User talk:MarkGallagher/Archive7
Thank You[edit]
Hello Mark,
Thank you for your assistance and editorial contribution. We reverted numerous edits by 208.47.88.133 back to the way you had it for the following reasons:
- This is not a "groundbreaking public announcement" page, it is a resource for a specific topic.
- Reports have not been confirmed and verified regarding other lesbian playmates. Up to date, Adams has been the only one to come "out" publicly.
- Nicknames (like "Dee Tao") aren't necessary to add since the full name has already been provided.
- The people Adams was dating has already been mentioned, so the additional comment was not necessary.
Regards,
Once Again[edit]
Mark,
There seems to be a major issue between User:Postdlf and us that is causing great harm to the topic Information provided by us is accurate and can be most helpful to this subject matter, yet User:Postdlf feels the need to remove it and/or unnecessarily change it (perhaps to have the "last word").
We are contacting you once again for help because this (once again) seems personal on behalf of User:Postdlf and is getting out of hand. We very much so need your assistance.
Thanks[edit]
Thanks for the welcome message. :) Mahahahaneapneap 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Consensus at Stephanie Adams[edit]
Please take a look at the most recent comments on Talk:Stephanie Adams; all of us except for Adams' paid PR rep are in agreement as to how to handle the content and would like to proceed, and to ban User:GODDESSY if they continue trolling and disruptively attempting to take control over the article. Just wanted to give you a heads up since you were the one who protected the page, and invite you to comment as well. Cheers, Postdlf 03:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
An E-mail Was Just Sent To You (Re: Conversation With Wales)[edit]
Once again, a personal attack is being made against User:GODDESSY by User:Postdlf (see above) and User:Postdlf is using his personal disdain for us as well as the subject (Stephanie Adams) towards an attempt to butcher the article.
This person is acting as more than one user and administrator on this site to bully and force a resolution that is not, in fact, a resolution because we did not agree to it and they cannot just stop the mediation whenever they feel like it beccause they want to win.
A discussion was made with the founder of this site and we will await your reply to our personal e-mail address.
Regards,
GODDESSY
Deleting phixr[edit]
Hi,
you deleted phixr, but (equally meaningless or meaningful) entries like zooomr are kept. Rationale?
| Hey, MarkGallagher/Archive7, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
STEPHANIE ADAMS ARTICLE -- PROTECTION TAG REMOVED BY MALICIOUS USER[edit]
The article on Stephanie Adams is no longer being edited from an objective standpoint. A group of users are maliciously removing factual comments that have been added by GODDESSY due to a frivolous discrepancy and are decreasing the quality of the article substantially.
We reverted the page back to where left a comment stating that (s)he was waiting for the founder to view it, since he has not viewed or commented on it as yet.
We ask that you take a look at it.
-- Justice For All
Can we talk?[edit]
Mark,
I would like to initiate a dialogue with you, in an attempt to understand what just happened to all my posts. You seem to be the only objective and rational one - or at least you keep your posted comments objective. I was really not expecting the firestorm that my posts kicked up and was really going for something other than MLM promotion.
Is your Talk page the right place for this discussion (if you accept my invitation)? Or will it be joined by a bunch of emotional voices and quickly devolve into a shouting match?
Your guidance on this matter is appreciated.
An honest quixtar ibo 03:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Yes, there's a good reason for my Username being blatant.
list of english footballers[edit]
Hi, I wanted to confirm something about the article on the list of english footballers. Who exactly is it supposed to include? All those players whose nationality is English? Or all those who play/have played in England, right from the Premier League to the conference? Or only those who've played on the international level? As you can see I'm quite confused. I was trying to figure out if the list needs to be updated but I couldn't understand the category so thought I'll ask. Kinda crazy 11:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous (Re: Stephanie Adams & GODDESSY)[edit]
GODDESSY is purposely spelled in all caps according to the company link [1] as well as Wikipedia, so please tell User:Hoary to stop reverting it inaccurately to "Goddessy".
Ever since the discrepancy, these malicious users seem determined to disagree with anything anyone else adds to this article that is correct.
