User talk:Marcus22

''Please note: Vandalism or messages that ignore WP:CIVIL will be removed. So will anything else once I am bored seeing it. Rather like that old tree stump in the field... only, actually, erm, I still haven't gotten around to that... ''

TDVision
This company is notable. For the past 60 years humans have been watching television in 2D. Now along comes a company that can enable 3D broadcast with no loss of resolution or frame rate and no side effects. The citations are very notable and within the stereoscopic community even more so. 3dtech 01:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles I of England
Nice work on the personal rule/tyranny area - any plans to follow up with further (major anyway) changes to the article? I think I must have been recording a spoken version of the article at the same times as you were changing the very words I was reading. :) That's the major downside to the recordings and part of why I'm hoping screen readers get more advanced in the near future - they get out of sync with the article so easily! Thanks. Moulder 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Services: Science, Management, and Engineering
Yeah, I know. I'm worried that someone might take it to WP:DRV, in which case it would probably be overturned. This is first time I've gone against the vote total to that degree. I do try to be a Fair Witness and just try to ascertain community consensus, really. But in this case: So I think that the close was reasonable, although admittedly arguable. Herostratus 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It had already been relisted once, so I didn't want to relist it again. The fact that articles have to be relisted (and quite a few others come close) might mean that the numbers of AfD commentors are not up to handling the number of articles listed. Relisting articles might tend to exaberate this, leading to a snowball effect. I will relist a discussion a second time if I think it's necessary, useful, and important enough, but I'm very reluctant to do so.
 * I consider a "quorum" to be at minimum three commentors (plus the nominator). That is just my personal standard. Less then three commentors, I almost always relist. There was a quorum, but not by whole lot. When the numbers are low, raw vote total make less of an impression on me. 4-1 is not nearly as statistically significant as 8-2, in my opinion.
 * I look at strength of arguments as well a raw vote totals. In my opinion, the Delete arguments were not strong. Two were just "per nom", which could indicate that the commentor was just breezing through, and made a quick vote, releying on trust of the nominator, in the interest of making a quorum and avoid a second relisting. It doesn't necessarily indicate this, but there's no way to tell. (Don't get me wrong, the commentors were being helpful, and it usually is helpful.) I didn't give a lot of weight to those comments. If one discounts these entirely, which is arguable, you end up with 2-1 Delete, which is statistically insignificant.
 * The other two Delete voters' comments were better, but not very strong, while the one Keep voter was pretty strong, he seemed to know something about the subject and provided a link. I think this one comment was strong enough that one could say that the Keep arguments were somewhat the stronger overall.
 * Finally, although I'm not supposed to do this and usually don't, I did consider the encylopedic value of the article, and it seemed to have enough merit I was quite reluctant to delete the article.


 * Sorry, I must have misread the page history. Herostratus 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes in the UK Conservative Party article
Hi. Please see my comments on the article's discussion page regarding three of those changes.... --longlivefolkmusic 23:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of people with hepatitis C
Would you consider revisiting this discussion? Current opinions run 10-4 in favor of keeping the article and I think all the serious concerns have been addressed. Respectfully,  Durova  20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

AFDs and "vanity"
Just a note regarding AFDs. The use of WP:VANITY and "vanity" in AFD discussions is now discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. Cheers and happy editing! Jpe|ob 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Marcus22 09:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandal revert
No prob! Happy to have a chance to test out Popups. Good luck with the vandal. :)

