User talk:MarcelB612/Archives/2020/November

Orphaned non-free image File:Players ball southpark.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Players ball southpark.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ja Ga  talk 20:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography
Hello. I have edited Lady Gaga discography to restore contentious writer-only credits, with comments at the talk page. As a previous contributor, you may wish to reply to my points or otherwise continue the discussion. Cheers, --Peter Farago (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use?
You wrote on the sherlock holmes film article:

"Release: this is far too liberal use of other people's copyrighted work. just because it's a single sentence doesn't mean its legitimate use to steal it."

That's a bit harsh. All Rotten Tomatoes is doing is aggregating other peoples reviews. It's not an especially good summary you deleted so I've left it out but more often the summary is a sentence with several clauses and it is reasonable to paraphrase part and directly quote some of the sentence. Paraphrasing mostly works but a direct quote avoids editors straying into their own point of view, or being accused of original research by other editors. -- Horkana (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever put the Rotten Tomatoes quote in lifted the entire consensus summary. The "consensus" summary makes up the entirety of a major section of the RottenTomatoes write-up of each movie. If we lift their score AND their consensus summary, we have essentially lifted the main portion of their entire original work, I think that is far too much, especially when it makes up such a large part of our article as well. I suppose if the Sherlock Holmes article were to be significantly expanded, in particular the "critical reception" section, then it wouldn't be quite as blatant I suppose. MarcelB612 (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Jeff Bridges Page
Rather than make inflammatory statements when you make a change to someone's work (not mine by the way), please reference specifics as to why you are making the change. Your approach comes across as needlessly harsh. I see no reason in WP:Lead which validates your argument. If you have a difference of opinion, please enlighten the rest of us. Revmqo (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Richard dawkin433.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Richard dawkin433.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Silly title
Hi,

there is a possibility to change the title of Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace. We will not be able to call it "Eigenvalue", as you suggested, as our only possibility to get consensus (and to avoid other changes in the future) is to follow the literature, which almost always uses "Eigenvalues and eigenvectors" for similar articles or textbook chapters.

I also explained in Talk:Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace that, in my opinion, eigenvalues and eigenvectors as two distinct concepts. We first compute eigenvalues, then eigenvectors, but this does does not mean that "eigenvector" is a concept contained in the definition of "eigenvalue". Indeed, I am able to informally and effectively define the concept of eigenvector without referring to the eigenvalue. I just need to refer to the concept of direction.

Would you mind to give us your opinion? Do you agree to use "Eigenvalues and eigenvectors", the same title used in the literature? Without your support, the title would probably remain as silly as it was when you wrote it was silly. Please answer in Talk:Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace. Thank you

Paolo.dL (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Declined A7 speedies
Hi, MarcelB612. Articles such as Caitlin Hill, Cory Williams and Gary Brolsma which have had previous AFD discussions do not qualify for speedy tagging on notability issues. Also, articles such as Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) and Christiaan Van Vuuren have notability asserted by the numerous RS references -- and also do not qualify for A7 speedy or notability tags. The A7 speedy and NOTE tags have been removed from these pages. Let me know if you have questions. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I Ain't a Judas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judas tree (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Godfather (cocktail), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page On the rocks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders
If you disrupt the above AfD again, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bbb23's evaluation of the conduct at issue here. BD2412  T 05:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23's evaluation is clearly ridiculous. He evaluated my vote as "polemical protest" vote and then stated "AfD is not for polemical protests". First: my vote was not a polemical protest. It was neither polemical, nor a protest. Second, there is absolutely no rule against "protest votes" in AfD. I believe the article should by kept and gave a perfectly valid reason for my vote which, by the way, conforms with and expresses basic principles of journalistic and publishing ethics, and echoed the same sentiment that many other users voting Keep expressed from only a slightly different perspective. MarcelB612 (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As people have said at ANI, WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT forbid you wasting people's time by making dumb protests. I'd also note that an WP:AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. A subtle but important distinction which particularly matters here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I recognize the distinction, and no, it doesn't matter here. I didn't waste anyone's time and I didn't make ANY protest, let alone a "dumb" one. I sincerely believe that Wikipedia would be a worse encyclopedia if that page were deleted removed, and gave a reasonable argument for why I thought it would make Wikipedia worse, which contributed to the discussion. I recognize that my viewpoint would not be appreciated by many, but I did not insult anyone, I did not make any off-topic remark, I did not try to protest any Wikipedia policy or try to change anything by protest. WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT don't apply at all to what I did, and you clearly completely misunderstand what I was contributing to the discussion to think they apply. I understand that you misunderstood my point, and I understand someone who is thoughtless and close-minded would mistake what I was saying for being disruptive or trying to make a protest point. I wasn't. I legitimately think that deleting that page would make the product worse, and expressed exactly that in plain and sincere language with reason and open-minded discussion. I left one single, very concise comment and did not disrupt or harass anyone. You however are most certainly violating rules by attacking me with childish insults like "dumb". MarcelB612 (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that this applies everywhere. Not just on articles or article talk pages. Hopefully you won't make posts like that again, but if you do, don't be surprised if you are sanctioned. Doug Weller  talk 16:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)