User talk:Maxamegalon2000/Archive 2

Sea Of Glass
Are you sure "Of" is supposed to be capitalized? My Google search for "sea of glass" and "longyear" turned up mostly results with a lowercase "o". --Maxamegalon2000 04:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. The St. Martin's Press first edition (ISBN 0-312-00780-9) I own has it titled as "SEA OF GLASS" on the copyright page. An ISBN search of amazon.com produces the appropriate cover typeface (consistent with the spine and copyright page) but gives "Sea of Glass" in their description. A search of abebooks.com for the same ISBN produces "SEA OF GLASS", "Sea of Glass" and occasionally "Sea Of Glass".  Given the case variations found and the Wikipedia capitalization conventions for books,   I opted to title the stub "Sea Of Glass" as a compromise. I'm not absolutely sure that my compromise is the most appropriate and I'm open to suggestions. -- Rydra Wong 09:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

wikEd


Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Usually it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Reed (artist)
RE: Paul Reed (Artist) page - Thank you for your help. It's appreciated. - CconstanceR

Shaq Fu (reply)
If I could, I would. However, it was a very old issue that came out sometime in the mid-1990's. Sorry that I can't give you more accurate information

Joey Harrington
Can you please stop deleting what I add to the Joey Harrington article. I am a second cousin of his, and I don't know how to prove it but it's true so please stop deleting this. If you have to keep being like this I will just get the damn proof, but I really don't see why it's necesary to go through all the trouble.

I don't have proof but I'll list the damn family tree if you want. My name being listed as a relative is no less relavant than listing any of his other relatives.

Tangled Rope
TangledRope have been featured on many local radio shows including oneunderground radio station and have performed at many high profile gigsincluding a charity concert for "Make Poverty History" involving dozensof high schools from across Victoria. They have just released theirfirst EP/Album and it has been sold out for numerous weeks in the musicunderground. Many other bands have there own spot in Wikipedia withalot less claim to faim. We ask that you do not delete this article asit is important to the fans and the band. -- Arctic-Lizard 05:44, 16 November 2006

Re: Chalukya
Yes, we will put in the request soon in the Today's featured article/requests page. This is just to work on the request and to get inputs from others, before putting the request in the Requests page. As you suggested, I will make sure to place a db-author tag on the original page. Thanks for your understanding. - KNM Talk 17:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi Maxamegalon2000, I have made some questions on your RfA page. These are completely optional but I would appreciate if you could answer them. This could help some neutral and oppose votes to veer towards support. I am particularly puzzled by the sentence "Punitive measures seem more like an arb com sort of thing", hence my first question. Best wishes, -- Asterion talk 14:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers, you have my confidence. Regards, Asterion talk 19:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Hi, Just a small note to inform you that your RFA did not meet the required level of support needed for us Bureaucrats to promote you. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

IP revrt
I own both the accounts, stop reverting as i do not want my IP showing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 11Ryan (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

User:72.1.206.101 vandalized again
See User talk:72.1.206.101 Anthony Appleyard 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Betting Pool and Bracketology
Spam was not submitted. I added content to these for references on managing betting pools and performing bracketology. please do not delete in the future.

Tammy Leitner
Finishing 10th is below the Survivor mark in my mind, but if she did win some awards, that would make her slightly more notable. If you can find some sources then I won't nominate it for afd. -- Scorpion 15:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to have no desire to save the article, I am going to nominate it for afd. But, you can save me time by allowing me to merge the article -- Scorpion 04:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't find more online sources? It's one thing to cite printed sources in an article that unquestionably belongs on Wikipedia, but its another to quote written sources in a borderline article. -- Scorpion 05:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll leave the page alone. I added her to the template. And, there are about 73 pages for contestants, half of which scrape through with the most minor of notability, but how about not creating any more for past contestants unless they do something overly notable? -- Scorpion 05:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize then. It's actually funny because I've only created one page for a Survivor (Kathy Vavrick-O'Brian) because I felt every All-Star deserved a page and her page was deleted with no discussion whatsoever and meanwhile, contestants below the notability line manage to get through. -- Scorpion 05:38, 7 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 13:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Deportivo
I actually didn't find the article through AfD, but rather through edit history (the AfD notice had apparently been removed by an anon user). After reviewing the AfD, unfortunately, I cannot close it at this time. The stadium also nommed does not quite seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:CSD. I could see another admin closing this one via snowball in a day or so, however.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 14:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

survivor.com
You are deleting my links as spam on some survivor TV show pages. Why? I'm not a spammer. This is the site at survivor.com. It's got as much or more information on the site as survivorfever. It's rated #2 in Google. It's got 2 years worth of articles and commentary and news on the show. The link is on the main survivor page. I'm linking to season specific pages. Please reinstate my links. Thank you. -conrad walton, conrad@walton.com - Mar. 19, 2007

I just read your message to me. survivor.com is NOT a personal site, nor is it for advertising or promotion or whatever else you want to call spam. It is, in fact, a site " with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Please take a little time to review the site before deleting links to it. If you take out my links, then you need to take out the survivorfever link and the survivor maps links also.