Ma x  i  m  illi, 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

BNP
Sorry been very busy over the last couple of days and haven't had much time to spare to go into detail on the subject, hence my lack of reply. Just to clarify I've nothing against anyone trying to improve the article, just as it's a controversial subject it's better to talk first as there are multiple editors involved. I'll post some opinions later tonight. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just replied. Sorry again about the delay, hope we can move forward from here.  Thanks. One Night In Hackney 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind giving some input into the current discussion please? Emeraude and I seem to have reached some kind of consensus, but more opinions would be welcome.  Thanks. One Night In Hackney 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BNP again
May I suggest that your edit to the article British National Party was perhaps a little unwise. As you are well aware, this is a very controversial topic and the discussion regarding the introduction seems far from over so it would probably be better to discuss changes on the talk page before making them. Otherwise, you risk your edits being reverted. I note that you have "no desire to enter into a revert war" but I fear this is what may result from making such drastic changes of the article. Adambro 12:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I more or less agree with what you say. The version I have put in can readily be reverted and if it is I shan't change it again. For a while at least. Hence, rest assured, no edit war. (But the discussion, to which you refer, as far as I can tell, was going nowhere. Certain editors are stretching the bounds of debate for their own reasons; redefining Wiki norms to suit and not agreeing to give a little or even at all. It amounts to no more than sophistry.  And I want no part in such an endless and thus pointless debate). Marcus22 14:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Please keep an eye on BNP
Copies of this message are being sent to: User: Adambro, User:Fethroesforia, User:Lucy-marie, User:Marcus22, User:One Night In Hackney, User:Robdurbar,   User:VoluntarySlave, User:WGee

I am writing to you because over the last few months you have all played a significant part in editing and debating the article BNP. Even though we have not always all seen eye-to-eye, it is the case that all of you have shown an interest in producing an article that is accurate and representative of the subject within WIkipedia policies. The purpose of this message is to alert you to a potential threat to the article and to ask for your help in keeping a watchful eye on it over the next few weeks. I am going to be away from home with only occasional access to a slow dial-up connection.

On 1 June, I added to the BNP infobox the descriptor 'fascist', with appropriate references (as had been discussed a few weeks back - see archive discussion). I was happy for anyone to question this in the usual way and, indeed, had other references available if necessary. Almost coincidentally, an anonymous editor User:86.146.242.233, began making a series of edits without justification. On the talk page, he referred to previous editors (i.e. you) as "the many militant liberals and communists" and indicated that he was "also going to be going through the whole article because I notice most of it is either liberals or nationalists posting their points of views". I asked him to identify his position and was told "You're fucked up, leave the god damn article alone" and he told me to "stop trolling the BNP article". He also made inappropriate comments on the user pages of other editors to the BNP article and, for no reason I can fathom, did this to the user page of a 14 year old: [].

User talk:86.146.242.233 shows he received several warnings and was eventually banned from editing (having only recently, it seems, been released from an earlier ban). This might have been the end of the matter, but the following day a new editor appeared with the name User:Evianmineralwater and proceeded to make identical edits to BNP and some related articles. I reported my suspicions that 86.146.242.233 and Evian were identical to adminUser:Anthony.bradbury who agreed it seemed to be the same person but told me had been banned again. In fact, he was banned for using a trade name and returned almost immediately as User: Mineralwaterisgreat. (I had misunderstood what the admin had told me and assumed he had been banned for vandalism and so reverted his edits on that basis, earning a rebuke from another admin for my mistake.) Mineral has made the following statements, among others.


 * Wikipedia is "corrupt piece of shit populated with idiots". Rebuked by an admin, he replied, "Wikipedia IS corrupt AND populated by idiots."
 * On the references I had provided: "I'm not reading the references because they are obviously left wing and I'm not buying a god damn book."
 * About me: "This guy wants to keep adding fascism to describe the BNP when it has been refused on both the disambiguation page and the main page. Isn't it clear to see he's just a troll without the best interests of the article in mind?" (I'm not sure what he means by being refused.)

Elsewhere, he has said he is a BNP member and that he intends to edit the article to remove anything he regards as anti-BNP bias.

Now I can deal with personal attacks or ignore them as the mood takes me, but this user is clearly setting out with a POV agenda that we have, I believe, worked hard to keep out of the article. (And, yes, it has sometimes been heated but I still think we have done a good job between us.) I am even happy to debate with BNP members and supporters if they use rational arguments and respect the views of others. (An honourable mention here to Fethroesforia.) I would hate to see the good work we have done go to waste, so I ask that you keep an eye on the article and ensure that edits are made in the correct wikipedian spirit, backed up with sources as appropriate and discussed in the talk page where necessary. It is highly likely that this person could reappear under other names.

