User talk:MarcGarver/Archive 2

East Lopka
I am not vandalising, I live in East Lopka, and I live in Mascalama. These are not made up articles. I am just trying to share knowledge. Greetings from East Lopka. --EastLopkanAdvocate (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not stupid and I know you are just making this stuff up. I suggest you stop before you are blocked. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  23:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Regina Folk Festival
Hi there QU. Would you be willing to take another look at this one? I've added a bunch of references, which might address your concerns. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, will look again. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  20:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/KeepOnRockingInTheFreeWorld
FYI, I've closed this report, to which you contributed exidence. Apologies for the extreme delay, due to a really ridiculous backlog at WP:SSP. Feel free to comment/question on my talk page. --barneca (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. No need to apologise, after all, we're all volunteers... Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  20:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * And a Merry Christmas to you too! Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  09:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Croft
Thanks! Deb (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * & you! Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

rayleigh, essex
Re your comment WP is not a link farm.

What is the purpose of WP?

The links were to embellish the content by providing access to more detailed information about the groups etc that are mentioned in the article without over burdening the content.

Terryjoyce (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the policies first. The purpose of WP is definitely not to provide links to "detail information about groups... without over burdening the content". It is an encyclopedia - if the content is encyclopedic, include it in the article and cite it. If it isn't, don't bother linking it. I suggest you read WP:EL and note, for example, "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing mistakes
I tried inserting the links like you stated, but when I saved the article it said the articles did not exist even when I copied them. So I made them external links till I could figure it out.

Any idea why this was or am I doing something wrong?

The reflist must have been when I was putting the reflist into another article and I could not remember what brackets to put round the reflist, so I looked at the Maldon one I obviously used ctrl & x instead of ctrl & c. I'm really sorry about that.

I'm really enjoying being able to contribute and hopefully my mistakes will get less.

Terryjoyce (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the mistakes, they'll get fixed by someone. I just happen to have seen a few things that need a tweak because I watch the articles you are editing (I created a fair few, so I like to see how they evolve). It's just good to see someone else taking an interest. The Wikilink has to be the exact  article name including capitalisation. I find the easiest way to do it is to copy the name from the title of the article you want to link to then paste it between the double square brackets in the article you are changing.  Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rayleigh External links
I am reading external links, I see your point, however some of the links that were deleted meet the following statement from EL.

'Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.'

Thanks for your guidance

Terryjoyce (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It can take time to get a feel for what is appropriate - there are lots of WP guides in this area. For me, and remember it is only my opinion, the key is around what would you expect to find in an encyclopedia. So, a link that had more detail on the history of Rayleigh Mount would be a good one, but a link to a site that is about a not very notable (in the WP sense of notability, see WP:N) club that meets every Thursday on the Mount wouldn't be useful. You are always free to add stuff back in - other people will leave it, or change it and in the end consensus will arise. This can be a slow process on these Essex articles though as not many people edit them. As you will find over time as well, new editors (quite rightly) get straight in and change stuff without reading guidelines like WP:CITE (on how you should use references) and the manual of style. That's why new editors changes sometimes get reworked very quickly. Cite is a good example. A reference has to be to a verifiable reliable source that is independent of the subject of the article. That's why I took out some of your references. The best place to put these kind of links is in the external links section. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  14:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of AZ Dodgeball
An article that you have been involved in editing, AZ Dodgeball, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/AZ Dodgeball. Thank you. B.Wind (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Wiki-birthday!

