Checking the talk page of every article that has potential vandalism would make the process nearly impossible when you start looking at the length of talk pages, archives, and number of incoming edits. As far as the article itself, nothing in it would justify the legitimacy of the added paragraph as the first topic talked about his military career and the second about his work in pornography. Being a pornstar does not mean they have to automatically be a prostitute. Reference, reference, reference. =) I also wouldn't make assumptions about what I did and did not read. Mkdwtalk 08:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Courier article on WikiProject Vancouver

Greetings,

My name is Chris LaVigne. I'm a freelance journalist working on a story for the Vancouver Courier on the WikiProject Vancouver.

I want to talk to contributors, and was hoping you'd be able to meet some time next week for a chat. Maybe half an hour or less. Email me back if you're interested: lavigne.chris@gmail.com. We can meet whenever and wherever is convenient for you.

I want to get a fair and accurate picture of what being a Wikipedian is like so I hope you'll take a few minutes to talk.

Cheers Arrr matey 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Catch up

Good evening (GMT time); I'm quite a laid-back adopter, and I like to, mostly, leave my charges to their own thing, unless they specifically ask me a question.

However, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that the classroom is still fully active - my other adoptee has been asking questions as well as making use of the current lesson, which provides some wisdom on disputes, and how to avoid/deal with them.

Please don't hesitate to ask a question at the classroom (use the link at the top) if need be, and otherwise happy editing!

Kind regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox migration

Just a reminder to actually move the page to your userspace to preserve the page history rather than copy-pasting. —METS501 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mets501. I'll remember next time. Mkdwtalk 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting angry

Okay, Mkdw, I'm getting a bit angry with what you're doing to the month pages, while I don't agree with the first threat, I accepted and changed the Portal:Current Events section to Events because that shouldn't be on a mainspace page andit looks better that way. But you reverted it, calling it vandalism, and posted another insulting message on my talk page. I can fight back if you keep it up. User:Kitia 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try and remain civil. I suggest you read WP:NOT and WP:OWN. The Portal:Current events month by month inclusion has been transcluded on the page since the beginning of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is not up to you to accept or reject the contributions of others. The messages I posted on your talk page are standard warnings to which both were justified. You blanked useful information from the first edit, and the second you changed the heading which in the history of your recent edits, is also removing useful information. Also, all the 2007 months have been set to that standard. I've spent the last month greatly improving these articles from simple transclusions of the events from the Portal:Current events to include more information such as the length of the month, when it starts and ends, as well as other international holidays. I will let your threat of action pass as its a breach of WP:CIVIL. If you are unhappy with my changes, you can bring them up on any one of the talk pages. Mkdwtalk 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Battle of Nasiriyah

My last edit was because I am an American soldier, and I am slightly offended at the inclusion of a picture of a dead American soldier in the article. I am sure you can at least understand where my distaste for seeing a comrade in arms lying dead on the ground comes from. Thanks The following unsigned comment was left by 208.0.108.141

If you wish to experiment with Wikipedia then please use a Wikipedia:sandbox, otherwise wiping articles is considered vandalism. If you take issue with something on Wikipedia, bring it up in its talk page. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 08:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject England

Hello! You have probably noticed that WikiProject England has been inactive recently and I and other members are working on making it active again and getting more members to join. I am kindly asking for your help tagging articles for class and importance using {{WPE}}, their are literally thousands of articles at Category:England and all of its sub-categories which urgently need tagging ad your help is needed! For more information about theses templates please see the Project Page and I hope you are enjoying being a member!! Tellyaddict 21:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi Mkdw,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2010 in Canada

An editor has nominated 2010 in Canada, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 in Canada and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

Just a reminder that minor edits are just that - minor. Responding to arguments I've raised in an AfD isn't a minor edit. I imagine you've probably got the settings set to mark everything as minor by default. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver page