(Incidentally, it is ironic that this person has chosen to attack me so vehemently given that, apart from regularly removing the BNP ARE WANKERS type of vandalism and correcting references, the only edit I can recall ever having made to the actual article is to add 'fascism' to the infobox.) Sorry to go on, and I know you are all busy with other projects. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Emeraude 10:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Project European Union
Hello, you are member of the project European Union. I try to create a new project page for the project. You can see it at here Because this should be the project page for all it´s members, please tell me, what you think about it. Please leave your comments on the talkpage of the project.--Thw1309 11:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Edward III of England‎
Marcus, could you have another look at your recent edit to this article. Aside from a significant portion of info towards the end of the article that appeared to be simply lopped off without explanation, the References section is fragmented - so not sure if all that was what you intended... Cheers, Ian Rose 13:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see the References are back, but the edit is still far to radical and unilateral. Keep in mind that the article was promoted to FA-status by consensus of the community, but currently it is nothing like the way it was then. It was promoted with a total of 45 footnotes, now it has 15! I would agree that the "Chivalry and national identity"-section was too listy, that happened after the promotion, but that doesn't warrant its removal. "Assessment and character" is absolutely vital. Being bold is alright, but this is just blatant disregard for community consensus. Lampman 20:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * erm.. calm down. Marcus22 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Response about possible sock puppet
I just saw your comment on my talk page and it seems you are onto something about the possible sock puppet. I put a "suspected sock puppet" message on his talk page and filed a request for an IP check. I will also try to repair some of the damage he has done to articles.Spylab 16:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Malvern Fringe Festival
Hi,

Thanks for the edits to the Malvern Fringe Festival page, it was getting a little untidy and I hadn't the time to clear it up. I only have one query - you altered a sentence that said: "Throughout its history Malvern Fringe featured an impressive array of performers, many of whom have gone on to become international stars. ", citing that it was a dubious fact.

Malvern Fringe has actually hosted a number of these performers before they became houshold names. For example, Lee Evans appeared before he won the Perrier award at Edinburgh, and Eddie Izzard appeared in about 1990 or 91. Hence, I feel our claim was justified, however poorly cited.

As we have a number of old Fringe programmes, could you recommend a good way to cite performances, so that we can maintain our initial claim? We would rather keep the list as it is, discriminating by genre, rather than by date - see the Perrier Comedy Award page for an example of this, as it best shows off the range of acts that we've put on.

Thanks,

Janus 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For my part I think you could put back the original claim if it is true as you suggest. (It's just that sometimes claims like these are installed by overenthusiastic editors and are not really based in fact).  Hard to see how you could use old programmes as sources unless they are readily available to the public.  So I'd just go ahead and put it back.  Apologies for deleting it in the first place!  Marcus22 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

celine dion - all by myself

 * Hello. I don't want to start an argument but I totally disagree with your removal of certain information on the Celine dion section of the All by myself article.  First of all, you claim that the information is not relevant and should be included on an article about Celine Dion rather than on that song.  You are totally wrong because most of the information you removed pertains to the recording of that particular song, NOT Celine's general career.  So in fact the information is 100 percent relevant and in fact serves to improve wikipedia in terms of offering extensive information on the recording of that particular song (celine's version).  you dont honestly believe that all the information for the recording of each and every particular song should be included on the article of the artist themself?  Please take a look at other artist pages, and note that they are general biographies with significant mentions of highs and lows in their career - but only glossing generally over such points, with links to articles which discuss more extensively each specific song-album-video, etc.

If you would look at pages for other songs that have been remade often - you will notice a similar pattern - as the information about Celine follows the same format as other artists.

You not only extensively reduced the section on celine's recording of the song, you even removed the ongoing single-chronology of Celine which was extremely important. Many artists on wikipedia who have a devoted fanbase that has added extensive information for them have included the extremely resourceful "single chronology" which provides link for each preceding (and following) single on each page of that artist's single.