Thanks, 68.161.222.151
Deletion Of Copyrighted Sony Computer Entertainment PS3 Photos.[edit]
Hi, thanks for informing me and subsequently removing the offending Playstation 3 pics, some of which I admit had incorrect licence tags on them. However there was 1 photo which I uploaded and tagged correctly as being available for use under Wikipedia. The file was, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PS3Final60GBHDD.jpg
I emulated the tags of another photo which was uploaded by someone else from the same website, which continues to be shown on the Playstation 3 Information page. The aforementioned image is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ps3controller.jpg
As I am fairly confident that one of the photos I uploaded was from the same source and was tagged appropriately, could it be reinstated? Or shall I just upload it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgyc (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 May 2006 fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism on my user page[edit]
Thanks for the rv, I didn't even notice it. -- Samir 
(the scope) धर्म 12:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy[edit]
Sorry about the speedy, but it looked like one when I put it on there [2] --71.28.252.20 05:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Dwain Fuller article[edit]
Morning Mark, I speedeleted Dwain Fuller as a non-notable bio, and then noticed in the log that, three minutes earlier, you'd deleted and then undeleted the article. I was wondering what was up with it. If you want me to reundelete it, gimme a shout and I certainly will. JDoorjam Talk 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, whoops. If that's not a sign that it's time for me to get to bed, I'm not sure what is. I restored the locked version of the page. JDoorjam Talk 05:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OCS Technical[edit]
You removed the tag from OCS Technical, even though I included a reason for placing the tag. What is your reason for removing it? Folajimi 10:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you erroneously deleted Template:User No Recycling. From what I can tell (and I am not an admin, so perhaps you have access to more of the record than I), this was undeleted, based on another admin's determination that it did not meet T1. Indeed, I am an environmentalist yet I list it on my page. The template has already lead to fruitful discussions that collaboratively improved the quality of the articles, which in my humble opinion is what we should truly be caring about. I believe that restoring the template will lead to many more such discussions that improve our articles, certainly more than it will lead to offensive or inflammatory discussions.--M@rēino 15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You removed the delete tag under the assertion that the subject is a published author. According to WP:BIO, the works published would have to have an audience of 5000+. Do you have evidence that this is the case? --cholmes75 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No Marxism Template[edit]
Did you have a reason for deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairNBalanced (talk • contribs) 05:12, 16 May 2006
Sorry[edit]
To be honest, I just made a grave mistake. That's all to it. I'll try to maintain myself in a far more Wikipedia friendly manner. Yanksox 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am not so sure there is a need for someone more knowledgeable about the subject. There is no such subject, just a user who visited someone's website - no_original_research. This is clearly a neologism. Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#articles_on_neologisms Talk:Neologism#Trademarks_as_neologisms. It is composed of the words film and philosophy. It has been used earlier and later, by others, in other contexts and with very different definitions, including in this trademark by someone else.
You removed the speedy delete tag from this article, saying that it wasnt what I claimed that it was (non-notable restaurant, blatant advertising). I am curious as to how you came to that conclusion. As far as I can see, the article makes no attempt at notability, and is worded much like an advertisement. Remy B 09:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Fudd rock[edit]
Just a quick note to say: you rock. Not that you've done anything in particular, but you're a good editor and a good admin.
brenneman{L} 09:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Aye - you can try to hide but I see you cleaning up the bad speedies. Often not a fun job :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 10:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yelling at users[edit]
That you are an admin and I'm a "peasant" (as someone was kind enough to call users today on WP:AN/I), does not mean that you needed to shout at me telling me to "Stop". Especially as you replied to an edit which contained the same very thought you were so kind to offer to me ("TfD is not a vote."). Am I supposed to stop making any edits to Wikipedia or simply to stop agreeing with you? Friendly Neighbour 12:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- As a side note, the "peasant" remark seems to have come from Brenneman, who's a relatively new admin and, to my knowledge, uninvolved in this dispute. 900 sysops hardly constitute a monolithic bloc. I find his comment embarrassing, myself. Mackensen (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Lulu has indicated he's leaving Cuba alone. I've complained countless times that admins get a free pass on 3rr (see "Decision not to have a fellow admin blocked" above) when we are totally mechanical about the blocking of the peasants for it. Can we be a bit more consistant, please? - brenneman{L} 06:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [3]
- This is the "peasant" comment. If it's not clear from the context that I've used the word with tongue firmly in cheek, and as a complaint against there being two kinds of users, than I just don't know what else to say. - brenneman{L} 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was not complaining against you (that's why I did not name you) but the owner of this Talk page. I understand you did not mean any malice. Just the term you used fitted the admin -> user relations the Stop edit implied. BTW, it seems I'm not worth a reply from the admin I addressed. Therefore, I apologize wholesomely for the time and server space I used with my humble petition :-) Friendly Neighbour 07:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I never do anything wholesome, but that's just me. One thing I'd take into account it that wikipedia operates on two time scales: much too fast and much much too slow. What always happens when you're waiting for someone to reply is that just as they type out a nice reply they get an edit conflict where you're bitching about them not replying. "You" generally I mean, not "you" personally. So I've learned to stay strongly away from nagging people about getting back to me. *hint*
