User talk:MarkGallagher/Archive4

Pghbridges.com
Saw you closed the AfD on that, and was quite pleased with the outcome, thanks! Then saw that the article got moved even though you closed it as keep rather than move without redirect. Thoughts? (I watch talk pages I start convos on, you can reply here) ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My reading of the AfD was that keeping was a better outcome than moving to Project space. However, there's no reason why radical editing decisions can't be made after an AfD is finished, and User:Radiant! was quite entitled to move it to its current location, even though the AfD result was keep.   You and I might wish he hadn't, but provided he wasn't motivated by simple vote-counting urges, there's nothing wrong with doing so. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree he's entitled, heck I'm entitled to move Encyclopedia Britannia somewhere, and then be evaluated on whether it was a good idea or not, it's a wiki, after all. I just am not too keen on it being "stuck" there, which it is because the talk page redirect has history, it can't be moved back by anyone. But that's water under the dam. In accordance with the process of WP:RM I listed it there and listed my reasons why a move back would be a good thing on the talk page of where it is now., you're invited to participate if you like... Thanks for confirming that my read of your read was what you actually intended. Probably no need for further discussion here, was just asking a question... ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the RM people will take care of it, assuming there's some people that agree with Lar.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aliens From Hell
Thanks for the note about speedy deletions. I did read the page and I thought I had it right. I suppose it doesn't fit the Wikipedia definition of 'nonsense' but it is a load of tripe. I listed it on the Afd page and most of the editors concur with my opinion. Bombycil 03:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

doppelgangers
It's OK. I was too slow applying the doppelganger tag :) It could have been a vandal though, so thanks for defending.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 11:56Z 

Summaries
Fair enough. I tend to be a bit lazy when doing afd's, as the summaries are about to get trashed. I *do* tend to use 'em for articles themselves though :-) See here ->   Will try to be a good citizen and use 'em more though.  Regards.  --Oscarthecat 13:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Heads-up
Hi, on Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination), you seem to have voted both support and neutral. You may want to have a look. --Gurubrahma 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Dear Mark,

At the article 'Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy' the cartoons about Propher Mohammed is posted. 1.3 billion Muslims are considering this as an insult. I know that an insult cannot find place in a wiki article. I would like to ask you please do something for it. We can discuss the issue without pictures too. That is totally unresponsible to put those cartoons to the article. It is very dangerous and a step towards clush of civilizations. Resid Gulerdem 19:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League
Hello Mark, I'd like to query a couple of the changes you made recently to the Jewish Defence League article. The main query I have is over the changing of the location of Hebron, which is in one of the areas occupied by Israel in 1967, from the West Bank back to Israel. Clearly, that change is going to be objectionable to many people, particularly since there are UN resolutions in force calling from Israel to dismantle its settlements and withdraw its forces from the area. I'd also like to ask why you removed the reference to the fact that those killed by Baruch Goldstein were worshippers at a mosque (and according to some eyewitnesses, Goldstein did wait until they were bent in prayer before opening fire). I think that the fact that the attack was at the mosque at the Cave of the Patriarchs and that the attack is one of those referred to by the term 'Hebron massacre' are important details which help to distinguish which particular attack is being discussed. Also, those terms serve as links to other major articles. ZScarpia 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for undoing the changes, Mark. Predictably, I suppose, someone came along 12 minutes later and put them straight back again. ZScarpia 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Old comment
Salutations fuddlemark. I don't believe we've met before, so I apologize for somewhat stepping out of the blue. May I inquire you sate my curiousity by telling me the point of this diff and this diff..? Nice to have meet you BTW. -ZeroTalk 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talkpage. (Here)-ZeroTalk 11:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

