User talk:MarkGallagher/Archive3

Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2006 Happy New Year --193.55.237.121 00:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings MarkGallagher, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on Image:Williamslim.jpg. If you look at Dr. Carr's talk page, you'll see why I marked it. If he wants to leave his image untagged and have it continually show up on the (automated) untagged image list and subsequently re-marked as no copyright, that suits me fine. It seems as though it would be just as easy to add {{PD-Australia}} or whichever while the {{no copyright notified}} tag is being removed - but it's his prerogative. --wknight94 16:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is that? RxStrangelove pointed the template out to me, saying it was a personal attack. I agreed and deleted it, in accordance with common sense and WP:NPA. Only later did I realize it had been deleted before, but I didn't see a reason to change my mind based on that new information. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-1 18:06

Likewise, color me unaware of said wheel war. I saw it on TFD, looked at it, decided it was stupid, saw all the "speedy delete" votes, and did so. Of course I won't do it again, though perhaps you could have found a more polite way of asking; I find your uninformed and officious sarcasm rather irritating. — Dan | talk 20:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: answered on IRC. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on the Charmed copyvios. You're fast! :) Faster than my old slow thing. :) I feel sort of stupid because I spent a long time slapping the wfy tag on his posts. Didn't realize they were copyvios for...way too long. Oh well. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Thanks for the thought! :) Btw, been an admin for 6 months and I just did my first 3RR block. 2 of them. I feel so special. :) Look at this. One did 6 reverts...the other 5. Yeesh. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When have I ever wheel warred? I can think of a handful of incidents where I countered some admin's action, but I've never done it repeatedly so as to get into an actual wheel war. Please apologize for that accusation, or at least remove it. Everyking 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I wasn't gunning for Snowspinner in particular on WP:ANI. Or even gunning for Snow and not caring that karmafist would also get the 24 hours. I simply think that when admins screw up (and publicly screw up, and continue to do so, and are unrepentant for it) they should suffer the same as the plebs.

I do not at all beleive in giving them more lattitude becasue of their "greater contributions". If anything, they should get a bigger smack because a) they should know better, and b) they should be leading by example.

Did you realise that Snowspinner was already on the 3RR noticeboard before the slew of reversions that got him his half an hour block? OR that he'd been blocked before for 30 minutes for 3RR?

Simple question: if it had been SPUI would he have gotten 30 minutes?

</rant>

brenneman^(t)(c) 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I had ever wheel warred, I can guarantee you I wouldn't be an admin now. The only reason I've been able to keep my adminship is through extremely careful and uncontroversial use of admin abilities. In fact, the ArbCom agrees that I am both a good editor and a good admin. They just think I'm too opinionated on policy issues or something like that. Everyking 04:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you were considered too opinionated on everything.
^_^ brenneman^(t)(c) 06:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I'm not a particularly opinionated person at all. Everyking 07:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, thanks very much for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout and I'll see you on irc... - FrancisTyers 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA, and for your generous comment. I appreciate your confidence. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That I was "looking not so good" and I asked for some diffs, eh? Now it might be worth your time to provide them! (See my user page.) - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuddle, roses are red, violets are blue, all my bases are belong to you! Thanks for nomming me the first time around, you set in motion this wild, wonderful rollercoaster that has culminated in my receipt of the mop and pail. Thank you so very much, and if you see me doing anything you think ill-advised, please do let me know. I will do my very best to be a rock solid admin. Thanks again, Babajobu 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship and particularly for the comment that I'm not only a 'CVU-bod'!, though I could make apologies about edit conflicting you, if I did, I would be lying ;) I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 10:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk's RFA

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 13:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a strange e-mail from a "Mr. Bonus" that mentions you. It sounds like he's trying to contact you. I have forwarded it to your account's e-mail address, and I figured I'd let you know (in case you are like me, checking e-mail much less frequently than talk pages). Hopefully it will mean something to you. Cheers. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:46, Jan. 16, 2006