Hello; I'm not a regular Wiki editor, but a Vancouver resident who deals regularly with demographics for work. When I was reading the "Economy" section, I found a particular sentence to be slightly misleading: that people in Vancouver are "generally affluent". Although I understand that perception, StatsCan says otherwise! There are definitely slightly more affluent folks than in other cities (18% of population), but also more impoverished folks, and it drags the median down. (Which, given cost of living, can be problematic.) Anyway, I made a note in the Talk page, and a regular user suggested I add the reference to StatsCan's easily available statistics. I think that you reverted it, although I could be wrong. I can't tell - not doing this a lot - whether it was an edit that just got caught in the crossfire, or whether you meant to revert that particular addition. If you did mean to edit it away, I'd ask you to follow the link I provided: it's not factually true that Vancouverites are generally affluent. There are more extremes in both directions. (This is important info for anyone wanting to do business in Vancouver!) I'm happy to hear criticism about the style and have that part changed, but I think it's problematic to make an undefined claim like "generally affluent", without saying what that metric intends to convey, nor by showing it demographically. Thanks!


Fred Herzog

Hi,

my main concern is that we need a page somewhere to link to Herzog, so that it isn't an orphan... if you can think of a more suitable page, please suggest one. sorry about the language... I didn't see the talk item. Peregrine981 21:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note re: Vancouver articles

Mkdw: re: "Please discuss all changes you wish to implement into a featured article as per the message on the top of the article." The message doesn't state that - it says to consider adding contributions to daughter articles. Beyond that, however, there is no requirement that changes must be discussed just because the article has been featured. In fact, the header on the talk page says "If you can update or improve it, please do" - along with a link to "Be bold". I understand your attachment to the Vancouver articles, given the work you've put into them. You might wish, though, to use a bit more caution in how you express this passion to other editors. Some of your comments to Peregrine981 could be interpreted as feelings of "ownership" over the Vancouver project. (Please don't take this the wrong way - it's meant as a friendly note of caution from a fellow editor who respects the work you do.) --Ckatzchatspy 09:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you were able to get my intent - it's always a worry with text messages as to how they will be received. (Much easier when communicating verbally, as the other party can hear the tone etc.) As to the revert, I agree that the other party's "vandalism" comment was too strong a term, so I'm glad to see that he/she seems to have apologized. Again, not appropriate given your actions and your history. Nice work, by the way, in cleaning up and maintaining the portal. --Ckatzchatspy 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
As to your other question, thanks for asking. Yes, I've been considering making the "leap" to administrator status. A little daunting, of course, so I was strongly considering doing an editor review first to test the waters. Any advice? --Ckatzchatspy 09:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

iTunes Userboxes

Hope you don't mind that I edited your iTunes userboxes. Sorry that I acted before I ask.Iron2000 12:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

UBX

Yeah, I've been meaning to fix them for a while, but I've been far too lazy :) By the way, you do a lot of good work around here, you're active, you're polite and you're communicative - are you thinking about adminship anytime soon? I'd be glad to nominate you. – Riana ऋ 01:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good. Look forward to nominating ya :) Cheers, – Riana ऋ 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:InStudio.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:InStudio.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Its original purpose has long since passed and I had forgotten about it. Mkdwtalk 08:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:72.9.210.246