lol
Heh why did you unprotect that discussion? I knew they hadn't agreed to leave it alone and would come back to change it. =D --Syrthiss 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Zapatero
If you think the article is not a copyvio revert the copyvio notice. As the author of the piece Zapatancas has no authority to revert the copyvio. Why are you letting him continue? I did not put the copyvio on the article myself, please be clear about that as well, SqueakBox 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I only had Zapatancas' word for it, which is not enough as I assumed he could have been lying (if we don't assume people can lie about copyvios we will quickly gertn infected). Zapatancas made no attemopt top prove it wasn't a copyvio and I asked him to get someone else to check it ouit. According to him that is beijng disruptibve but his poor explanation was not. Do you want copyvio's on wikipedia? If so I hope you are the first in line to be sued. If you had bothered to check in the beginning you would have realised it was not me who put the copyvio on the article but from your Incidents page comment it is obvious you jumped in before investigating the situation, SqueakBox 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Incivility is not a blockable offence. I am intrigued why you ignore Zapatancas incivility and jump down my throat. If you hadn't made the wrong assumption in the first place about my motives everything would have been fine but assuming that I was engaged in a personal conflict (if I had actually put the copyvio notice on the article that would have been harrassment given both my and Zapatancas history and my knowledge of computers etc as I know you don't stick a copyvio on an article without searching that the word wikipedia is not in the allegedly vio'd text, etc) and not a genuine desire to protect wikipedia, and giving me advice as an admin to ignore people accused of alleged copyvio's reverting copyvio notices directed at them fails to protect wikipedia copyvio practices and thus wikipedia from civil actions, and this is an area I will continue to take highly seriously, see here.

This is real incivility. But anyway thanks for your apology. I am happy to talk about any of these issues but otherwise I hope this case is closed. I apologise if I caused you any personal distress, and can assure you that I am doing my best to get on and collaborate with Zapatancas. Cheers mate, SqueakBox 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning template names in edit summaries
Hi, I understand the reasoning for not doing that, but I believe there's more positives than negatives gained by doing that (it's easier for me to check later what people who got the bigger warnings have been up to afterwards). I'm assuming that people who vandalize are either new users testing, and they wouldn't look much at the page histories or edit summaries anyway, or they'd be more experienced vandals, in which case they'd know we're using templates anyway and it wouldn't matter. If you really do feel strongly about this, I'm open to being convinced though :). - Bobet 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Whackjob"
I'd already checked their other contribution (as it was at the time), which was a complete nonsense article which they were removing the nonsense tag from, so I think it was fairly well-founded. --Kiand 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Soccer-europe.com
Can you verify the claim that soccer-europe.com images are for any purpose? I do not see that release on the website, but you created Template:SocEur claiming they are. The front page of soccer-europe.com says "The contents of this site may not be used without written permission of the webmaster" -Nv8200p talk 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the soccer-europe.com website is the copyright holder of these images anyway. Are you sure they are?


 * If he is allowing free use of these images, then he needs to change his front page to reflect that or create a copyright page to explain it. Until then, you should post your e-mails somewhere so they can be referenced. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging (from the Hamamni Persian Baths Incident)
Thanks for merging the Hamamni Persian Baths info. I think the suggestion of a WP:Request for merge is justified. How do we make one? Iamvered 20:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
"I'm none too impressed by User:Giano's behaviour here, either, ..." You must be very proud of yourself. You can change your vote, keep your hands clean, and shoot the messenger too. I presented the evidence he provided it. Wikipedia has been saved one of the worst administrators it could possible ever had had. And you've not been impressed by my behaviour - well let me tell you - your standards and judgement  aren't  too hot in my estimation either in fact they are abysmal. While you are being so sanctimonious I shall always expose bullying editors like him - you just keep washing your hands. You'll stay spotless that way. Giano | talk 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Ghirla | talk 11:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: people who can't handle the truth
Nice collection you've got there. Oh, and Ardenn keeps removing what you wrote on their talk page... Alph a x &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 04:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for deleting that page for me. Qutezuce 06:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for Rv my page. Best wishes, Lion King 09:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (again)
Hi Mark

Thanks for nominating me for adminship, and thanks for your congratulations when it passed. I was expecting it to be much closer than that, and am still not sure why it did as well as it did. Maybe it was because I support the right team :-Þ CTOAGN (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail. —bbatsell ¿?  04:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Videography Revert?
I noticed that you reverted one of the edits to Videography. There seems to be trouble brewing there again as User:Bob Kiger seems intent on turning it into a vanity piece for his writing on the subject. Take a look when you get a chance. Regards --Jeremy Butler 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Crazy People Rock
I was just trying to get a rise out of him for shits & giggles.(Khan)

