User talk:Mrtea/Archive 2

Thank you
Thanks for the advice you gave me on the Milton page talk section! I really appreciate it, although I have been a member for some time ... I just wanted to make sure everyone was ok with me adding so much information about the town of Milton (I do live there).

Thanks, Decimal10 02:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the section discussing the symphony hamilton claiming it to be an "obvious advertisment"? ...The symphony hamilton (despite the name) plays several performances each year at burlington facilities and frequently is privilaged to have guest soloists from burlington.

Please feel free to respond to my questions via the following contact info:

Bryan [email removed to prevent spam harvesting]

Cat Stevens
I've corrected the licensing of Image:CatStevens Hurt.jpg and reinserted it into the article. Let me know if there's a problem. Thanks, Mrtea (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mrtea. If Image:CatStevens_Hurt.jpg is a magazine cover, we should tag it with Magazinecover, as it was before. And as a magazine cover, it can be used (under a fair use rationale) to illustrate an article (or section) about the magazine itself (that is, in the Rolling Stone article). Unfortunately (very unfortunately, as it would be wonderful for Wikipedia otherwise), we can't use such images to illustrate articles on the person (or thing, or event) depicted on the magazine cover.
 * I may be wrong (we may ask for help to a third part), but I think that the fair use rationale on the image description page is not sound. Hope you understand me and please, don't take me wrong. Best regards, --Abu Badali 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The magazinecover template doesn't apply for the image's current use so I don't think we should add that, but I think my fair use rationale rationalizes its use, doesn't it? From what I can tell, the images complies with the fair use policy. Maybe someone with more experience than both of us can make a better call here. Does my reasoning make sense? Mrtea (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you mean. The image may have others fair uses besides that usually granted to magazine covers, and that's why we need the extra rationale. In this case, I believe we should tag the image both Magazinecover and Cat Stevens. I've done that. Still, I don't have an opinion on the soundness of the rationale. I believe there's a tag for requesting fair use review of an image use... if I found out what's that, we may tag it as so. Thanks, --Abu Badali 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * : ) I've added it to the image, though there seems to be a huge backlog for that template category. I also added it to Fair_use_review which seems to be followed more closely. Regards, Mrtea (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Official" Myspace discussion
'''Actually you dont know what you are talking about. Those two links that I put up are Official. Myspace has removed one because you must have asked them to. and it will be going back up once i talk to them. Then i will put the link back up here again. I'll have you know i work for his company. so stay in your place little one. Adam'''
 * Once the Cat Stevens page is back up on myspace, I will have the sites linked on the official website, mentioning that they are both officially run. Adam

mboverload
Please see =) --mboverload @  01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Conestoga High School
Stuff like Conestoga's receiving of state funds doesn't need to be cited. No one provided any evidence that Conestoga is 15 miles outside of Philadelphia. Nor is the number of students cited. Nowhere is there proof that Conestoga is on the Mainline. Stuff like this is universally accepted and unquestioned. If someone really doubted this information, or if we gave a dollar amount, a citation would probably be proper, but as it is, it's wholly unnecessary. --elitistnerd 19:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with you. The "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (WP:OR) From a NPOV, the statement, "Because of its performance on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessments, Conestoga received extra funding from the state", seems to imply that the school is either full of really smart kids who deserved the extra funding, or kids who did very poorly and needed the extra funding. That's why I believe the statement needs a citation. And also, "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." (WP:CITE) Do you see where I'm coming from now? Mrtea (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Erg, I typed an extremely lengthy reply yesterday but apparently I just hit "Show preview" and not "Save page." Yes, the implication of the statement about PSSA funding is that Conestoga students are particularly smart.  That implication fits in perfectly with any possible conclusion you can make from reading the rest of the page: Conestoga's SAT average is well above the national norm, Conestoga has the most National Merit Semifinalists in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Conestoga sends dozens of kids to the top ten universities every year, etc.  And, if you clicked on the links at the bottom of the entry, you would find the following in Conestoga's school profile: Conestoga's students average 4770 on the PSSA, while the statewide average for the PSSA is 3980 (Conestoga students beat the average on all three sections of the test by about 20%).  Look, if you could come up with a reasonable challenge, or if a dollar value was posted, or if this issue was particularly important, or if you yourself didn't believe this to be the the truth, I'd agree with you.  But as it stands, Conestoga's stellar PSSA performance, Conestoga's oustanding academic reputation, and the first hand testimony of students who know this to be the case serve as adequate verification.  A look at any Wikipedia entry that is longer than a page will have uncited facts and statistics that are much more numerical, arguable, or doubtable.  For instance:


 * In the first paragraph on San Francisco, it claims that San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in America. This statistic is not cited.
 * In the intro about Pope John Paul II, it says his was the second longest pontificate, and that he was "extremely popular worldwide." Neither claim is cited.
 * In the entry about Celine Dion, it claims that she has sold 100 million albums and that she was awarded the "Office of the Order of Canada." Neither claim is cited.


 * Point is, if a claim is accepted, generally acknowleged, supported by evidence and implication, and not debatable, leave it be.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

advice
thanks for your advice, but no thanks. i will not use the preview tool. i dont give a fuck dude. and yeah edit summaries slow me down. i dont care if you think im being sneaky. they can use the compare tool if theyre suspicious about anything or edit it back. plus i create a lot of articles so, thers not really a point in a summary when your not changing anything. i use summary when its really nessisary. you might think im shakey, while i know your nosy. who the hell are you anyways? Qrc2006 10:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry about my stupid comments i im young and immature and i felt threatened so i just got defiant your totally right and thanks for the advice.Qrc2006 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Muffintops
Loved your response on the discussion page. 72.139.185.19 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha I'm glad someone enjoyed that. I had to talk a look back after receiving your note and had a nice chuckle myself. Mrtea (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was very clever too; I even quoted it on my userpage. Did you manage to fulfill your promise? Rintrah 17:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User page edit
Hey, not sure what you mean by making my external link internal. Think you could explain? Would appreciate the help.Jeff K 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Check it out . You had a link to the internet address for a Wikipedia article. While we're in Wikipedia however, we can directly link to an article by using the square brackets. It's easier to type "Idle Sons" than "Idle Sons", plus it's easier for users to see that a link won't take them out of Wikipedia. Sorry it's 5 in the morning here, hopefully that makes sense! Mrtea (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

cat stevens debut album
i think that you are mistaken. referenced numerous times throughout the cat stevens article is his 'debut album' "matthew and son" named for the first track. "i love my dog" is the second track on that same album, but not the name of the album itself. i won't change it back, but would like to hear from you further and i hope that, at the least, you won't qualify my attempted submission as vandalism.
 * Hey, I'm very sorry; you're right. First of all, I should have realized the I Love My Dog wasn't the name of one of his albums (certainly not his debut album.) It must have been in a typo in the article that was referenced. The Independent article that's up there says: "It will be released by Polydor on the 40th anniversary of the first Cat Stevens record I Love My Dog, which was released in November 1966." Sorry to revert your edit like that. After a long day sometimes any "interesting" edit by an anonymous user is incorrectly assumed to be vandalism. You should definitely make use of edit summaries in order to aviod confusion with what your intentions are. Again, my apologies, and thanks for catching the error :) Mrtea (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry
not a commercial link. i consider deleting it to be a form of vandalism. HaltonRattlesnake 09:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please review External links, especially the "Links to normally avoid section". When I referenced WP:EL I was referring to this point: Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that only work with a specific brand of browser). Not all of the links you added have even a paragraph of text. The sites are useless to anyone who has not installed a Windows-only program that requires a high speed connection to download and use. Re-inserting the links would be considered unproductive, if not vandalism. Hope you see where I'm coming from-let me know if you don't. Regards, Mrtea (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please. Stop deleting wikipedia sources. User: HaltonRattlesnake has used sources that you are deleting.  Please, stop.   HaltonRattlesnake 09:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How is your Google Earth map a source? And what is it sourcing? Mrtea (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop hassling this user. The user is contributing sources of information to back up information added to Wikipedia.  The source information is not strictly Google-Earth-only and your continued harassment is unwarranted.  Google Earth and other mapping software links are routinely used as information sources and links on Wikipedia. Please don't go looking for fights on Wikipedia.  This is not a place for harassment. HaltonRattlesnake 10:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop harassing me