With all due respect Chris, IP 72.9.210.246 on May 10 (today) and in the last 24 hours has 16 edits, all which are identified as vandalism. Every tracked edit by this IP which is only in the month of May can be identified as vandalism. It's very obviously not a shared IP. In fact this one user is on the verge of violation of the WP:3RR for the article of Fannie Lou Hamer for persistent wiping / vandalism and has been warned many times. Are there no consequences for vandalism after multiple warnings? Having been on Wikipedia a long time fighting vandalism, I know that not to be true. I trust you'll do the right thing. Mkdwtalk 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see here, they stopped at 1920. WP:AIV is not for punitive blocks or WP:3RR blocks. Please read Wikipedias blocking policy, it explains alot. WP:AIV is for immediate vandalism occuring now after appropriate warnings. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think its a fool's hope that if you think this IP won't vandalize Wikipedia with in the next 24 hours. Many cases need to be treated like a parent-child relationship where if no boundaries are set, the child will see there are no consequences and continue on at the time, frustration, and painstaking watch of others. If not handled under WP:AIV, would it be too much to ask to point the report in the right direction or realize that its situation any adminstrator could handle quickly than as quoted by famous politician "maybe we'll deal with it tomorrow and let somebody else worry about it". I hope you can understand my frustration in the matter as well as the person above, its hard trying to contribute to the community and when regular users like myself are powerless in a situation, we need help. We come to you asking for that, and when you remove it, it's basically saying, nope not a problem, this user hasn't vandalized in the last 5 hours of 48 hours of continuous vandalism with out consequence. Mkdwtalk 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLOCK. Blocking is not punitiive. That is exactly what I am saying. I wont block you for something you did in the past. I will only block you for what you are doing now. If you have an issue with it, try to get the policy changes or take it up at the AIV talk page. I respect your opinions, however I choose to coniinue with my current interpretation of policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Chris, WP:BLOCK does state that blocking is not punitive, but at the same time my incident fell under several sections of the policy, especially persistent vandalism to which is the stated mandate of WP:AIV. Also for a user who continuously vandalizes the encyclopedia, would blocking him be also protective for a time period? Also, you cannot remove someone's privledges with out it being punitive in some ways, that is what defines the power behind blocking someone. I'm no longer asking you from an WP:AIV perspective, but as an administrator on the English Wikipedia whose mandate may be more broad. Mkdwtalk 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hollywood North Movie.jpg

Hello, Mkdw. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Hollywood North Movie.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Mkdw/sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada

Hi. Wow. Thanks for your kind words. Adminship? The head swells. No, I've never considered myself qualified. Right now, its all I can do to keep up with my studies. But thanks for thinking of me. Victoriagirl 04:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Flash Mob

Why did you remove my entry on the "Flash Mob" page? I feel it is appropriate and beneficial to add a list for groups involved with organizing flash mobs. Unless you have a very good reason why it should not be there (i.e. it violates wiki rules), please leave it alone. Thanks The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pwscottiv

Your contribution to the article Flash mob fails several of Wikipedia's guidelines. Please read WP:NOT, WP:Notability, WP:WEB and WP:ADVERT. Specially its notability to the encyclopedic article and the fact that there have been hundreds of other much larger and more media covered events such as the Flash Mobs that have been supressed by police etc. Also Wikipedia is not a listing for other companies or groups that fail notability guidelines or are unencyclopedic. Furthermore it is not a listing for other media content and you may want to look into the Wikipedia Commons. I will go policy by policy, point by point, but further infractions will be reverted on site as blatant vandalism. Mkdwtalk 10:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: article

Still reading it. Skimmed it for a second... damn reporter said "Anaheim MIGHTY Ducks"... :P -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me so far... A few sticking points and facts that I wouldn't normally want to admit to (ie. my first edits being on the Lindsay Lohan article), but s'alright... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Reporters will always try and sell something people can relate to, i.e. Lindsey Lohan. Knowing the past articles the Courier has written about Wikipedia, I thought this was rather a different and more positive direction in oppinion of the site. Mkdwtalk 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I remember reading past Courier articles that bashed the Wiki. The reporter's freelance (not an official Courier reporter), but I actually did ask him about the nature of the article before starting the interview, to make sure it's "okay." -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Great.