I didn't even restore all the information on that page - simply the bit pertaining to the single chronology which is essential and completely follows the preset format on wikipedia thus far. I am simply messaging you to ask you to stop removing relevant information. Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The polite way to address such a matter is to say something like "You've done a good job at tidying up the Celine Dion section in blah blah blah.... but I feel it is best to put back the (bits you have put back)". As it is, I have no problem with your re-inserting that piece, if you feel it is needed.  But before I drastically edited that section it was a right mess.  The article IS now much better than it was.  regards  Marcus22 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks a lot for coming to a compromise. :) Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox - hi again
Hello. I noticed that you again removed the infobox including Celine Dion's singles chronology on the all by myself page. First off I'm well aware of the edit dispute you're having with Max24, which I don't want to get into. I just want to say that regardless of your different feelings regarding the issue - while you might have a point that the article is not about Celine, however you should not remove the infobox involving her singles chronology as that is an established practice on wikipedia.

First, please take a look at Wiki Project Songs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs

This is a huge collaborative project and the singles infobox follows exactly the established format and if you looked around at a lot of major artists' pages it's exactly the same.

Please take a look at artist pages from artists that are still big such as Mariah Carey and Madonna to diminished artists such as Brandy. This isn't a case of Celine Dion fans like me and Max24 taking our idolizing to a bad level, it's a case of continuing an established practice on wikipedia. Most major artists have singles chronologies on wikipedia as a resourceful piece of information.

Please take a look at an example such as Mariah Carey's Love Takes Time or Madonna's Ray of Light (song). You'll notice on the right there is an infobox which shows the following AND preceding single. Thus that infobox serves as a necessary continuation of the singles chronology.

Now I'm sure you'll ask about remakes. In the case of Mariah for example, she covered "I'll be there" from the Jackson 5, and thus if you follow on the infobox on the right from one single to the other you'll eventually get to the I'll be there page which has infoboxes for ALL of the artists who released that song as a single (both Mariah Carey and Jackson 5).

It may seem like I'm only giving examples for artists I may know of but I assure you this is an established practice on wikipedia that has taken a huge collaborative effort from many. So I invite you to visit many famous song pages which have been remade and released as a single by many artists to realize that the infobox is necessary for the singles chronoly of Celine and is only part of the established practice on wikipedia. If you take it off the page - it totally disrupts the chronology thus someone on the page for the single preceding "All by myself" will not have a link to follow for the next single.

Again, I'm well aware of the dispute you're having with Max24 in which you feel he's adding excessive information. Even when I first restored the infobox and left a comment on your page I only re-added the infobox and not all the other info Max24 added. My point is that I'm not going to get into this dispute with you guys but since you had agreed earlier to at least keep the infobox, please - when you revert his edits at least keep the infobox. I believe this is reasonable because it is NOT in my bias for Celine Dion as a fan but just continuing established practice on wikipedia for any major artist. Again I invite you to visit the pages of other major songs recorded and released as singles by other popular artists. Everything from Endless Love (song), Right Here Waiting or How Do I Live among the multitudes. Even a Celine Dion song which has been covered by another artist and RELEASEd as a single has the same separate infobox for that artists' singles chronology (The Prayer (Celine Dion and Andrea Bocelli song). Note that not all artists who covered a song get their own infobox by wiki standards - many artists covered certain extremely popular standards, and only get brief mentions on wikipedia - however if you see the common practice on wikipedia, only those who cover the songs AND release them as a commercial single get their own infobox as that covered song has thus become part of their singles chronology.

In fact, if anything All by myself would need another infobox for Eric Carmen's version himself that would go before Celine's as it is the original. But it would only appear as if his fans have not made a singles chronology at all for him yet. Thank you. Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The adventures of Robinson Crusoe (TV Series)
I removed the speedy-delete tag that someone else applied and replaced it with an underconstruction tag, which lets other editors know you're still working on the article. It's a good idea to start with this when you begin a new article, especially if you start with just a bit an add on a little at a time. Simply remove the tag when you're done, and everything's cool. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. Much appreciated. There seem to be some trigger happy people around tonight. But thanks anyway! Marcus22 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Patience
Thank you. I will try to be more considerate in the future. Monkeytheboy (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Limousin
I removed the wiki blog page from Limousin because it didn't seem to add anything. While wiki technology may have been used to construct this blog, I don't think there is anything magic about all wikis, per se. That is, we have maybe half a dozen Wikis that are "trustworthy" within the Wikipedia "family" as it were. But not all the rest, including literally hundreds of others that are established for other reasons than encyclopedic ones. Just a means of getting online with a format and rules of mutual participation, I believe. But they all have different rules and conventions many of which do not blend with our encyclopedia, as I understand it.