How to Draw Manga
I replied to your comments on my own talk page, as the discussion is cluttered enough not to want to bring it here too. Stifle 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again.
First, Derek Cashman deleted our link from "Albuquerque, New Mexico" and proceeded to ignore my (very politically correct) comment on his talk page. Now, you (Mark Gallagher) deleted my link without so much as an explanation.

Please tell me, how can a free metroblog that has postings and comments by citizens of Albuquerque be considered a spamlink?

Why are traditional media, i.e. newspapers, television and radio, not only allowed to post links, but given prominent placement on city profiles when blogs sites created, managed and written "by the people" (excuse the pen) are delisted? This practice seems contrary to the very foundation that Wikipedia was built on... a free resource for the masses. Wikipedia, that is hypocrisy. I for one am truly sorry to see a once-great project stray from it's roots.

One last point, how can you allow other blogs to be listed under the "External Links" category and persist in removing our link? Either someone is not paying attention or someone is discriminating.

Obviously, Wikipedia's policy on listing blogs should be more clearly defined. You may answer on my talk page if you desire. Wmtodd 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)WmTodd

Commercial content providers
Hello, Mark. Technically, copyright violations can only be speedily deleted by A8 when they are from a commercial content provider, which is a company that makes money from the content that has been copied, like an encyclopedia or newspaper. The content is how they make money. Encyclopedias sell copies or charge for access to their website, while newspapers charge for subscriptions and/or sell ad space. Without the content, they would have nothing to sell. Non-commercial content providers often have content that is commercial, but they are using it to sell their products and services.

NetSupport 24-7 is not a commercial content provider. Antarctic Place-names Commission, Safety and Health Hall of Fame International, and Genentech are not either (I'm not sure that the Antarctic one is a copyvio, as I think the poster got permission to use it. The article appears to have been undeleted or recreated). Also, by definition spam and advertising cannot be speedily deleted, at least by A8, because companies do not make money by charging people to read it. Sorry to be so repetitive and long-winded, but editors and administrators have had great difficulty understanding what a commercial content provider is. I'm not suggesting the the articles should have been kept or that they should be undeleted and posted on copyright problems. I think that all copyright violations should be speedily deleted, but some of the other editors were unwilling to expand the criteria. However, I think that we should be consistent. You can respond on this page, if you want to. Thanks, Kjkolb 18:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy-deletion against request for discussion
Hi Mark; assuming good faith I imagine you didn't see the talk page of the template. It differs completely from the 2005 version, and for that reason needs separate discussion. I'll re-create it (for the last time; I don't want to get hit for 3RR) and we can chat about it there. &#0151; JEREMY 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Baffled
I could not figure out what the heck you were talking about here. I was like, "HWSNBN"? Who??? Not the brightest Dark Lord out there, I suppose. Maybe it should stand for He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Nowledgeable. :-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  14:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ook?
I'm a really tired so sorry if I'm being dense, but did you accidentally remove something here? brenneman {T}  {L}  06:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lang Hancock
Hi, Fud, I put a few comments on Talk:Lang Hancock. Bishonen | 美少年 00:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

RFA
Regarding: Requests for adminship/Djr xi. I was wondering if you might like to take another look at your vote, your criticisms have now been addressed. Thanks! -- Colle || Talk -- 21:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope that you like the place and decide to stay.