Yeah, thanks for moving USA PATRIOT Act/History. I just lost an amazing amount of work. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No probs. I'm going to move to User:Ta bu shi da yu/USA PATRIOT Act/History (as I am the sole editor) then I'll make a copy of that article to History of the USA PATRIOT Act. Then I'll stop working on that article and work on the one in my user page, which you aren't allowed to touch. Given that I'm pretty much the only person who works on articles about this topic, I hope you'll understand my frustration with this sort of response. Happy? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What the hell? Are you saying that because I created a useful article that is soon to be merged into USA PATRIOT Act, that I'm vandalising? That does it. I'm taking this to WP:AN. Another point: as you can clearly see, that article is in progress. Where is it not neutral, where does it need to be wikified (it's a subpage for goodness sake!)? And violation of WP:OR?!? How?!? I think that you are floating very close to violation of WP:POINT. I'd strongly advise you to cease and desist. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No. It's WP:POINT to add those tags to a draft article in progress. You don't add them to articles being actively written by another editor, which is plainly what I'm doing. I've noted your actions on WP:AN/I. One thing I need to do for you, on the other hand, is apologise for my expression of annoyance about your page move: it was tough to see so much work go into the ether, never to return! So sorry about that. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Meh. It's OK. In the time since this all happened, I have travelled home from work and calmed down. Look, I really am sorry about being annoyed with your page move. You're right, I need to have followed WP:ASSUME, so I can only apologise about that. Probably my angry message didn't help matters. I'll note that I'm just as much in the wrong as anyone on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I finally understand the vandal warning now. However, that was an accident, not vandalism. Please be more careful next time: I'm an administrator of long standing (yes, I know that's blowing my own horn, but it's also true), and I have always done the exact opposite of vandalism on this site - I have written about 4 or 5 FAs, and I'm trying to get one of our toughest and most controversial articles up to speed: USA PATRIOT Act.
I am curious though: where is the OR, the POV problems and the wikification issues on that article?
Also something you probably aren't aware of, but when someone is trying to fix a controversial article, they will often (or at least, they used to) make a subpage off that article about the area so that they didn't cause problems on the main article. It also lets people collaborate or focus on one part of the article that needs work. It's a long standing practice (it happened on World War II - ask User:Raul654, the director of WP:FA about this). - Ta bu shi da yu 11:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

how was my edit considered vandalism?? Mentioning 1.8 million twice in two sentences sounds quite bad, so i changed it. The meaning is the same! ie 1.8/7.5 = a quarter! Suicup 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There are 1.84 million articles on the English Wikipedia. There is an estimated 7.5 million articles on Wikipedia. 1.84 x 4 = 7.36 which is not a quarter of the number of articles on Wikipedia. Introducing a factually inaccurate and relative fraction in place of a set value is in my opinion a weaker encyclopedic argument. Not only is the fraction incorrect, but it relies on a constant to maintain a set ratio: the English Wikipedia must grow proportionately to that of Wikipedia. A true value is factually accurate and can be changed accordingly with out relying on a ratio. It solely relies on a single point value: the article count for the English Wikipedia regardless of all Wikipedia articles. Mkdwtalk 11:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heya

I'd like to say that I appreciate that you didn't take our previous run-in to heart and don't view me a monster :-) Thank you for your kind and reasonable comment on Talk:Wikipedia. However, it appears that Ned Scott is still reverting. Could you make another comment on this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OR on the wikipedia entry

Hi, regarding the edit which you reverted today as OR on the wikipedia page. The vast majority of what you reverted was a paraphrase of an article in the times higher, and thus can not be OR becuase it is published elsewhere. I did add a small amount of editorial comment to explain that the problem is not with wikipeida editors but with those who use wikipedia as a resource for accademic research.Cadmium

