User talk:The Mark of the Beast/Archive1

Oh i was just wondering. you just seem to know an awful lot lolTexasmoderncowboy (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

do you get paid for doing this?Texasmoderncowboy (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Why? Texasmoderncowboy (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, The Mark of the Beast! My name is Σ. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or press the "Request Help" button at the bottom of this message. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

You can also have the people at Motto of the day create a motto for you to live by on Wikipedia at the Motto Shop.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or press the "Request Help" button below. Again, welcome! -- The Σ talkcontribs 06:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Kristine Caluya
Thryduulf (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Whiskey Island (Bethlehem)
Hello The Mark of the Beast. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Whiskey Island (Bethlehem) to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I declined your speedy deletion request for The Two Roads Theater. As a physical place, A7 did not really apply. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

List of industrial music bands
Hey there, I just got the message you left for me on my talk page. If you look at the edits I'm making, you will see that I am attempting to add references to the article, and each edit contains new material. Thanks! —Torchiest talkedits 23:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The other editor is vandalizing, which I believe means I am allowed to undo their edits, correct? Check their talk page.  They've already received multiple warnings before yours. —Torchiest talkedits 23:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't think deleting more than two thirds of the content of the page, including sourced information, counts as vandalism? —Torchiest talkedits 23:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle
Looks like you're into vandalism patrol and similar tasks. Have you checked out Twinkle yet? Might be worth your time. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:NJOURNALS. It's a clearly notable publication. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article claimed notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also restored the selfpublished template, since there are no independent sources. If you want to provide some, then please remove the tag.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of things establishing notability. First the journal has an impact factor / is covered by Journal Citation Reports. Second, it's indexed in a slew of selective databases and journals, such as Biological Abstracts, Current Content or Referativny Zhurnal. It passes WP:NJOURNALS with flying colors.

Concerning the "lack of independent sources", none are required for the information that's present in the article. From WP:PRIMARY,"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." And this is indeed what we're dealing with here. Basic straightforward descriptive statements about the journal. There's no "analytic or evalutative claim" (aka there's no "opinion" present in the article, nor are there any "novel interpretation", etc... I'll revert the tags since they are innapropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Concerning the "lack of independent sources", none are required for the information that's present in the article.. Yes, but that's what the selfpublished template is for, to indicate that the only sources are from sources associated with the subject of the article.  However, a neutral source has now been provided, so we're okay.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That source was already present in that article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Adam Darius
Thank you for your comments. The reference link under 'Expressive Mime' is a newspaper article which discusses Mr Darius' performances across Australia and in New Guinea. I am working on adding more references. All of the data is however verifiable by referencing the published works listed in the wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appleattic (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am trying to add source refs that relate to published newspaper articles or the websites of venues where Mr Darius has performed. Some of your requests for refs and citations seem a little excessive - i.e. a citation for date and place of birth? - Am I supposed to give a link to his birth certificate? It seems that most Wikipedia biographies do not go to such extremes (I am using Placido Domingo as a guide - this seems like a well constructed wiki article; it has 46 references, however there are considerable portions of text therein which do not have a source reference to support each sentence. Mr Darius' original career archives are stored at the Royal Academy of Dance in London and at the Dansmuseet in Stockholm. Ultimately, all claims can be verified by reference to the materials on display at these museums. PS: I am not sure on the protocols of how to communicate with you via talk. Hopefully, you will receive this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appleattic (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued help. I have been trying to remove vagueness from the article and add references wherever possible. I note that you have reinstated your request for a DOB citation. I have looked at other Wikipedia biographies and it does not seem to be usual practice for DOBs to be cited. For example, there are no DOB citations given for Barrack Obama, David Cameron, Madonna or Vladimir Putin. A simple Google search will give multiple sources where Mr Darius' DOB is quoted. All facts about Mr Darius' life (original scrapbooks, press cuttings, photographs and personal correspondence) are available for public view at the Dansmuseet in Stockholm, or at the Royal Academy of Dance in London. All of Mr Darius' books are filed at the British Library and its U.S. equivalent. Appleattic (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat the question because I note that a DOB citation was added, then removed, then added again. I also note that many/most Wikipedia biographies do not have DOB citations. If I can locate a suitable DOB citation, I will add one. Appleattic (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk
Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
v/r - TP 13:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7
As it appears you still do not understand and I'd rather not hash this out in a deletion debate, let me explain what A7 is and what it is not. I'll start with is not. A7 is not a line of "notability" where subjects that arn't notable qualify for CSD A7. Notability is not and never was the criteria for A7. In fact, editors who mistake CSD A7 as a question of notability are often frowned upon. Now for what it is. As I suggested, read WP:WIHSD. CSD A7 is about a credible claim of significance or importance. For example, the article says "His first film, The Custom Mary is premiering a the 2011 New York International Latino Film Festival." Although this is an independent film and likely not notable, that is certainly a claim of importance. The article creator is suggesting the subject is important because they developed a film that is appearing at the 2011 NY Intl Latino Film Festival. The claim is what makes this article no longer a candidate of CSD A7. Any time there is a claim, other than "Jenny is important because she's hot", the article needs to be deleted via the WP:PROD or WP:AFD methods. Please read WP:CSD again to make sure you fully understand what I am explaining. Bottom line: Claim of significance and notability are two entirely different things.--v/r - TP 17:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is policy. See WP:CSD as I've linked you several times.  If you do not adhere to it, I will report you to WP:ANI for causing disruption.--v/r - TP 19:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your inaccurate CSD tagging is disruptive to the encyclopedia. You lack of interest in getting it right is more disruptive.  I'm not going to report you over a single diff, but if I run over bad tagging in the future I certainly will.  As an aside, please keep in mind that my understanding of this policy has been scrutinized by the community in and is considered accurate.--v/r - TP 19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I need to tell you that the advice you have been given is correct. According to WP:Deletion Policy, and WP:CSD, and indication of credible importance is enough to defeat speedy. The reason for this is that  admins such as myself and TParis who patrol the speedy articles for deletion, can judge if something is hopelessly unimportant, but are not by ourselves qualified to judge whether something is actually notable without the community having a chance to look at it. If you  are quite sure an article ins non-notable by the relevant standards and will not be contested, first make sure by checking yourself for references according to WP:BEFORE, and then nominating for WP:PROD, giving the reason, and including a statement that you have looked and not been able to find anything to show notability . People then have 10 days to try to make improvements; if not, one of the admins will check again, and if they agree, delete it. If you are less sure or know it will be contested, check for reference, and if not satisfied, nominate for AfD explainingwhere yo have looked and why you think it non-notable, so we can all discuss it. The community decides.    DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

