User talk:JeanetteMartin/Archive 2

- Hi Antonio - just saw you note on my talk page. I've fixed those typos at Libyan Arab Airlines for you. As you say, that IP address was blocked when somebody else (not you) was using it - I've unblocked it now, so you shouldn't have any problems. All the best--Camembert

Some advice concerning the dirty dozen page: 1) try not to take anyone's comments personally. 2) it is not your page, just as none of the pages I have worked on are not "my" pages. All articles belong to the open community and are always ongoing works-in-progress. Respectfully, Slrubenstein

Antonio, it's probably best to copy any different text from one article to the other, and make one of them a redirect. -- Zoe

Em. . . why did you move Mexico City to Mexico City, Mexico? Is there another Mexico City? If not, then it should go in merely as Mexico City. The country is only stated for disambigulation purposes if there are two with the same name. ÉÍREman 02:46 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC) -

Antonio, I really don't think it's necessary to be moving those South/Central American capitals around, unless there's another Bogota hanging out there that we've got to disambiguate from. - Montréalais


 * Like Bogota, New Jersey?  - Someone else 03:01 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

-

Do people in the UK or Australia say things like "London, England" or "Paris, France"? I've always been under the impression that this naming convention is only used here in the United States. This is the English-language version of the Wikipedia, not the American version. Chadloder 03:24 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * No, we don't. Places outside the US with unique names can stay at the plain name. eg Caracas. -- Tarquin 11:10 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Antonio, thanks for your kind words concerning my article on My Night with Reg. I've added the source now ( http://www.culturevulture.net/Theater2/MyNightWithReg.htm ) -- it's a review of a Dublin production of the play by Harvey O'Brien. All the best, Kurt

It bothers me that you are taking up individual articles for your series of commercials. This material is being covered far too in depth. I question the need for coverage at all. At the least, please condense into 1 article. At the most, get rid of it. user_talk:hfastedge

Hi Antonio Thanks for renaming the Fuhrman page. As a matter of interest,do you follow the diet or eating program he recommends?

TonyClarke 09:57 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Antonio, I had a couple of questions concerning Tommy Morrison: I think he was born in Jay, Oklahoma. Also, he is the grandnephew of John Wayne. -- Zoe

Hello, Antonio. I noticed a recent comment of yours on Wikipedia talk:Staying cool when the editing gets hot about the Walter Mercado article. You wrote, "Tell me, if I attempted to make it look like a fan page would I have talked about his rumored (keep in mind I said rumored, Im not saying he is) homosexuality??" My answer is, "Eh? Why not?" If I were writing a fan page about, say, Alan Turing, I expect I'd mention his homosexuality...! From your statement it looks like you're suggesting that homosexuality is a bad thing. (I'm not saying that you are saying that; just that that's what it looks like!) I don't know what your views on this subject are, and I'm not writing this to try to find out what your views are or to try to change them or anything like that, but I just thought I should advise you that it's probably best not to make that sort of suggestion... But anyway, best of luck with the article-writing... :) -- Oliver P. 19:53 May 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, thanks for explaining! I misinterpreted your comment, and I expect I overreacted. Sorry about that. But all is clear now. :) I just did a Google search for Walter Mercado, and one of the top matches I found was a page of "Notable Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Transgender People of Latino/a Descent and Friends"(!) - a rather strange title, but I think it confirms that people do indeed speculate about the issue. Furthermore, he is listed on List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people, under "Persons of debated sexual orientation", where it says, "More information about what is known about each individual's sexuality should be available in the individual's biography." So I think that means that we have a moral obligation to say what is known about Walter Mercado's sexuality on his biography page. :)


 * Anyway, thanks for the kind words on my talk page. Oh yes, and very interesting nicknames you have there, but I'm afraid that the meanings of most of them go over my head! What do they all mean...? -- Oliver P. 02:27 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Antonio. I've replied to you on my talk page, not that I've said much. Do you mind people doing this? I must admit that I get confused when conversations are split across different pages! -- Oliver P. 23:36 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I see you have done a lot of hard work on some boxing notables. Are you interested in doing a little bit more work to help me out? Jacques Delson