They are all providing information about the show. Please search for "survivor" in google. Please look through the couple thousand pages of survivor TV show information. It does not qualify for the definition of spam. Please put my links back. Thank you. -conrad walton, conrad@walton.com - Mar. 19, 2007

I just created an account. I'm now c331673. You can talk to me there.

That's fair. My argument is that that this site is as legitimate as those sites. I do not think they are spam either. I'm also a newbie, so I don't know how to start or edit a talk page.

D-Wade

 * Great job with the vandal fighting work Max! Quadzilla99 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy,Max!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Trampton 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC).Trampton 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

A little favor
Incidentally would you mind adding this page to your watchlist as well? Given my experiences, I can tell it probably won't qualify for semi-protection. Even though it's a low traffic page it gets a ton of anon vandals and others putting them and their friends' names in there. I revert it a lot but if I'm not awake or at my computer sometimes it will go for hours with Kobe Bryant or Jeremy "Boy Wonder" McGovern in there. Quadzilla99 05:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Knight Rider
No worries! I tend to question the basis of an entire article for a film that has yet to be made. I dug up all the necessary information I could find about the film adaptation (and I consider myself pretty good at that), and I wrote it up. I usually make a judgment call from that point; since there was no director, cast, or release date established for Knight Rider among my findings, I decided to merge the content with the source material until actual production is underway, as not to be crystal balling. I'm actually going to revise Logan's Run (2007 film) right now. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure; I have yet to see any kind of official cancellation of a project in my time working on articles about future films. For the most part, nothing's really said about what happens to the project.  Rights usually move around, so for films that have some kind of prominent source material, the project will usually be on some studio's development slate.  An example is Watchmen -- the project's been through a few studios, but it doesn't seem that there was any kind of official cancellation, just placing the project on turnaround.  Actually, one example of an official cancellation that just came to mind was The Fountain, though the film was eventually made.  I think the issue with having an article on a canceled film is that the article will always be underdeveloped.  Maybe that's acceptable for some people, but from what I've seen, failed production efforts hardly garner more than one or two paragraphs' worth of content in regard to the attempt.  What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've dealt with a few fanmade posters myself, the most recent incident being at I Am Legend (film) (wasn't a good fake, either). I agree about the notion that the appearance of an event is more notable than its eventual recession.  For films, it's hard to make news out of a project's inactivity; it usually requires someone involved with the project to comment on it, especially in an "unofficial" light.  A nice example of this is Laura Dern recently in the news for talking to people about being involved with Jurassic Park IV; before that, we couldn't really tell what was happening with the project.  I'm iffy about the presence about Canceled Superman films, since the fanboyism reeks in that article.  I actually re-wrote and merged Batman vs. Superman into the Batman and media article; I don't know if the series of attempts for Superman films warrants the same approach.


 * I understand the urge to keep something new; I've kept a close eye on article creation of future films with my subpage, and I usually redirect where necessary. When a film gets announced, it's not always guaranteed that the film will be produced.  I think people tend to forget this because we probably don't remember films that never take off after their initial announcement.  A recent example of a film article being "deleted" (actually was re-created as a redirect) is Gears of War -- you can see the AfD discussion.  It was based on one announcement about the project's development, which isn't enough for an entire article.  A couple of film articles that just recently got stuck in development hell are The Hobbit (2009 film) and Halo (film).  I will probably see how I can address these at some point; I'm handling the lighter articles and the more out-of-the-spotlight articles at the moment.  I actually recently let Valkyrie (film) keep its status as its own article because after talking to two other editors that work with film articles, the attachment of a director, a lead, and a production start date seemed to be the earliest criteria to permit an article.  However, at the first sign of trouble, we may look into merging the production information elsewhere until the project meets further criteria to have its own article.  Right now, I'm working on a project to help deal with what we consider faulty defenses to keep a film article, especially the defense of using IMDb, which I've learned over time is not as reliable as it seems.  Can you tell I'm really into this? :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