TES is a notable source to cite, but unless you can provide an accurate issue number and volume number, publication number, or the best of all a URL then it cannot be referenced easily. Also the below quote had several NPOV issues and statements that read like an essay, which is a lot about WP:OR. This article is highly controversal, its one of the permanently locked articles and people seem to continuously fight over small details. So large arguments would be: "In many ways Wikipedia is a brave social experiment..." - When did she say it, how much credibility does she have other than being a journalist writing for a paper, is it relevent to the article by supporting a factual statement, and most of all its a very obvious opinion. It is mentioned above that academia has looked at Wikipedia both positively and negatively for its faults in accuracy but wide contributor base from many countries. "misued by some lazy students" and "generation of intellectually sluggish persons" which are again simply opinions and could be easily argued the other way. The main jist of it is that it offers an opinion of someone else of which Encyclopedias are not supposed to do unless that is what the article is about, there was notable controvesy about what they said (and then the article is about its role in Wikipedia), as well as giving an unbiased case of the facts which ultimately allows readers to make a decision on their own. Unless you can find a way to neatly tie it in with the above paragraph, remove the quotes or explain how they're prominent in Wikipedia's removal in schools, then perhaps Chloe's Wikipedia is the place for the paragraph. Hope you understand. Let me know if you want any help, I'd be glad to. Mkdwtalk 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I have rewritten the edit to make it more clear. I have added a few direct quotes of the experts who have made the comments about it. I think that if wikipedia is to be viewed in a serious manner then it should use references which are on paper rather than only web based references. I have provided all the details required for a person to find the article in the THES in case they wish to read it. I think that the new edit (which lacks editorial commentry) contains no OR and is a NPOV report of the views expressed in the Times Higher. The Times Higher is the weekly newspaper which serves the UK accademic community and it is where matters important to the university sector are considered. For instance the tale of Frank Ellis from Leeds is documented in the THES, he is an accademic who stirred up a hornet's nest when he "claimed black people were intellectually inferior to whites" I think that this case has largly escaped the attention of the majority of newspapers in the UK. While the normal newspapers have mentioned the case the THES are contained lots of letters which have discussed the rights and wrongs or the case, in a nutshell the debate was one of "freedom of speach" vs. the very real need to maintain good relationships between the different groups present in university (and general) life. So I think that the THES is more important and trustworthy when considering matters in university life than a normal newspaper.Cadmium

Thanks for the note

Glad to meet a fellow editor with an eye for style! Cyrusc 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead on Vancouver article

Hi - You reverted my edits to the lead on Vancouver. I had cleaned up the format errors and re-inserted the deletions in more appropriate sections...or at least I thought I had. Must not have saved the preview or something. So thanks for cleaning up my mess. I may revisit the article when I have time. The lead could be better written (more like Jerusalem). And I do wonder how many times we should mention and link to George Vancouver in one article. Do you think I should mention this on the Talk page first? Canuckle 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Canuckle, I know you're a legitimate editor so the changes you made I knew must have been an error. A rewrite of the Introduction to the article is definitely needed but doing so should probably be a large group collaborative effort to avoid contest. Your idea of bringing up ways to improve the introduction on the talk page is a great idea. If you take it on I'd be glad to help out. Mkdwtalk 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Markus Naslund Picture

The picture on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Naslund says the photograph is by Matt Howe. I know for a fact that he is not the person who took the photograph nor the copyright owner. Please remove the incorrect photo credit.

Unless you can provide proof either by providing either a hardcopy or a credible online reference where the photograph is hosted, copyrighted, and acredited to support your claim, no changes will be made to the acreditation of the photograph. The original creditation must remain. Mkdwtalk 23:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The image is hosted on Getty Image's website. Pardon the long url, it clearly shows the picture and the photographers name and copyright holder. Editorial Gettyimages
Thank you, the appropriate changes have been made. Mkdwtalk 08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

-wise saying

does any one think one can really lie to oneself?

 by Offiong'

we must always remember that 'he who knows not but know that he knows not is simple teach him' but, he who knows not and knows not tha he knows not is a fool' shun him. (socratice)

to know the road ahead of you, ask those who are coming back' --- Offiong

Vancouver Portal

Just to inform you, I am trying to update the portal and try to keep it featured. However, my computer is not really cooperating. Could you (or anyone) please help?--Canadianshoper 05:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I AM NOT A VANDALISMER

I am not strictly a vandalist, I have "vandalised" a few pages, but I've also contributed some good facts, such as my contribution to the page on the series "Kablam" and I have added a few notable (truthful, also) facts to the Mac and Me page that mostly got deleted. I only vandalised a few times to see how long it would stay. I apologize --Pixiesfan37 06:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Any form of vandalism regardless of your other contributions (which are few) is still vandalism. If you persist to vandalize you will be blocked from using Wikipedia. Mkdwtalk 10:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question from WoWWiki