Also, there didn't seem to be any content at all when I was looking at it. This is pretty much the standard for WP:EL - they have to add something today that won't ever be added to the article. I didn't see that. Did you? Student7 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for taking the time out to explain your view. I understand what you are saying but, whilst it may be a small and amateur Wiki, it's certainly not a blog and it does have some content in it (not much admittedly). I can also quote you two other rules akin to WP:EL: one is, 'ignore all rules'  and the other is 'WP is not paper'.  This is not a business advertising itself, not a blog and not a spam link. And it is relevant to the article. It stays for me.  regards Marcus22 (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I take it you agree that all wikis aren't eligible per se just by virtue of calling themselves "wikis"?


 * If so, I was wondering if you can point to a particular fact that appears in this wiki today that can not or will not ever be in the article (as per WP:EL and that would be useful to a researcher? Thank you. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, apologies for taking so long to get back to you. As to your comments, firstly, I agree with you, I dont think all Wikis are necessarily eligible per se. If a Wiki site has been set up to no benefit for anyone, then it definitely does not belong.  But on the second point, I'm puzzled: it's surely self-evident that a local regional Wiki has the potential (and the space) to contain hundreds of pages of information that just could not - for reasons of space if nothing else - make it into the Wikipedia article?  For the substantial English population of the Limousin region, the Wikipedia article may provide an introduction, but it would be the local Wiki which gave the detail.  Seems to me that that is what External Links are for.  regards Marcus22 (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at External links #13. It just occured to me that one of the more highly developed wikis, WikiTravel, is never given as an external reference. I figured that there had to be a reason why. Student7 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment removed. See note at top regarding civility before re-adding. (Hint: the first step is to sign any comment if you wish to be considered a polite user). Thanks. Regards Marcus22 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
I understand fully your a europhile bastard who thinks its accpetable for an unklected commission to run our country and for the government to lie to the people and to give £100,000 a minute to the EU, what more can we expect from a socialist. You keep reverting the edit that UKIP is Libertarian, im a member of Young Independence, and a party member for 4 years, and i know better than most that UKIP is libertarian, how about googleing it you europhile. Oh you wont because the truth wil be reveals, and the EU hate free speech and the truth. The EU's days are numbered, the people are the greatest weapon.

UKIP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4korea (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What does unklected mean? (Oh, and btw, there are two 'l's in will.  And the verb reveal - in form passe composée - is 'revealed' not 'reveals').  Marcus22 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom4korea
I reported him/her here WP:AIV so we will see what happens. Another time you could do it yourself, if you liked! --Slp1 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I may have misunderstood, but no need to report to AIV this time. He has been blocked already.--Slp1 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I understand. Thanks again. Marcus22 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