PeterHarlington
Do you think this user (regarding your AN/I thread and the link to the violent edit summary) meant that threat of violence? I went ahead and e-mailed to the emergency queue just in case; don't hesitate to do that if necessary. CycloneGU (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a Bad Faith accusation. Where is the "violence" part exactly? How the do you threaten someone who is anonymous? PeterHarlington (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know what their intentions are, but they're obviously not a new user. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite new. I've only made minor edits to a handful of articles over a span of a few years. PeterHarlington (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree.
 * Also, I was just about to add to this when your message came in (I've merged everything here). Philippe replied within a minute to the e-mail and they closed the AN/I very quickly having taken over the concern, so let's leave the threat in their hands.  They can do more than even our bureaucrats can, but filing the AN/I at the same time in case there is something for admins. to do is still a good idea.  So it's been hatted by WMF, signifying closure.  CycloneGU (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks to me you are trying to cause trouble and see yourself as part of a cabal "our bureacrats" PeterHarlington (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and this. CycloneGU (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so long as it's out in the open and there are other eyes watching, I'm content, though an MfD over his User page might be in order. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is an MfD and an AN/I? PeterHarlington (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let you determine that; let me know and I will add regarding my actions at AN/I. CycloneGU (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind that - Philippe already jumped on that one, too. Not linking as it's a speedy nom.and may be gone when you read this, but it's under G10.  CycloneGU (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanasar
Please explain why it is not acceptable.--Moosh88 (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I include any of that info for the source to say that? No.  It is a fact that these wrestlers won a medal at the given weights and at the given world championships.  Why do you feel that the article should have more info?  It is a stub and the hope is that others will expand upon them.  Perhaps you can help.--Moosh88 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I used the wrong page to discuss your unusual name, I made a comment on the Texas person's talk page for attacking me on my first attempt at writing an article. The accusations of plageurism and cutting and pasting were very shocking. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. I found 15 references which I would like to use. I'm sure some of them shows notability. It's not the most pleasant thing to see a huge nomination to delete. It is a non-threatening article and many of the references I'm sure are valid and show notability. They are all verifiable on the internet. I can see why new wikipedians don't want to write on wiki. It is a very perilous experience.Girlsounds (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Message from Medboy1

 * I don't know if you saw this on your user page or not, but I moved the following from there to here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem like someone with an agenda.One who goes around drawing conclusions on articles based on personal views,biased websites and for your own gain.Nothing in these articles are factual.Seems like one sided editing.I have noticed many have edited articles and certain individuals thought it necessary to revert back to the start since they gained from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medboy1 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fnatic Roster
Do not remove fnatic current roster! it's up to date, and no wrong information in roster. full roster can be found in www.fnatic.com/players. no proper reason for having a unique page for each player on current roster, check page for mousesports, meetyourmakers, evil genius, sk-gaming and other gaming teams with no unique player page for the roster