Have you recently contributed to WoWWiki under the alias Invision? See [2]. Some other related pages have been deleted upon request of the author, but he linked to you as his wikipedia alias. I fear we had someone impersonating you. Thanks! Kirkburn 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what a odd situation. I do not have a registered account on WoW Wiki and Invision is definitely not an account belonging to me. I was not able to find a link to my userpage though. Are you sure he linked to my Wikipedia Userpage? Mkdwtalk 02:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
He linked you on his (since deleted) user page, and he also used a bunch of your user and user talk templates. Thanks for your response :) Kirkburn 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re skytrain FA

Yes, it indeed came through. I'm taking a break from editing from now (on holidays). Dunno what I'll do from there. — Selmo (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert

What exactly is "not constructive" about the edit? Using an automated tool to make a change based on personal opinion is inappropriate as it does not give a reason in the edit summary. Salathi 09:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries define the action done. It is not a method of discussion. The discussion pages such as this one and Talk:Wikipedia are specifically designed for that. Unless you wish to discuss your changes and the wiping of sections then your changes will continue to be reverted on site. Mkdwtalk 09:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: I am moving this discussion to Talk:Wikipedia

University of Saskatchewan

Noticed you were a member of Wikiproject Canada - Education.... Celebrate the Centennial University of Saskatchewan Anniversary in the year 2007. Would you please go to Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and vote for this University of Saskatchewan article!!! Tell any and all other editors / U of S students you know who wiki to vote also please!!! Please help Celebrate the Anniversary of the U of S University of Saskatchewan Academics Talk Please help to bring the article to feature status !!!SriMesh | talk 02:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:MNasland.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MNasland.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  08:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I only listed this image at WP:PUI because of concerns by another editor expressed at WP:SCV. I take no position one way or the other. -- But|seriously|folks  08:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has discovered that this is a Getty Images photo. Do you have authorization from the copyright holder or is it improperly tagged? Please advise. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  17:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

My sincere apologies! That was my stupid mistake for erasing Harry Potter. No hard feelings?

Duncan McAlister 19:52 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you at least give a reason?

I was just trying to help, and you reverted me without any reason at all. Please could you tell me the reason? TheBlazikenMaster 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The piece of information you added, "It has about a day remaining" is not needed in the article. The fact that the length of the month, when it started, and where it ends gives any reader who knows the current date enough information to know how many more days are left in the month. Your information was redundant and could only have been useful on the current date and would require someone else to come along and fix the article. Also the way it was written provides no useful encyclopedic information to the article and does not conform to the rest of the month articles.
Wikipedia has several policies about notable content, encyclopedic content, what not to include in articles, and in this case, information that does not need to be updated in a daily manor articles in the main namespace. I hope this helps. Mkdwtalk 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for answering, really appreciated. TheBlazikenMaster 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:MNasland.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MNasland.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  17:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slave whipping blasphemy

I would strongly suggest discussing votes with which you have a problem with the caster first, before removing them and passing judgment on the caster. It's the civil thing to do. Thank you. Sidatio 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Most incidents labelled as vandalism do not require the consultation of that person when reverting their edits. If you want your comments to be taken seriously and left alone, then keep to something we can use. If you want to joke about something, I suggest the Uncyclopedia. AfD's have a very simple method of being used: Comment, Speedy Delete, Delete, Keep, Strong Keep or Delete. If someone leaves their vote as "Kill all with massive amounts of fire" that is vandalism, even if its a joke. "I am more notable than these guys. There's nothing out there for any of the above-mentioned articles" does not provide any means to a legitimate vote. AfD's are tasks that need to be done and making them complicated with votes we cannot consider does not help. If you're going to take the fact that I removed your comment so seriously, and then remove my comment, put a new one back, restore my comment, leave a complaint here, and post a message on my talk page -- then you should reconsider your own comments if you want to be taken seriously. Sarcasm and jokes are fine, but I have to say in this case there was almost no distinction between a whimsical joke in the middle of a vote and the most common vandalism we see here at AfD's. (If you're not serious and want to be taken seriously as a contributor to Wikipedia, then help us out and be serious). Thanks for your time. Mkdwtalk 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with the guidelines used for AfDs, thank you. Some people aren't as rigid in their accusations of vandalism, and most of the editors I know are willing to give the benefit of a doubt and at least check the contributions of an individual before labeling them a vandal. But hey, we're all different. Personally, I think there's a little room in Wikipedia for a bit of humor every now and again, but I'd be dense to think I can do so in the presence of everyone. I will be more resolute to be more formal in any future dealings I have with you, and you have my deepest and most sincere apologies for offending your sensibilities. :-) Sidatio 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Eiffel Tower