brenneman{L} 13:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I never do anything wholesome, but that's just me. One thing I'd take into account it that wikipedia operates on two time scales: much too fast and much much too slow. What always happens when you're waiting for someone to reply is that just as they type out a nice reply they get an edit conflict where you're bitching about them not replying. "You" generally I mean, not "you" personally. So I've learned to stay strongly away from nagging people about getting back to me. *hint*
- I was not complaining against you (that's why I did not name you) but the owner of this Talk page. I understand you did not mean any malice. Just the term you used fitted the admin -> user relations the Stop edit implied. BTW, it seems I'm not worth a reply from the admin I addressed. Therefore, I apologize wholesomely for the time and server space I used with my humble petition :-) Friendly Neighbour 07:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Question[edit]
Hello, this is Aeon. Instead of asking this on a DRV (and to keep it on subject) I thought I would do so here. My question is this, the xFD, on it we have users who are saying Keep, Delete, subst. ect there as if voting, yet you are saying that it isn't a vote. Can you explain how it isn't a vote you see the logic is confusing me here a little and some clarification is needed, so I can pull my head out of my butt if needed (I don't like to labor under a delusion) or to make a better argument later on if needed. Your input on this would be great thanks, and sorry for any , have a fine day. Aeon 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes! thanks, that issue was tripping me up. Have a fine day Aeon 14:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Titles in electorates[edit]
Hi,
Would you like to give feedback on the use of titles in electorates?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Electorates#Titles in member lists
-- Newhoggy | Talk 04:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleting articles[edit]
Could you delete High Meadows Apartments again since it was recreated? --Tone 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
QRVS AfD Hitler comment[edit]
I appologize the comment offended you, I struck it out, I did not feel strongly about the subject, just disagreed with the philosophy of the deletion votes. I personally don't see anything wrong in the comment since I still believe it makes sense. I was not comparing CVU to hitler directly, but how the voters are acting like Hitler in terms of trying to maintain a one project monopoly while destroying minor projects. There is a similarity in this between Hitler's philosophy in terms of trying to monopolize the german ethnicity on planet earth. But yet again, since the comment offended you, I struck it out and am sorry for the trouble. - Tutmosis 22:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you![edit]
Thanks for defending me at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I can't believe how many people were accusing me of bad faith for trying to delete an article written in all caps! And now that the article has been edited to be in regular type, it looks much less like it was written like vandal and much more like the sort of official policy page that I could see myself referring someone to, so I'll have to thank the people who did that, too. --M@rēino 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
NuGeneration[edit]
There are zero Google hits for 'NuGeneration 'Chaotic Night'". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
signature[edit]
I removed it! Cuñado 
- Talk 16:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was not keep[edit]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Potvin Count up the votes. You voted keep but that doesn't mean 8 people in the debate agreed with you. Because you show such an intense interest in keeping this article--by ignoring the votes of 8 ppl--you should hand this off to another admin to decide whether to delete from the count.
lots of issues | leave me a message 09:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Heytesbury street[edit]
Hi, This certainly was a candidate for deletion in its original form. I've now added material and wonder if you could see what you think of it now? Dlyons493 Talk 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
How sweet of you to give this bloke a chance! Sexy, too. ;-) Alyson Hannigan 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Template for Make Trade Fair[edit]
Hi, I'm wondering why this particular template was deleted w/o any previous warning or discussion. It's not violating any fair use image, nor is the organization non-notable. --Madchester 06:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fuddlemark. I have started a proposal at Portal talk:Australia for an inclusion of an anniversary/on this day section to be displayed on the portal. If you are interested in this making this happen, you can comment there or go to the anniversary pages and adding in things that you consider to be notable. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was just reverting that page, but by the time I was done you had already done it. There wasn't really any need for you to come, but thanks anyway. Random the Scrambled 13:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I reverted this page back because I have seen NO consensus/decision that this user has been banned (User:Neutrality arbitrarily decided that he was "banned".) Could you show me where this decision is, or stop reverting it? Thank you. Larry Page 13:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed for now[edit]
I removed my icon for now. Thanks Travb (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Posing[edit]
Hi there,
Unles you are personally a Wiki defacer (which I sincerely and hopefully doubt) - there is a user floating around on the web who is posing as you, gaining trust by linking to your Wikipedia User Page and RfAing. They then proceed to remove sysop and bureaucrat privilages from users - and grant them to abusive users.