I was reviewing my old stuff, and I noticed that the article Clark Aldrich, which I had tagged for speedy deletion, had had the tag removed by you. Your comment was 'take to Afd', but the article was not tagged for this. Was this deliberate, based on other knowledge of subject of article? MNewnham 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark,

It sounds fair only if you block Baruqque too. I am trying to put the article into a unbiased form. What I was doing is: I was trying to revert the article into a form that is suggested by a moderator: Jamie. I do not ask you to unblock the article at this point. That might be better actually and give us some time to discuss in the discussion page and get an agreement. Could you please tell me if Baruqque is also blocked? If not why I am punished only?

I wish you also stay around and help with discussing the issue. I was already planning to go for arbitration. If you help me with that process that would be great too. I am relatively new to Wiki...

Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 18:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark,

We already applied for meditation. If you can get into the process, and want to choose to be a moderator, that would be great.

Please see the page for meditation request for further information.

Best, Resid Gulerdem 04:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mark,

I have an important question for you, I cannot solve myself:

I am a Turkish Wikipedia user. The same article (Fethullah Gulen) is disputed in Turkish Wiki too. But unfortunately, the same user User:Barouqqque and an admin User:DbI2010 are acting together against me. The admin is protecting the article repeatedly right after User:Barouqqqe change it as they wish. My comments in the discussion page is not heard or ignored by them. Because ther is no many user contributing the page, there is no much chance to get a concensus on the issue. I would like to ask you what should I do regarding the misuse of admin previlliges by Turkish admin DbI2010. Is there a process to complain about the issue. I do not know who should I talk to...

My important question is about the identity of the users I mentioned above. I have a strong feeling that the usernames Barouqqque and DbI2010 are belong to the same person. While he is disputing with one of the usernames, he is blocking me from contributing the article or protecting it by using his admin previllidges of his other user account. Do you have an access to their IP address and can you please determine if they are in fact the same person? By doing so, they are creating a bias about the article. I do not believe that this is fair and acceptale according to the Wikipedia rules.

It is very important for me and I would appreciate for your comments and guidence.

Best, Resid Gulerdem 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "using our brains" was the idea, you might have also deleted the line from the bottom of literal which links to literalist. :\ -MagnaMopus 03:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering why you removed my deletion notice from Tamestorm, your edit summary wasn't very infomative. The reason why I put it up for a speedy in the first place is because it is a copy of another article with the same content TameStorm Games and it doesn't assert it's notablity at all. Grandwazir 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right so there is no way to speedy delete non-notable companies, they always have to go to AfD? Grandwazir 04:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I learned with Sullivan Learning Academy. I thought it would fit under the A7 criteria. Which if course, since it was late, I didn't even mentioned on the speedy delete tag. Anyway, tnx for fixing my mistake, the article is now up for AFD. Garion96 ^(talk) 12:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space, or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject. In case of a speedily deleted page, they must also determine that it did meet a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place.

After being voted for AFD and decided as Merge and Delete leaving a redirect, it would suggest that Merging the page and Deleting it leaving a redirect would be the correct thing to do. Also, i myself do not 'know' how to delete pages, if i can even do it, hence the speedy delete. Also, what you came off as doing was vandalism, if it was meant in good faith, then fair enough, i apologise. The speedy delete tag is there for a reason however, and that is chasing up the AFD votes. Leyasu 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In open honesty, i didnt realise you were an admin or that you worked on the Speedy Deletions. So apologies for that. The page was vandalised so often by the creator, such as removing tags and claiming it as his own, i hastily assumed that he had deleted the SD under yet another sock puppet. So again, apologies, in that i accused you of vandalism on a way too hastey basis. Also, do you mind providing me with the link on how to do redirects? Leyasu 03:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your archive you have slanderous and inaccurate info in it. Your archive like all other wiki articles cannot have such things in there. I am asking you politely to remove it. You can choose not to, then i will have to talk to an admin. No issue with you. But it is slanderous lies. And that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thank you. Parys