White And Nerdy
Why the hell did you say it was nonsense? It was not at all. Wikipedia is known throughout the whole world as a nerdy site. Wikiedia is for nerds 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 NFL Draft
Sorry, but I have these already on a notepad, so I just copy and paste. I notice after I post them. Sorry Soxrock 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You too...
Dude, your following me as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Main page
FYI, it looks like someone tampered with your opinion/vote/whatever on the mainpage talk discussion about Featured Lists. APL 06:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack Thompson photo
Thanks for adding a photo to the JT article. It's much better with one.--Viridistalk 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A free-license photo! Congratulations on finding one, and thanks for all your work. --Michael Snow 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 NFL Draft - FL Candidate.
Hi., i nominated the article where you made significant contributions - 2007 NFL Draft as a "Featured list" candidate. Please leave a comment FLC-2007 NFL Draft. Thanks. Kalyan 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blue Prism
I don't know how I missed the AfD in progress. I restored it so AfD can properly determine what to do with the article. ^ demon [omg plz] 10:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ScottAHudson
Hi,

Sorry about that... it has been a busy week! :) Anyway, I reverted to the version that the MfD felt was compliant, with a note of explanation at the user's talk page.  I'm sure he'll get the point eventually; if, unfortunately, he does not, then a new MfD will be required, at which I'm sure commenters will be less willing to accept his promises of reform.  Best wishes, Xoloz 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mynameisphil
With all due respect, I don't understand why you don't consider consecutive male/female vote-offs notable. In Vanuatu, Chris Daugherty was down 6-1 and orchestrated five female vote-offs in a row to go on to win. I thought that was pretty awesome. In Fiji, the first five contestants voted off were female. The men have never had more than two be the first voted off, and that didn't happen until the 13th season. I realize, different strokes for different folks, but what qualifies as "notable" to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisphil (talk • contribs)

Survivor conetstant "importance"
I think that your criteria for deciding who is "important" enough to be discussed more in depth is erroneous. You have declined submissions about former Survivors who have actually gone on and accomplished something in life. I forget that hanging around LA trying to get a gig...any cheesy gig, is more important. And popularity from the show is based on who was the most conniving and manipulative...glad we have role models. What about the ones who did not succumb to this behavior? Are they not worth mentioning just because they didn't make it to the end? Strange world..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Dark2Matter (talk • contribs)

WP:BLP
I'm glad you commented on the revised BLP policy and I respect your reading of the clause. Yet really, would it be fair or humane if only the closing administrator weighed the subject's desire? It would hardly improve the situation if the rest of us ignored the human factor. These people want out. They aren't all that famous in the real world and if we have these articles at all then Wikipedia isn't much more complete, but the individuals who have most at stake are unhappy. We don't give them editorial control and discourage them from editing their pages at all. So do you have some other solution that doesn't place them in a double bind? This was the best I could think of. Durova Charge! 19:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I guess the definition of copyright violation has been changed as I have followed the exact format of other flickr images and fully sourced all three. Please let go of your little vendetta and stop following me around. -- Scorpion0422 02:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you're doing. You're trying to get me blocked for copyright violation, which is why you refuse to let the images be deleted the easy way. I admit I made a mistake, so let it go. -- Scorpion0422 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote on pedophile activism
There is currently a vote on the issue of whether the anti- and pro- pedophile activism articles should be merged into a single "culture war" article. Having noted your participation in previous discussions on this matter, I thought that I'd invite you to vote. 86.131.41.244 21:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, after failing that one, he's now trying to merge it with pedophilia, can you believe it? Thanks for your consideration. 86.131.41.244 23:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Survivor Fan Sites Linked
Last year you deleted links my friend posted because you said:

"Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. "

You are being very subjective since you allow certain sites, and not others, even though the very links you do allow promote privately-held sites. At least Survivor Maps provides unique content to each season, and they are not a commercial site. Survivor Fever is an advertising-supported fan website which reposts links to articles that can be found elsewhere.

How do either one of these sites which have no article or content reference qualify as anything but a "collection of external links"? How can you support including them when you have in the past refused to include other sites which at least as relevant as these two?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Borneo No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_The_Australian_Outback No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Africa The one season that deserved to have Survivor Maps featured has again no content to sustain their inclusion. This was the year they got satellite imagery to identify the shooting location. Someone should write something about that. No content that merits an outside link to Survivor Fever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Marquesas No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Thailand No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_The_Amazon No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Pearl_Islands No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_All-Stars No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Vanuatu No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Palau No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Guatemala One flimsy calendar reference to the filming schedule attributed to Survivor Fever, without an actual proper citation, information that was available on any number of other sites. No specific content from Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Panama No content that merits an outside link to either Survivor Fever or Survivor Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Cook_Islands You give Survivor Fever a citation for information that was originally published by TV Guide. Why not cite the original source instead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Fiji One flimsy citation attributed to Survivor Fever, about the relationship of one of the contestants to another contestant of another Reality TV show. The information was available on any number of other sites.