 * Somehow I missed this! Thanks (belatedly) Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  00:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just got a warning for vandalizing the Skin band page when all i did was add an external link to an interview with the drummer of the band. Is that somehow vandalizing their page? It is a legitimate interview with a member of the band. Please advise.Dmonsd (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is an unfortunate term, it would be better if the templates that are used for the "warnings" used less emotive language. The purpose of the note on your talk page was to let you know that the adding of external links, especially when there are lots of them to the same web site which don't appear to be a reliable source can appear to be an attempt to "link spam". That is, promote or advertise the external site rather than add to the value of Wikipedia. Really the link to an interview without context isn't that useful in WP. If it was being quoted in the article, with the link as part of a reference it would be more valuable. For example, if the article read "Fred the drummer once had an affair with Betty then the external link is valuable (assuming it was a reliable source) because it can be used to verify the material in the article is correct. Anyway, the fundamental "problem" (if there is one) is all your edits have been to add links to the same external web site to articles with no context, so it looks like you are attempting to "advertise" the external site. If you aren't, then that's fine, but other editors may also decide the links don't contribute to WP (or, of course, they may decide they do). Please don't take offence at the use of words like "vandalism", as I say they are unfortunate sometimes and in this particular example I wasn't trying to be pejorative. Thanks QU TalkQu 21:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!
Hi ! Thanks for improving my article ! I am wondering how can people like you notice that there are articles like mine which need to be improved? How do you decide to change articles? Are you just an user, or are you part of the administrators? I am doing a paper on how wikipedia is working, and I need these answers to complete. Can you explain me a bit about it ? LaraJaneL (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Lara Jane
 * Hello, no I'm not an administrator. Administrators, though, aren't "special" in terms of creating or changing content. An administrator often spends most of their time fixing technical problems (deleting articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria, blocking vandals, cleaning up bad page moves, etc.) rather than enriching the content.
 * There are a number of places where some editors look for "problems" with content. The two main groups of editors who do this are known as either Recent Changes Patrollers or New Page Patrollers. Wikipedia provides tools that these editors use. I typical use Special:NewPages, which shows a list of new pages, Special:NewFiles which shows uploaded images, and, most of all, the new editor edit list. This shows all changes made by editors who have been registered for less than 30 days. This is typically where I'll find people trying to create or amend articles but getting it wrong due to inexperience. This is usually failing to follow the manual of style and so on.
 * I decide to change things if they don't fit the manual of style or break one of the "policies" or "guidelines". For example, using an external URL as a "bare reference" is poor form and I'll replace it with a template like that creates a reference link where the reader can see the title, page number, author, etc., of the link rather than just a meaningless URL. This approach - of fixing little things - rather than creating lots of new content is known as being a gnome for some reason.
 * Hope that helps QU TalkQu 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just received a message accusing me of vandalism and saying if i done it again i will be banned, yet i never edited any pages. I was on the page Port Royale II and then clicked off and had a new message (the one aforementioned) accusing me of vandalising the page of a film I've never even heard of. 78.148.7.54 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All very interesting, but nothing to do with me - I've never posted on your talk page here Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  21:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the same editor, but I couldn't help but notice that you are in fact wrong: You did post to that IP's talk page, but it was in 2007: . In the above post, the IP editor was obviously unaware of the fact that your warning dates back to 2007 and that the addresee of the warning was most likely another person who had been assigned that dynamic IP on that day in 2007. You could have patiently explained that to the IP above, yet you chose to post an erroneous and slightly snarky reply. Not very helpful or constructive. Please follow our very simple and basic behavioral guideline to not bite the newcomers. --78.35.199.26 (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, all very interesting. <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 21:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it up, pal. Keep it up. --78.35.199.26 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My reply was framed to create exactly this response from you - a "snarky" one. You see, in my opinion your original comment was as equally "snarky" as you claimed mine to be. You assumed a behaviour or attitude from my comment to the IPs comment that didn't exist, and chose to be offensive / lecturing about it rather than polite - and you did so hiding behind an IP. I have been editing here for four years and I'm well aware of the policies which should have been obvious to you and led you to frame your comment in a less "lecturing" way. If you check the timing and context of my original comment you will see that - at that time - I had been making perhaps one or two edits a week and had long since given up vandal fighting and warning vandals. I logged in to read an article to find a message from an IP. I checked the last edit on the IPs page in case someone had hijacked my account, saw it was from a bot three years ago and posted the reply to the IP and then went back to reading the article. You are making assumptions about my motivations and attitude that are all wrong and jumped to a conclusion that is wrong based on how you think I use language. <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 22:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My reply was framed to create exactly this response from you - a "snarky" one. — Ah ok, for a moment I thought you where just playing a dumb jerk.