wikidot.com spam war
The website you've added to a dozen or more articles ( .wikidot.com) looks suspiciously like spamming. The web site appears to be a wiki so points 1 and 11 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID apply. You've made no attempt to justify any link, either with an edit summary, nor any talk page discussion attempts. The edit war you're having with puts you in violation of the spirit of WP:3RR, and close to the literal meaning. Am I missing something? —EncMstr 07:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the comments. Yes, I think you are missing a good deal. 1. I have edited Wikipedia for around 4 years or so and made several thousand edits: none of which are spam.  Ask yourself this - why would I start now?  The fact is - and I have made this point elsewhere on at least two separate talk pages contrary to what you say or have been told - I happen to find those links perfectly good; the sites seem well-maintained, they offer useful information of both a practical and educational nature to the substantial English communities in those regions many of whom speak no French and would find links to "official" sites such as Tourist Board sites, utterly unusable.  2. Why is an unnamed user - with a vested commercial interest and who makes no other edits to Wikipedia - so set on making this claim? Has he/she investigated these links as I have? Have you, for that matter? 3. May I ask what you mean by "The web site appears to be a wiki so points 1 and 11 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID apply". I seem to see the words "normally to be avoided" in the paragraph you refer to. I understand that to mean that such links are normally to be avoided unless there is good reason to include them.  Which, after reviewing the sites, I consider such a good reason to exist.  In brief, if I thought they were spam I would not add them. I think they are good links which is why I have added them.  I have made this reply elsewhere. The unnamed user continues to ignore what I have said as far as I can see and merely quotes "rules" - which, in fact are guidelines and NOT rules - to justify their repeated deletion. OK, I think that about covers it.  As you - unlike that other user - are a registerd and long-standing user with a good edit record I will await your reply before re-adding the links.  I will not offer that user the same courtesy. Regards Marcus22 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do apologize. I noticed you had an extensive history, and therefore didn't take any action pending your input.  Based on your comments, I explored at depth beginning at http://charente.wikidot.com/ (chosen randomly) to find the value you speak of, but I couldn't find much—other than a few advertisements.  With difficulty, I found the site map and tried about half of the entries.  Maybe 80% are unfilled frameworks; the rest are business advertisements.  Perhaps this department is a poor example?  What value do you perceive the site adding?  —EncMstr 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that and for taking some time out to check a site. I'm not sure I fully agree with your assessment and I'll give you my reasons: I do agree that the business listings would be lost on, or may appear rather "thin", to anyone not living in rural France and renovating an old property. Having once been in that postion, however, I'm confident that even those links could prove invaluable to the English (as in English only speaking) communities.  (Of which there are now a great number).  But I accept that this point could be viewed either my way or as you see it.  On other pages, I disagree and I think there are some good regional info pages - little out of the way tourist sites, brief descriptions of towns and the like. These look good to me. (But I agree that it would be nice if there were more of them). The reason I have added these links is simple: "Official" French sites are often of a very limited use - even to a French speaker! - and I think these sites could prove useful to the English community.  They give some education, some information and seem reasonably well-maintained.  To my mind they are an exception to the rule of not-including open Wikis. I'll await any reply. regards Marcus22 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Either the website is organized in a way which is completely non-obvious to me, or there is little actual content. I tried to think of things which would be very popular to post or look for in an effort to find the best developed pages.  I came up with things like Normandie pubs, Normandie carpenters, Bretagne apartments, and Bourgogne doctors.  These specific pages are almost useless.
 * I agree that this would be a great resource for someone moving to one of these departments, if only there was useful content. It would have to be extensive to fill the intent of the external link policy so that it provides information which Wikipedia will never have.  The content would have to be reliable, so most advertising would not qualify, but customer feedback could appear, so the reliability of this site might be okay.
 * As it stands though, the *.wikidot.com sites don't appear to help. Perhaps the best of these pages might change my mind:  do you know which that would be? —EncMstr 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I`m happy to stick to the site you first mentioned.
 * 1. If I look at the contents page Contents - Charente site, which looks a fair size, straight away - the second listing in fact - I find information which could be very useful to any English speaker in the region and which also offers something that "provides information which Wikipedia will never have". (It`s a page offering translation and administration help). Without looking any further I`m sure other, similar, pages probably exist.  Perhaps not in great quantity - and I agree with you that I would like to see more - but, even agreeing that, I don`t necessarily read a quantitative figure in the intent of external link.