I didn't threaten you at all. I merely said there was an issue that if we couldn't handle as two editors then we would have to add a third person. Contrary to Ms. UCLA i don't throw threats around. (if you haven't notice, all those claims she made, she never gave you a single ounce of proff. Not even a link!) I am a good editor, I just don't like the fact everytime i am googled they find this. Try to understand.Parys 03:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For that (basically raping your archive) I do apologize. You see it's been difficult these last few weeks. (Personal issues) So could you please remove that so we can end that chapter of darkness?Parys 03:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully i won't have to. Parys 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want the date on ACTION written 1977-02-14 ? This is an unusual way of writing the date in australia - the year is almost always last -- Astrokey44|talk 04:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The format just looked really unusual, thats why I changed it. To avoid the month/day problem its best to write the month name rather than the number I have found - I am used to seeing February 14, 1977 or 14 February 1977, but not 1977-02-14. -- Astrokey44|talk 09:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect the page. The anon and Mccready are both writing highly POV language in their edit summaries and as such, they should be discounted and warned not to add POV. IT IS POV to say that because someone is religiously conservative they cannot oppose extremism. Anyone who says that is being highly offensive and if these comments were being made of a person of any other religion or group it would be considered bigotry. Xtra 11:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you uprotected it too quickly. Without some kind of an admin presence there, that place will turn into chaos in a few hours.Constantzeanu 18:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user who has been vandalising the Black Metal article and has made several attacks against editors using its talk page. He has actually been threatening people and telling to die and commit suicide. The thread is [[1]]. Does this user not account for banning? Leyasu 02:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MarkGallagher, for your support of my RfA. I appreciated your comment about my answer to question one and how you perceive me :-). I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 15:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark,

I think it was long enough that the article 'Fethullah Gulen' has been protected. I want to contribute to the article further. I am planning to finish some sections I already started.

I would like you please unprotect the article for edition.

Best, Resid Gulerdem 23:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, why is reverting "rôle" to "role", nonsense? This is an english language encyclopaedia and I'm sure 99.9% of users would expect the word to be spelt role. -- Ian ≡ talk 07:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fault saying typo - sorry to offend - I was too lazy to write something more meaningful I guess. Is this the same as colour v color? If so, I'd argue for the Australian spelling colour and to use non-French spelling of role. On the other hand, a word like café is probably the more accepted spelling in English with cafe being the alternate. Wiktionary says rôle is an alternative spelling of role. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, he has said he does want the image here. Cheers Arniep 13:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark,

I need some help again. User:Victorius is uploading a lot of images that are so obviously copyrighted (he/she even provides the web address). Should I list these on Category:Incomplete license? But these are absolutely clear copyvios. Thanks. -Aabha (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again..I just realized that the user has emailed me, asking about using images. What about those that have already been uploaded? -Aabha (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, While moving Allies(band) to Allies (band), I apparently obliterated an existing article ([2]). I can't find any evidence of this in the page histories, perhaps because I'm not an administrator. Could you please see what's going on? Thanks. NatusRoma 08:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for restoring the comment I was just trying to work out what to restore. --Adam1213 Talk + 11:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the {{db-band}} is appropriate for the page as the band is non-notable according to the criteria given by the speedy deletion template.

Also, the history of the band name is long. The eighties band to which I made reference, is long. They started their career as The Allies but were forced to change it by another band, from California I believe, who already had patented that name. Similarly, there is a band named Allies with a half dozen releases on a major label.

While you may not like the reasons, they are valid. The new band will have to find a new name and someone inadvertently blew away the page for the second band when they were deciding on a place on the wiki for the band.