If you haven't already read the policies and guidelines page, some of the key points are:
 * The Five pillars of Wikipedia:
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * Articles must conform to a neutral point of view
 * Wikipedia is free content, and submissions must not violate the copyright policy
 * Observe Wikiquette and the other rules of engagement
 * Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules
 * The Simplified Ruleset adds:
 * Be bold in making changes
 * Information should be verifiable
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Use the Show preview button
 * There are five official rules which must be followed

Some other useful pages are:
 * How to edit a page
 * The Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The Tutorial
 * The Manual of Style
 * What to do if you see vandalism
 * How to move and merge pages
 * The Village pump and Help desk, for questions about Wikipedia
 * The reference desk, for questions which are not about Wikipedia
 * How to write a great article

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page or via email. Thanks and happy editing, Alph a x &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
 The joke is getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions, or move on to something like Uncyclopedia. *ahem* Talrias (t | e | c) 13:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rooney3.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Rooney3.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Image is an orphan -Nv8200p talk 23:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian Soccer Team
Due to the continual reversions by anonomous users, could you please put a partial protect on Australian National Soccer Team and Australian National Football Team. This is getting beyond a joke. Xtra 05:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian soccer/football team
Yeah that one really disappoints me since things seemed settled at the end of December. *sigh* Well hopefully it will be this time. I'm not on IRC much anymore. I'm on for a couple of hours around mid afternoon your time but that's about it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Following your (good) suggestion and subsequent page moves - Australia national football team needs to be (temporarily?) unprotected to get rid of the double re-direct. Cursive 18:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hijacking of football
have a look at Football in Western Australia, Football in Victoria, Football in Tasmania etc etc and you will see what I means. Debunct seem to be the main culprit. Grant65 | Talk 12:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh
I have edited this article removing unverified stuff and adding stuff from verifiable sources such as newspapers. I would be grateful if you could take a look and see what you think. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD nominations
Hello Mark. I was just wondering why an AfD nomination cannot also be a vote. In the past, I've seen most nominations come with votes, except when the creation of the AfD stemmed from a prod without a comment. Thanks! Isopropyl 14:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

 * More trolling by Erwin Walsh

At this point Erwin has resumed trolling yet again and is trollishly taunting Cool Cat at his leisure (which I hope he realises is not permitted, and in any case he's been warned). He also leaves the comment unsigned, which is funny because I had made an entry on the talk page here and other trolling situations in the past. Erwin's response to your warning was to ignore both comments and proceed with another blatent attempt at trolling. This is really not a nice thing to do, but assume good faith and all that... -ZeroTalk 16:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Dear Mark,

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the debate at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I'm just curious as to how you stand on the issue; you don't have to add anything to the AfD. Thanks!

-Isopropyl 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I think you're insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.182.9 (talk • contribs)

AfD nominations
Per your recommendation, I have stopped voting when nominating articles for deletion. Have a nice day! Isopropyl 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

For You
In retaliation for your months of incessant badgering about the bloody place, I hereby present you with a new award: the Prix d'Amour Photograph of Dereliction. The place is being stripped out and has a thick fence up front. This is the only angle I could get a photo from, on one of the driveways through a cyclone fence gate. From the graffiti on it, it would seem it's been in a bad state for a while at least. - Mark 10:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

VPL and NSWPL clubs
Ok, thanks for letting me know. I'll start with Victoria. There are eight football clubs without enough info, so I'll get onto it tonight. Thanks for letting me know. --Executive.koala 11:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I finished a bit sooner than I thought. The VPL is actually known as the Vodaphone Cup. Should there be some sort of name change at Victorian Premier League? --Executive.koala 12:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I haven't got to NSW yet. I'll check it out. --Executive.koala 12:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian English
Australian_English
 * In the early 21st century the national governing body for soccer attempted to foster use of "football" to mean soccer, in accordance with general international usage. However, use of the word "football", to mean either Australian rules or one of the rugby football codes, is well-established in Australia, and the belated attempt to change this has not been generally accepted by common usage.

This is POV. What a disgrace? So many suburban football (soccer) clubs all around the country are changing their name from Soccer Club to Football Club, even all the little junior clubs I used to play against as a kid are changing. And as for participation, Football is almost twice as popular as Aussie Rules and even more played than cricket. No wonder so many people move to completely discredit Wikipedia as a useful source of accurate information. How did this go unchecked? Even the most one-eyed Aussie Rules fan knows this is completely untrue. Did an AFL official write this? :-) --Executive.koala 23:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)