Your offer to help is much appreciated. I created a template for each of the "years in sport" and so far have inserted them back to 1950. Stuff before 1950 I'll do later because it requires a different template. In the meantime I need someone who knows and loves boxing to help (plus others to help in other specific categories). Go to 1950 in sports and you will see a template almost filled in. Note, in boxing I already put something in. Now, Antonio, don't get carried away, but each year from 1950 up needs good boxing stuff inserted. Don't put every fight that ever happened otherwise you will ruin the page and others will come along and add so much stuff it will become impossible. This is just a "highlight" page in sports, so keep it to the 2 to 4 (maximum) important fights of the particular year - no comments, just facts like you see there as a sample on the 1950 page. (Don't put in your favorite boxer no matter how tempting -- be objective.) Thanks, I know you will do a great job. Jacques Delson

P.S. See 1980 in sports too. The page is still basic, but it has some good boxing events, but 5 is too many. Jacques Delson

Great job you are doing, Antonio! Note that between date and next text you should put space - space. Makes reading on screen a lot easier. I changed 1985 in sports so you would see. Thanks. Jacques Delson -- In Arturo Moreno you write:


 * He helped the company from making less than 500,000 dollars, to making 90 million dollars in less than ten years.

This is ambiguous. 500,000 dollars a year to 90 million dollars a year? Or 90 million dollars overall after 10 years? Please clarify. Also, please try to use the preview feature of Wikipedia instead of saving a revision every minute, this reduces the number of edit conflicts, makes it easier to generate diffs and saves harddisk space (every revision has to be stored). --Eloquence 07:57 19 May 2003 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood me. I'm not saying you should edit your articles less, I'm saying you should save them only after you have edited them, instead of saving every minor edit. To do so, use the "Preview" button under the edit window, and when you're happy with your edits so far, save the text. --Eloquence 08:22 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Pages needing attention - is this what you were looking for, Antonio? -- Oliver P. 00:13 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Hey! How's it going? ;) Thanks for your message on my talk page this morning. It hadn't been that long since my last message, had it? Okay, well, I'll try to write more often if you want me to... I'm actually trying to stay away from Wikipedia these days, as I have lots of work to do, but as you can see I'm not being entirely successful there... I see that you've discovered List of controversial issues - that's a new one to me! I suppose that Pages needing attention would list articles which deviate significantly from NPOV, but which aren't necessarily difficult to keep NPOV once they have been made so, while List of controversial issues would list articles which don't necessarily deviate significantly from NPOV at the moment, but which are difficult to keep NPOV on a long-term basis. Erm, did that make sense? Probably not... But is the John Casablancas article inherently difficult to keep NPOV? I would have thought that when enough facts have been gathered, the article should be all right, but maybe I'm wrong... In any case, hopefully it won't ever be as tricky as the likes of abortion and gun control! Anyway, good luck with it, and with the rest of the Wikipedia stuff. I suppose I should go and do some work now... -- Oliver P. 11:11 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Glad to see you sorted out List of toy brands! But are you quite sure that we want an article on, say, Mary-Kate and Ashley (dolls)? ;) By the way, this page is 30 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. :) -- Oliver P. 09:54 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi Antonio, just got your note about controversial articles (I've been away from the Wikipedia for a few days which is why I've not replied before). I was going to direct you to List of controversial issues, but judging from that page's history, you've already found it! --Camembert

Antonio, you did really great work on the boxing information. Many thanks and good luck. Jacques Delson 23:18 25 May 2003 (UTC)

How could you forget the Bowe-Holyfield trilogy!? :-) -- Notheruser 08:16 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Why does it matter what my gender is, hmmm? :) -- Zoe


 * I think I've used that line myself... :) -Martin

Ok, your signatures are slowly driving me crazy. And I don't have a clue why, because it's not like I've been the world's most consistent signer in former lives. Maybe it's the exclamation marks? I'll put it down to my latent hypocricy, I guess - don't stop. :) Martin 23:31 31 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't mind the "middle name" bits at all, I rather enjoy them. What bugs me is them always being on a separate line in VfD without any indentation. It rather breaks up the flow of the page. -- John Owens 23:34 31 May 2003 (UTC)