Since you have now changed your policy, I can think of at least three other long-established sites that should be included for their coverage of season activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.81.236 (talk • contribs)


 * I'll respond here, since the ip address responsible for this comment has no other edits. Since, as you say, it's been a year since I deleted the links you mention, I do not recall the specifics of the situation.  Could you be more specific as to the edits and the external links?  When I saw the edits removing Survivor Fever from the articles, edits made by an ip address different from the one used here on my talk page, I looked over Talk:Survivor: Panama/Archive 1 again; this may be the previous situation in question.  I consider my edits restoring the external links to be consistent with the result of that discussion.  If you'd like to add links to other sites, feel free to discuss them at the talk page of at least one of the articles. --Maxamegalon2000 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "I consider my edits restoring the external links to be consistent with the result of that discussion."


 * You might indeed consider it as such, but the facts do not support it.


 * Let's look at those facts: 1) Someone posted legitimite links to reference sites. 2) You removed those links because you considered them "advertising and/or a mere collection of external links." 3) You have links in the current article that fit that description exactly. 4) I removed them based on your stated policy. 5) You added the links back, with a contradictory statement about the standard for inclusion, claiming my "rationale is not accurate." 6) I demonstrated in page by page analysis how the links currently on the various pages do not follow your own criteria: there is no content that supports the inclusion of those links, making them, by your own definition, "advertising and/or a collection of external links." 7) You ignore the evidence, and attempt to argue that your conclusion is consistent when it is in direct contradiction with previous policy.


 * Given your biased approach, demonstrated by your failure to address the evidence I posted, one has to question what your own allegiances might be to the websites in question.


 * Conclusion:
 * If the policy is that links which are not supported by content must be removed, then my original edit should stand. If my original edit is not restored, and the current links considered appropriate, then the links you removed, as well as any other legitimate links, should be restored and/or allowed to stand.


 * I don't care one way or the other, but your responses and actions fly in the face of the objective and neutral content editing which is supposed to be the goal of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.80.116 (talk • contribs)


 * 1) I'm still not sure to which links you are referring. 2) If I did that, the links in question were probably added en masse to all of the articles without any discussion, possibly by a user with a history of adding external links to different pages.  3) Survivor Fever was discussed at the location I mentioned above, and consensus was to include it as an external link.  5) The rationale provided was that "fan sites are not allowed", which is simply incorrect.  6) I, and others, have disagreed with your analysis in previous discussions.  If you would like to start a new discussion, please do so at one of the article's talk pages.  7) I'm not sure to what evidence you are referring.  My argument has no basis in any site's use as a source, and I still have no idea what other sites we are talking about. --Maxamegalon2000 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist the movie
Max, somehow your original reasons for deletion at the Afd, which should be at the top of the page, got moved around by some pro-Zeitgeist the movie zealot. Thought you might want to know so you can fix it. Cheers.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dwyane Wade
Don't you think that African American is better than USA? Just wondering maybe I'm crazy. You're absolutely correct, and I think we both can agree then the term "African American" is incorreclty used in today's society.

RfD
I noticed that you voted to keep the Wp:an/i and Wp:afd redirects at the Redirects for deletion page. I also voted to keep these redirect pages. I thought that if they were removed, then I would not automatically get to the pages I was looking for if I happened to type all lowercase letters, which would be pretty inconvenient. However, it turns out I was wrong. The software will automatically send someone to the appropriate page, even if they type all lowercase, and even if the redirect pages are deleted. It's just like a redirect, but without the redirect page. Deleting them will remove needless clutter in mainspace searches. With this knowledge, I wonder if you might consider changing your vote to delete. Thanks, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Political positions of Michael Bloomberg
The article is not about the campaign of a candidate but his views on issues. This has its own category. The page should not be merged because it would clutter up the Michael Bloomberg page. The information is sourced and encyclopedic it should not be deleted or merged but have its own article. I ask you to please reconsider your vote per Savidan.-- Southern Texas  19:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ST Image
Thanks for the note! I went ahead and removed the entire box. Dreadstar †  08:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Go away
Do you really have nothing better to do than to follow me around? There is no reason why the category couldn't have been speedily deleted, because it will not survive a CFD and I am going away, so I can't address any concerns. As such, I figured I'd just try a speedy. But, no. Simply because you dislike me, you just have to do whatever you can to make things difficult. And, just to spite me, your adding MORE categories to it. you're not supposed to do that to a category that is up for CFD. And, by the way, you do realize that The Way We Were is a movie, right? -- Scorpion0422 01:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "numerous disputes raised on your talk page" Just how often do you check my talk page? Besides, most of my disputes are with editors who are angry because I cleaned up a page and removed something they wrote. As well, where does it say that one can't try to avoid a cfd when a move is likely uncontroversial? -- Scorpion0422 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop watching my talk page. There is really no reason for you to watch me. As well, I was once blocked for adding categories to a category that was up for CFD. -- Scorpion0422 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)