 * hiding behind an IP — If anything, you are the one hiding behind a username. Regardless, it is not my intention to "hide", and I resent the notion. If you have any questions, please just ask me and I may answer.
 * I have been editing here for four years — So have I.
 * The point of my original comment here was that you could have made an effort, any effort at all, to explain the situation to the IP. Even not replying would have been better than to post your above response to the IP which probably led the IP to think you're a jerk and leave. -- Which is precisely what WP:BITE is all about. Which in turn is precisely what my original comment is all about. Also, don't you agree it is revealing that you are putting more effort into defending yourself and deflecting criticism than into the original conversation? Anyway, have it your way, I have spoken my mind. --78.35.196.24 (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You came here looking for a fight and to snap at me because you didn't like that I changed your article edit back - opening your comment with "don't you read policies" (I paraphrase). You then chose to moan on about something completely unrelated because you were angry. Your childish point deserved a response and you got it. <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 13:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bolditis
Do registered editors look at the Manual of Style at all anymore? My edit here is in line with MOS:BOLDTITLE#Descriptive titles: If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. I can also strongly recommend Stop bolding everything for a succinct and accurate summary on the reasoning behind this. Please undo your revert. Thank you. --78.35.199.26 (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's already been undone... I'm well aware of the policy. In this case, it wasn't the bolding that I felt was right or wrong but the changed sequencing of the opening line. I don't feel that strongly about it so if you think it is better your way, I'm just fine with that. <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 22:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I should ask you why you didn't amend my edit rather than revert it if, as you say, you disagreed with only one aspect of it. Also, in my humble opinion it is not "my way", I merely feel that this is one of the many instances where the Manual of Style makes a lot of sense and the "burden of justification" lies with those who want to depart from it. But what the heck. --78.35.196.24 (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've nothing to add <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 13:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanking You!
Thanks for the very quick reverting of my talk page :) - 83.67.107.164 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've edited your talk page, at least not recently... perhaps you've logged out by mistake? <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 18:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Err... lets try that again shall we? - <tt> me the cool dude </tt> Contact 18:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! That's fine, any time :-) <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu  18:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you "warn" me for what wasn't vandalism
That wasn't vandalism. Am confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.253.37 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, adding the comment "it is mate, and it makes me feel a heck of a lot better!", in reference to a picture of an erect penis, even to a talk page, seemed somewhat inappropriate and likely to be vandalism. It also seemed in the context of some of the other edits you made (or rather, probably you given you aren't logged in) to be more likely that it was vandalism. If it wasn't vandalism, then I apologise. The warnings that are issued by the tools are sometimes not a perfect match for the "problem" being removed. If you feel your comment is appropriate for an encyclopedia then feel free to add it back in again. Thanks, and sorry for any inconvenience... <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 23:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism
watch the itchy trigger finger there, friend. As I noted in the edit summary, I was pulling that block of text because it was a weird copy-job. 209.212.73.10 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for pointing it out. Sorry about that... I thought I had reverted that as an unexplained removal of content with no edit summary... clearly there was an edit summary, so I either missed it or HG didn't display it. Apologies. <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the apology. But let me log in to make the point--if you're going so fast that you revert a former longtime contributor and administrator stopping by to make a helpful edit on an article he's reading at work, you need to slow down and take a closer look at what you're filtering.  You're doing yeoman work filtering out the crap, but if I was just some guy driving by to help out, I might well have gone away after that fast revert and warning.  Better to slow the pace and do no harm than be too quick on the draw. --RobthTalk 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree - no excuses. Sorry. <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 22:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and keep up the good work! --RobthTalk 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Page protection request (defer if necessary)
Season's greetings to you... as you are already aware, the Scott Raab article has been vandalized multiple times in the past week by IP login editors, and I'm not quite sure who to ask for protection status for it -- I see you are an admin, but if you don't have the power do it, could you please pass this request on to someone who might be able to? Thank you, and happy holidays. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not ad admin here. Requests for page protection are made at WP:RPP. I don't think it will qualify for protection as there hasn't been much vandalism. Thanks <b style="color:#E66C2C;">QU</b> <sup style="color:#306754;">TalkQu 14:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)