 * 2. A second kind of page appears to be of this nature: Angles sur Anglin. There are quite a few of these pages. They appear well written and informative. This information is not yet on Wikipedia nor, in this slightly non-NPOV version, could it ever be. Other examples, seem to me to be informative and yet, arguably, would not find themselves in Wikipedia -, - in any case, once again, the information is presented in a different manner to the way it might be presented here.  To my mind, that also satisfies the important point - these sites "provide information which Wikipedia will never have".
 * 3. OK, so what about pages such as those you mention above? This one - Normandie carpenters - I disagree with you again. It is certainly not "almost useless". If I lived in Normandy and I found myself renovating, this could be very useful. (This one, by contrast - Bourgogne doctors - I do agree with you. As this page stands it is "almost useless"). So, overall, these pages are a `mixed bag`.
 * Well, that`s my view and I am aware of yours. (I`m not trying to cut off any reply you might want to make - it`s just that I`m sure we both have better and more pressing issues to deal with. But do reply to my points if you wish). These links certainly cannot be called "spam" and I think they offer good and/or useful information. The nub of the matter is, what to do about it. I intend to re-add the links as I see value in them: as I hope I have now explained. But I can`t see how an "edit war" with an unnamed one-off user can be avoided? (The problem is that even if you and everyone else saw these sites as being as valid - this person can persist in deleting them). Marcus22 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR reports
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~slakr/3rr.php can be used to help prepare the report. But it looks as if both of you have violated 3RR on the article. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick study shows that the other guy hasn't been warned, with, say, so it's unlikely he would be sanctioned. You, on the other hand, are obviously aware of 3RR, so, you might be blocked.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What the devil does this mean? "The other guy hasn't been warned, with, say, so it's unlikely he would be sanctioned": Am I supposed to know that this needs to be done? And, in any case, unlike the "other guy" I have repeatedly asked for the matter to be discussed on the talk page - only to get no response. Furthermore, neither have I asked for any "sanctions", only for help in stopping a casual, unregistered user from altering an agreed position on an article. Marcus22 (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. . You and Eblackwood have made 9 reverts each in the last 24 hours! --Faith (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How utterly ludicrous. Some casual user changes an agreed position on an article and refuses to discuss the change. I repeatedly ask him to do so and tell him to discuss it and he still refuses. And the best you can offer is this "use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus". THAT is precisely what I have been asking the other user to do! If that's the way you understand the system, damn well block me then! Marcus22 (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your 3RR while reporting a similar circumstance, but the point is that you also violated the 3RR, rather than reporting the user for his violations. You might want to reconsider your attitude, which won't help your case like pointing out his nonsense edits might. Faith (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just who the hell do you think you are talking to? YOU reconsider YOUR attitude. Marcus22 (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are obviously angry, not realising I am trying to help you. I'm trying to suggest if you point out Eblackwood's nonsense edits to an administrator, while keeping a cool head, might go a long way toward showing you were reverting vandalism rather than just reverting to a preferred version.  I'm not an administrator, and you can take my advice or leave it, but it was offered from a position of kindness to help you present your case, not rudeness. Faith (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you will note, my assistance in reporting the diffs for you resulted in Eblackwood being blocked for 24 hours for 3RR (and I feel for vandalism, as well); therefore, I did help you. Faith (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it's noted on both WP:3RR and WP:AN/3, users must be warned before a 3RR block is made. I acttually don't see a consensus on the talk page, only that you outshouted the opposition without making new arguments.  (On the other hand, most of the other contributors to the discussion seem to be single purpose accounts, so I may be misreading the consensus.  On the gripping hand, they claim to be libertarian, so there should be some mention of it in the infobox, even if it were a lie.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

France-related wikis on wikidot.com

 * Spam domains:
 * contact us link
 * Compare the text of that wiki's 17 Dec 2008 entry on Robert Motherwell with our 6 December version
 * Note this discussion: Talk:Artist
 * Meta discussion: meta:Talk:Interwiki map (permanent link)




 * Related domains
 * Compare our 15 December 2008 version of Gene Davis (painter) with the blog's 9 February 2009 entry on the painter.
 * Compare our 15 December 2008 version of Gene Davis (painter) with the blog's 9 February 2009 entry on the painter.


 * This was spammed to simple.wikipedia but not here
 * This was spammed to simple.wikipedia but not here

Google Adsense ID: 9359000462991404
 * contact us link
 * contact us link
 * contact us link
 * contact us link
 * contact us link
 * contact us link


 * Accounts:
 * User talk:Marcus22
 * User talk:Marcus22
 * User talk:Marcus22


 * simple:Special:Contributions/90.231.2.252
 * simple:Special:Contributions/90.231.2.252
 * simple:Special:Contributions/90.231.2.252


 * simple:Special:Contributions/Jon-Peter
 * simple:Special:Contributions/SparassinII

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (permanent link)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)