One thing further. You don't remove, speedy deletion stubs just because you don't like the reasons. You debate it and an administrator removes it or the page. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing a change to the image use policy to forbid user-created watermarked images. Please voice an opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#User-created_images -Thanks -Nv8200p talk 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping clear the questions up --Adam1213 Talk + 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My bad. Thanks for fixing that. Ben Aveling 06:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. Some of us Americans have a clue about other countries. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can i remove my comments about the earlier Mandy Moore incident? I think it would be best if i did. Parys 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I'm kind of new here (a couple weeks) and I thought I was catching on. But I don't understand your reasoning for taking the Speedy off the DekiD article. Sorry if I was hasty in marking it, but I thought I had checked it out. Can you help me out so I don't make the same mistake twice?
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

Template:SocEur has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:SocEur. Thank you. I know its been through tfd once, but there are serious problems with the images.--nixie 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the encouragement. As far as speedy deletes, which are you talking about? For the last few days, I haven't marked any for speedy that had a discography. (I had marked a few with discographies before that but stopped when I got yelled at). Today, someone came in behind a few of my Afd's and tagged them speedy. The problem is there used to be a note that said not clearly meeting WP:BAND was grounds for speedy - but that note mysteriously disappeared. I've been chastised for marking speedy and I've been chastised for not marking speedy. Can't seem to please everyone... It also doesn't help that admins are so inconsistent in their actions regarding speedies. Ends up making this task a trial by fire. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Bran Barr, Agiel (band) and Devil in the Kitchen were all tagged Afd by me and tagged speedy by someone else. I see you reversed the speedies on two of those. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm mixing my points (while watching TV) so I sound like I'm rambling... Anyway, part of the confsuion is that CSD A7 says the article doesn't "establish the notability of the subject". Then, WP:BAND is what defines notability of bands. Applying a little transitive relation and CSD A7 says that the article must meet WP:BAND. Clearly, that logic isn't flying here but it's certainly easy to read the guidelines that way. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, so there's another point of confusion. WP:CSD says:

{{db-bio}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}} : CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons which does not establish the notability of the subject. You can put {{subst:nn-warn|page name}} -- ~~~~ on the user's talk page.

Maybe someone needs to fix that so it matches the template. I'm reading one, you're reading the other.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't vandalize and don't things maliciously. Whatever you say. Parys 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already answered you're question. Are you looking for a certain answer?Parys 04:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok... you made your point, however you didn't really remove everything i asked. You are really are making a bug deal about this. You can't have an article that basically talks trash about people anyway. Though you never warned that user who apparently came just to raise hell. I was called a pedophile, a hoaxer, and everything under the sun. However you never advise that user that that was inappropriate. Parys 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You are over cooking the grits... And when they are over cooked then they are no good. You have made you point, you have made it loud and clear. I have agreed and ceased the actions that are ticking you off. NOW unless you have other complaints... Parys

I think I understand your point. And I'll just send these to AfD in the future. But if AfD is the preferred process,
why does this exist: {{db-band}} ?? I don't mean to belabor the point, but I want to do a good job, and also be bold.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the nomination, and the compliments you put in there (wrong football team indeed). I'll accept it, but I'm a bit busy this afternoon and want to re-read all the admin documentation before I put it on RfA, so I might leave it a day or so before adding it to RFA. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've accepted and added it to the list. I hope it succeeds - I can see how much fun being an admin is from your talk page. :-D File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Dekid, CSD A7 is: "Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." (from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) Please familiarize yourself with the speedy deletion policy before you remove speedy deletion tags. Catamorphism 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to condescend; I've posted many AfDs, but speedy deletion is preferable in the cases where it applies, such as this one (note that the article was, in fact, speedied.) Catamorphism 07:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping this one. Just a quick note: your archive of the debate on the talk page has gone slightly wrong and not subst'd itself in properly. (I would fix it, but I'm not quite sure how to...). Cheers --Pak21 09:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recently deleted NN band Far-Less has a redirect page Far-less that also deserves deleting. It's my feeling that this ought to be covered by the authority to delete the Far-Less page... but if not let me know & I'll go ahead & nomintate it. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whups, I lazy assumed you were the deleter, thanks for taking care of that, I should have nominated both, but missed it. Pete.Hurd 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]