 * No no no, you misunderstand. I even like the "middle names" on the VfD page. The indentation I speak of is when you put the stars ** or colons :: at the beginning of a line, and your sigs there usually don't get that. I'll give examples of a couple of ways they could be done better, in the VfD context:

* This page sucks. -- User:So-and-so ** But on the other hand.... **: Antonio Whacky Middle Name Guy! Martin or * This page sucks. -- User:So-and-so ** But on the other hand.... *** Antonio Whacky Middle Name Guy! Martin or * This page sucks. -- User:So-and-so ** But on the other hand.... -- Antonio Whacky Middle Name Guy! Martin
 * This page sucks. -- User:So-and-so
 * But on the other hand....
 * Antonio Whacky Middle Name Guy! Martin
 * This page sucks. -- User:So-and-so
 * But on the other hand....
 * Antonio Whacky Middle Name Guy! Martin
 * This page sucks. -- User:So-and-so
 * But on the other hand.... -- Antonio Whacky Middle Name Guy! Martin
 * The last is the usual way most people do it, but for your "special sigs", I like the first way best; the second could kind of mess with the flow of replies, with the extra list level. For comparison, what I usually see on VfD is:

* This page sucks. -- User:So-and-so ** But on the other hand.... Antonio Whacky Middle Name Guy! Martin *** (someone else replies to Antonio...) Antonio Whacky Middle Name Guy! Martin
 * This page sucks. -- User:So-and-so
 * But on the other hand....
 * (someone else replies to Antonio...)
 * which, like I said, makes your name look disconnected from your comment, and makes it look like the next comment has nothing to do with it, with those empty list levels in between.
 * Anyway, that's what I was really getting at. No complaints about the presence of the "middle name" at all, anywhere, on my part. And if I didn't put enough exclamation points in the above examples, feel free to let me know, or add them yourself. ;) -- John Owens 08:09 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about boxing, and rather little about video games, but I can at least proofread them, that I'm good at no matter the subject. :) -- John Owens 08:53 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Biographical Listing/B was broken up because it hit the 32k limit. Didn't you notice the warning when you undid Amillar's careful work, or read the page's history? Stan 06:10 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * It's policy to break up large pages; see Page size. As far as I can tell, you didn't bother to ask about it before going against policy to revert the change, which is poor citizenship. Stan 06:26 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi- I split the page because I'm about to add more people. I'm going to redo the split. A good place to discuss this is Talk:List of people -- Amillar 13:50 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I didn't block you. In fact, I haven't blocked anyone in a long time. Maybe an IP i blocked a while ago is close to the IP your system used today? Kingturtle 07:09 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I see you edited some of the List of 'years in sports' adding some real good stuff on boxing. Right now though, you might want to consider if it is worthwhile as the person who did 99% of all the work on the years in sports pages from the year 1950 in sports through to 2003 in sports was a banned user by the name of User:Joe Canuck and who is stated to also be the same person who logged in under 64.228.30.61 or variations on that IP number and User:Jacques Delson. According to Wikipedia Administrator User:Jtdirl, this IP, User:Jacques Delson, and User:Joe Canuck are part of a sinister plot to destroy Wikipedia. Please see User:Joe Canuck in this regard because in accordance with the rules of the Administrators, all edits by this user will be reverted and as such there will be virtually nothing on more than 50+ years. Note too, you are ordered not to reinstate any edits made by this user. Good luck, and thanks for participating at our Wikipedia community.ChuckM 01:05 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Antonio. I like your nicknames! After they get rid of the mess that asshole did on sports someone will start over and do a proper job. Geez, what an idiot that fuckwit Jacques Delson / Joe Canuck was making such a mess outta sports. Good riddance, we don't need horse manure like him. ChuckM 01:35 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Antonio, please note that
 * the above so-called User:ChuckM is in fact Jacques Delson. He has also gone by the name of Joe Canuck, DW, Olga Bityerkokoff, Black Widow, Ron Davis, Triton and others.
 * ChuckM more generally known by his earlier name DW is one of wiki's most notorious trolls, who has been banned at least three times for downloading images while refusing to offer any proof that they are not copyright, for threatening other users and acting in a manner that Jimbo and most of the people who came in contract with him found unacceptable in the extreme. On the basis of the evidence that he is yet another version of DW mascarading under a phoney name, because he is a multiple banned user and because of his conduct tonight he was nominated tonight by Evercat for his fourth ban.
 * He has spent tonight placing bizzarre messages on people's pages. In yours he is pretending not to be whom most of wiki know's damn well he is. For the evidence, see User talk:Joe Canuck