Like I said - I don't think this is you. But I thought I'd let you know before you receieve any nasty comments --Skenmy 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Civility Warning[edit]
I find your reply to Ian13 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard uncivil, and perhaps an attack (not personal, though). Watch out :D Computerjoe's talk 11:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I found "hey, remember whatever CJ is called this week and all its derivatives? Were you involved in that?", lie to them. offensive - and I'm sure other (good faith) members would agree. I think this offense was caused on purpose, and was uncivil. Computerjoe's talk 15:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- CJ is by no means my baby - and I suspect what it going through now is simply a phase, though I do dislike it. Computerjoe's talk 15:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made a big call here[edit]
Tell me what you think. - brenneman {L} 03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain that the subject is notable (although she likely is), but I agree that the page isn't speediable as an attack, as a biography that fails to assert the significance of the subject, or as recreation of deleted material; nevertheless, it's just been deleted again by Redvers, who was ostensibly unaware of the reasons for undeletion (deleted as A7). Joe 21:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- A swing and a miss on the ol' AGF, Joe!
- Hi Mark! I've restored the article forthwith on your advice. I'm still convinced that the article as it stands doesn't assert notability. Membership of a tiny rump communist party with no elected representation at all in the UK, plus being a former member of a QUANGO (along with approximately 100,000 others) isn't notability IMO. I'm a member of the Liberal Democrats and have sat on the BBC's audience committee, which would seem to make me more notable than this lady. Which is hardly likely!
- But if there's something deeper going on here I'm not aware of, I won't wheel war (such a waste of everybody's time!) and I'll take your word for it. But still, I'd quite like to pop the lady on to AfD, so give me a shout when the dust has settled and I'll do that. Cheers, mate! ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've dropped Ros a note about my concerns, hopefully in warm and welcoming language (after all an admin speedy delete is nothing personal, as you know). I have told her what I told you, that I think AfD is a good place to send this article; but I've also tagged the article with {{notability}} in the hope that Ros or someone else will assert notability in it. I'll give it a couple of days, and if nothing has happened it can go to AfD (less threatening to wait than to PROD now). I've also written to the chap nominating the article for deletion (in good faith) and briefly told him not to worry and that others will deal with the issue.
- I clarified for Redvers but thought I ought to leave a note here as well: I think Red to have been suggesting that I was, consistent with AGF, assuming him to have been ignorant of the ANI discussion when, in reality, he was cognizant of it but thought speedy appropriate in any event, but, in case that he imputes a failure to assume good faith to my comment, it should be said that I intended my message to have been altogether decorous--I wanted to alert Mark in order that he might undelete again and leave a message for Redvers, and I was in no way suggesting that Redvers was incompetent or malevolent (after all, I supported his RfA). :) Joe 22:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
List of Lost episodes[edit]
I would like you to read and possibly respond to my comment, as you've declared something "case closed" with an incorrect set of facts. Thanks.
Cws125 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
False Comments On Stephanie Adams Page[edit]
Once again, someone is posting false comments on the Stephanie Adams page.
According to an archive posting from her legal department, Adams sued another web site for false comments made on there named RichardsRamblings.com (who incidentally took the libelous comments down) and is on a mission to do the same with other web sites that produce false comments about her.
THE TRUTH: Her books are not all ebooks and they are all available via Barnes & Noble as well as Amazon. Only one book was published by Publish America (her first book) and it wasn't vanity publishing because she got paid for the publication.
If you take a look at the Stephanie Adams page again, you'll see what's going on. ... added by 151.202.15.218
- And for a better idea of what's going on, see the article's talk page as well. -- Hoary 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)