 * Your opinions on spam are just that...Opinions, not policy. There are plenty of examples for you to go after, not educational links.  Stop harassing me. HaltonRattlesnake 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

yw
you're welcome - it's pretty straightforward; the links themselves violate WP:EL, the method they're being added violates WP:SPAM. If this is the first time you've encountered someone who's willing to fight tooth-and-nail for their personal links, you're lucky - check out my talk page and archives, they're littered with such discussions! Cheers. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Show preview
"Test edits" re: Cat. There is something called "show preview" on the edit page - it shows you what they change will look like before it is actually posted. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you RuthieK 13:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah I was confused for a minute. I was reverting an anonymous user's test edits on the article, not making edits of my own. Mrtea (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks/Cat Stevens article
Thanks - nice of you to say so. I felt the article was unfairly slanted before when it had no mention of his statements regarding 9/11, and with the way the libel case was presented. Regardless of how I might feel about his politics, I want to see a fair description up there. Thanks againTvoz 03:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation
Brother MrTea,
 * I am sorry if I seem to be a pest. I believe in always working toward (world) peace.  I appreciate what you do for Wikipedia (particularly in the Yusuf department).  I mean no harm.  Our antagonism must end.  How can you and I work together for (world) peace?

Ma'a salama, Patrick

My site is not commercial, it's a free directory of resources for Oakville Ontario. Amazing how censorship works to filter out those sites created by individuals like myself that spend hours each day providing relevant local content. Please stop rejecting my addition to WikiPedia!

Survey concerning Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam lead sentence.
Talk:Cat_Stevens

As an active editor at Cat Stevens, your input is requested for the purpose of establishing consensus. Italiavivi 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nemo
hey buddy, since you deleted "Nemo" bands in the past, make sure you delete the other one as well. Thanks, Geo

You there? I've left you a couple of comments. Feel free to respond.
 * Hmmm. I was probably pruning redlinks to non existant articles I was confident would not be created. Be bold if you feel something needs to be corrected! And don't forget to sign your comments using four tildes (~) . Regards, Mrtea (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

More Nemo
Hi Mrtea,

That Nemo band that recently posted their page is actually not as notable as the previous "Nemo" who was deleted (just another band with the same name with another record, basically). Just making you aware. Thanks!
 * Cheers! Mrtea (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:TheLonelyIsland.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:TheLonelyIsland.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Office Image
I don't even remember doing that... Well, thanks, anyway. aido2002 talk ˑ userpage 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ConservationHalton.png
Thanks for uploading Image:ConservationHalton.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Took care of this :) Mrtea (talk)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheOffice(US)2-04.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TheOffice(US)2-04.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheOffice(US)2-06.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TheOffice(US)2-06.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject The Office (US) February 2008 Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of The Office WikiProject newsletter has now been published. By following the link provided, you may view the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification. Thank you. -Mastrchf91- 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ConservationHalton.png
Thanks for uploading Image:ConservationHalton.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject The Office (US) March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of The Office WikiProject newsletter has now been published. By following the link provided, you may view the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification. Thank you. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 16:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject The Office (US) April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of The Office WikiProject newsletter has now been published. By following the link provided, you may view the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification. Thank you. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Membership Reconfirmation
Hello there! If you're receiving this message, it means that you are currently in the Participants category of The Office WikiProject. A message involving reconfirmation was included in the current newsletter, but it was a bit buried, and I wanted to make sure that everyone received notice of this so we can get as accurate of a count as we can. The WikiProject is currently trying to find how many users listed in the Participants section are active members, and if you have a spare moment later, it would be a big help if you noted your reconfirmation by simply signing your signature here. And if you're a non-member reading this, feel free to drop by and add your name to the reconfirmation category; you'll be added into the list once it's finished. Thanks, and have a great day! Mastrchf91 (t/c) 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you!
For finding it useful. I think it's the first time it ever happened to any of my work... :-) Óðinn (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Office Wikiproject Newsletter
StormBot (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:WPTO Newsletter
StormBot (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome! Definitely looking forward to picking up some formatting knowledge and working with you. Thanks for your help so far! Oh and we should definitely get fraser in on this. --Mstmaurice (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter
Although the newsletter is currently on hiatus, I'll remove your name from the mailing list. Happy editing, Mastrchf (t/c) 15:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)