As a recent contributor to this article, you may be interested in commenting at the discussion on deleting the article DGG (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack Bauer Family Tree

Hey, saw your edit about 'Carol' and just thought I'd let you know I've added her back in since she is mentioned in Day 2. Jack tells Kim to go and stay with her so that she will be safe from the bomb, though we never meet Carol or see anyone speaking to her, explaining why she isn't listed on IMDb. asyndeton 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, Jack refers to her as 'Aunt Carol' and the way he talks about her suggests that she is Teri's sister. I've looked at the family tree and I do not see your issue with it; it seems completely correct to me. asyndeton 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver

Mkdw I don't understand why you would revert my edit. All the cited sources are either directly to Mercer HR or Economist IU, or indirect references to the same companies. If you follow the links down, in fact you will come to "buy this report" sooner or later - so at the first instance, indeed they are both commercial entities making for-profit statements - the "headline" findings are public knowledge but the actual basis of the reports has to be purchased. I would interpret that as "business-oriented".

At the second instance, upon reading the text of the cited references, both Mercer and EIU are actually quite clear that the surveys are concerned with liveability for expatriates, that is, employees of a foreign company looking at the prospect of being posted to a city -somewhere- in the world. This seems clearly oriented towards business. The reports are actually somewhat oriented towards "risk", as in, if I go to work there, will I get shot in the street?

I opened a topic on the "Vancouver" talk page: "Most Liveable City" and discussed before my change. Could you provide some input there? Franamax 10:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Junior Varsity

I got really confused when you tagged this article for speedy, since they meet criteria 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11 of WP:MUSIC... Chubbles 05:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry at the time a google test wasn't very conclusive as most of the top search results were for Varsity sports teams. With the newly added references, I see that now. Good faith mistake. =) Mkdwtalk 02:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/News Browser

I've replied to your message on my talk page.-gadfium 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to start maintaining Portal:Current events/Oceania since you do not believe it should be marked as historical. A good start would be to copy items from the history of the ITN panes of the Oceania, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia and New Zealand portals, and to create archives for each month since January.-gadfium 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re. User talk:64.5.147.100

Hello. I blocked this IP back in January. There's thousands of IPs producing as much vandalism as this one. They're often IPs originating from schools whose kids are too bored to do something but vandalize Wikipedia. Still, IPs are almost never to be blocked indefinitely. Vandalism from this one is promptly reverted. It may be blocked for longer and longer periods of time, but an indef block is not necessary. Regards, Húsönd 03:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well actually you blocked them yesterday on September 17th and since they have vandalised Wikipedia over 20 times, so I just thought... I was under the impression blocking was preventative for protecting Wikipedia, and it is clear this IP continues to vandalism wikipedia on almost an hourly basis. I wasn't refering to an indefinite block, but maybe something longer than 12 hours... Anyway, thanks for your time. Mkdwtalk 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

thank u for that

It will not happen again


xoxoxo Martiey meguriw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.93.127 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Kindly do not tell me that a week celebrating a major healthcare profession is vandalism, while promoting the 4th Annual Santa Barbara Ocean Film Festival is not. I will be restoring the information you decided to delete.24.247.243.88 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)