Most of the people who received his nonsense tonight reverted to remove it. Indeed he turned some pages tonight into edit wars, with most of wiki binning his stuff (even Brion!) and he repeatedly trying to reinstate it, with his usual threats. He did that to Mav, to Evercat, to Camembert, to me and a host of others. The best thing to do with ChuckM is simply to ignore him. For the evidence of who he eally is, see User talk:Joe Canuck. For his standard conduct and evidence of his behaviour, read the talk pages of any of the above, but specifically User talk:DW, User talk:Black Widow and User talk:Joe Canuck. After their banning, their threats were moved to their talk pages from elsewhere so a record could be kept. (BTW, in case true to form DW/ChuckM tries to delete this message (he doesn't like criticism of himself, just likes criticising other people), I am emailing it to you also. FearÉIREANN 07:19 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Antonio- You mentioned on the Saved by the Bell page that the show was inspired by the success of Beverly Hills 90210. This clearly cannot be the case, as 90210 first aired in 1990, three years 'after' the first Saved by the Bell show. You really need to be more careful about making assumptions like this when writing articles. I have already made the appropriate changes, and I don't mind, but you do seem to make a lot of these errors. You should preview your articles and make sure that the facts that you state are supported by other sources. -DropDeadGorgias 21:57 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Antonio, thank you for your comments on my talk page. However, I was looking at some of your other submissions, and I wanted to make another small suggestions. Some of your stories seem to be one-sided, and slightly fanatical. It would be best to turn the tone of your stories down a little bit, and be more objective. In particular, your articles on The Craft (movie, and the actresses who starred in that movie are great because they didn't exist before. However, it's important to mention the other movies that those actresses were in.  All of them have been in other major movies (American History X, Empire Records, Scream, Half Baked), and it is important to talk about the actresses' impact in all of the films that they have been in.  If you devote the majority of the article to The Craft, then it makes it seem like their other roles are not as important.  Also, in all of the articles, you state that The Craft had far reaching effects on fashion, the gothic movement and New Age philosophies.  In actuality, gothic fashions were already in place, and the movie simply represented that fashion sense.  It would be more accurate to say that the high profile movie brought the gothic culture to a larger audience. As for the term New Age, that is an extremely broad category, and I don't think that the film really has a significant impact on the New Age movement at all. Basically, it's great that you have devoted such a large amount of time to filling in these blank pages, but you should try to make the articles more balanced in their perspective. Thanks again! -DropDeadGorgias 22:55 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Rachel True. I have added some comments, and have created a The Craft (movie)/temp to be used to making a new section to The Craft (movie) which will discuss the cultural impact. MB 14:10 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wow! 41 kilobytes! Wow! BTW. I nominated you for sysophood. But you already knew that, didn't you? :-P -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 06:13 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You have been nominated and approved for Adminship. All we now need is for you to either accept or decline the position. Please indicate your decision on Requests for adminship. --mav

Become a sysop! Do it! Do it! It's great fun. Oh yes, and archive your talk page as well. :) -- Oliver P. 06:09 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you don't accept, you'll make me look like a real clown. And that with everybody thinking me a solid and serious guy before. You'll ruin my reputation. Do it for me! A cri de coeur (sp?)! If you don't accept, I'll set the ghosts of all my unborn children upon you (and they are many)! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 19:28 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oliver and Cimon - please let Antonio decide on his own. Nobody has to be an Admin. That's cool and should be respected (some people are not comfortable with it or never plan on using Admin powers or edit from a non-secure computer). --mav


 * Oh, yes, sorry. You're quite right, of course. Antonio, ignore my evil attempts to pressure you into it. :) -- Oliver P. 07:43 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

--

Congratulations, you have just been made a sysop! Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to by other members, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.

Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun! --Eloquence 21:18 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-- Hey Antonio - to archive cut a buch of the above talk and paste it into User talk:AntonioMartin/Archive 1. Simple as that. --mav

-- Please stop adding shabby new articles to the new articles section (BTW your articles do already get listed on the Main Page very often because of their great quality). I just updated that section already with the best new articles of the past 2 days. We want to only show off our best examples esp in the new articles section. And simply adding an entry without taking out something else breaks the formatting of the page and makes it look really bad to people with standard screen resolutions. See Selected Articles on the Main Page for the guidelines. --mav 06:14 18 Jul 2003 (UTC) -- On the page List of years in aviation you state:
 * 1902 in aviation: Robert Scott flies to the Antarctic on a tethered balloon.

Do you mean Robert Falcon Scott? and what is the source material you are using for this little known fact?

Also I presume you mean that Scott flew IN Antartica, not TO Antartica. If this is correct could you please update the Robert Falcon Scott article with your information also. -- kiwiinapanic 06:22 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- However, I have had a careful think about the whole purpose for the page List of years in aviation, and some pages linked to it. Wouldn't this page be better set out as a Timeline of Aviation? Or you could merge it with Timeline of transportation technology? Besides there is already a Aviation history article, which should be expanded with the information that might appear on these pages. That way all the facts are on one page not a hundred different pages. As I understand the list pages, they should refer to already written articles, not articles waiting to be written. I know you have made an attempt to document the years with the years 1980-1987, but they are really timelines that would be better pulled into one article. The current pages all stem from one article (Aviation) and then only from a "See also:" link. They could become a group of orphan pages unless they link logically into the written text of a whole lot of other articles. At present these pages are difficult to navigate and do not link to each other. Also, most of the facts are fairly trivial - especially by the 1980's - I would be inclined to move the information to something more appropriate. Please contribute your thoughts on Talk:List of years in aviation -- kiwiinapanic 11:09 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response on my talk page. As you suggested I have managed to find a couple of sites with the information about the balloon flight.  They confirm it as Robert Falcon Scott on February 4 1902.  -- kiwiinapanic 11:09 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey everyone just wanted to say Im back from a 2 day forced vacation and planning on working harder than ever!! To the ones that missed me, thanks! To the ones who wished Id stayed away, oh well, live with it..:)

Antonio Overpilled Martin

http://us.imdb.com/Name?Cattrall,+Kim

I enjoyed your "conversation" with the dead Oral Roberts on the votes for deletion page, enough to add a bit of info to the article. I must report, however, that whoever you're talking with, it can't be Oral, cause he's alive. Sure, God called him home, but he apparently just would not go. -- Someone else 01:01 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Antonio, thanks for your kind words about the Evo article. A couple of comments: I noticed you Wikified some dates. According to the page Wikipedia%3AMake_only_links_relevant_to_the_context the only dates that need to be linked are birth and death and anything REAL big in between. It says:

What should not be linked:
 * dates of marriage, book publication, and other dates between the big two unless they bear some kind of significant connection with the date. That Bob Dylan arrived in New York City in 1961 is significant because it was a zeitgeist event. Ask yourself, "Would this event ever appear on a timeline under this date?"

By this criterium, most of the dates in the article do need to be wikified.

Also, I started each new sentence with a new line so that the DIFF program can distinguish more clearly between sentences when you are comparing versions. I forgot where I found this tip; somewhere here.

Chau guapo...

-- Viajero 22:53, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC) ---

Just saw your question on Talk:John Ralston Saul. Answer: no, they are not the same person. In fact, that is the reason why Mr. Saul uses his middle name. When writing in French, in which the mystery writer is less known, our philosopher calls himself John Saul. - Montréalais 06:23, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Antonio,

I'm happy to respond to requests, but first 2 questions: --Uncle Ed 13:27, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) If you're a sysop, how could you be blocked?
 * 2) Where is the "biographical list" you're talking about for the boxer? (I'd like a link or at least an article title, please :-)

When RK comes back I want to nominate him for sysop (again) I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely- 戴&#30505sv 23:11, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)