Post on a template
You recently left this on a page in the template namespace. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  20:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Dale Deardorff
Hello The Mark of the Beast, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Dale Deardorff, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 01:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Hello The Mark of the Beast, (Sean) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Sean ( Ask Me? ) 19:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Babies
Sources for what? That this event preceded military action? I didn't take part in this edit war. -- Bojan   Talk  21:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources for the names of the babies. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Which babies? 11 of them didn't have name. Only names of their mother were mentioned - read what you delete. And I am not the IP who keeps the list in the article. --<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="white"> Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  06:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

City in the Community
What are your reasons for deletion? Get some decorum and put them on the talk page. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because you don't think its relevant doesn't mean you can delete it. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? That's a lie. You seem to think you can delete if by putting a tag on the page. And before you start, I've been on Wikipedia far longer than you, and I know what I can and can't do, so don't resort to silly lectures. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're just being a bit of knee jerk muppet, go on, get an admin to delete it then. I'm not going to dispute a page with some "editor" who clearly just goes around deleting pages for fun to annoy other editors because he has nothing else better to do. You seem to have history of trying to delete pages, and certainly they are not always the right ones to delete. I've got better things to do. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I need help!
Hi Mark of the Beast, I need help with my article, Brandon Pop Artist. I trying to post correctly but it seems I am not posting correctly. your help is most appreciated...please edit at your convenience

Thank you,

Wick 95008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wick 95008 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mark of the Beast, thank you for the help, I apologizes to you and your team...I will stop interrupting you and your team evaluation of my article Brandon Pop Artist...thank you for all your help...any help on correcting the article is most appreciated

Wick 95008   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wick 95008 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Request To Be Undeleted Until Sources Can Be Found
Laura Kaczor is a new Christian artist. All sources can only be found at the two links below. I would hope to get more sources as they become avaliable in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillboardMister (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I need help!
I have no idea how to post or place an article on Wikipedia correctly. This is the first time I've tried to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer cas (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Music Cover
Why is it vandalism the one i uploaded is of better quality???--OfficialDzire (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism. We require non-free images to be of restricted quality, and therefore your changes are pointless in these articles. See WP:NFC. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's vandalism when a user comes in an makes massive uploads and lists previous images for deletion without discussion. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But the images I uploaded were the right size and of good quality? You're saying you prefer low quality images?--OfficialDzire (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. They are non-free images and our policies say that such images should be of restricted quality. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And the ones I uploaded aren't? I mean tthey don't fail any of the non-free criteria--OfficialDzire (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are already images, they are doing the job. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But then we're back to the whole slightly-superior coloring being the difference.--OfficialDzire (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And as I've told you, that's why you need to discuss them on the fair use noticeboard. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey I already posted my "case" on the noticeboard what do I do now??--OfficialDzire (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait for a discussion. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And how long will it take? will my images be deleted???--OfficialDzire (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ???--OfficialDzire (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello, I noticed that you placed a vandalism warning on OfficialDzire's talk page. It seems that this is a disagreement about which version of an album cover is best. Please review the definition of vandalism at WP:VANDALISM. I don't see anything here that qualifies as vandalism. I see good-faith edits. Am I missing something?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly that's what I've been trying to say, I uploaded those images because they were of better quality than the ones that were already there and if i categorized the others as orphaned was because I thought you would be okay with mine and leave them there (therefore we wouldn't be using the previous ones so that's why i put the orphan tag in them).--OfficialDzire (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And what is your response to my input? After consideration, do you still consider these edits to be vandalism? If so, please explain why.  If not, please retract your comments. Thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  04:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, don't retract your comment Mark of the Beast. This is another of the pathetic socks of disruptive user . Filed an SPI to get his ass blocked for good. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 04:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be true, but you shouldn't call edits "vandalism" unless they clearly and unambiguously meet the definition of vandalism. Did they in this particular case? If there was another unrelated reason to challenge the edits, so be it, but please don't call edits "vandalism" when they are not truly vandalism. That's my only point here.  Thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  04:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please quote the relevant language from WP:VANDALISM that describes this type of edit.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I will readily concede that their editing pattern was suspicious, and if investigation shows that this was a sockpuppet of a banned user, then so be it. Ban the sock. But the offense is sockpuppetry not vandalism. I still don't see vandalism in this particular group of edits. Don't arrest a burglar for armed robbery. Those are different crimes. Where's the vandalism here, and when you answer, please quote policy. Thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Your message
And this impacts my life how, exactly? Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What nasty comment? Your report did not meet the guidelines for AIV that are clearly spelled out in the big box that opens up when you edit: the user had not been warned at all and the vandalism was not ongoing. It was not clear-cut enough. I reject reports like that all the time (but a lot less than I block, believe me). Apparently the admin at RFPP felt the same way. I tried to explain nicely, as I have to so many other well-meaning users in the past, and you call that nasty? I see you've been on Wikipedia for about this summer. You seem to do a lot of good work, but a word to the wise: Don ' t take it personally if an admin doesn't respond to your reports with a block. We're here to create and improve an encyclopedia, not play whack-a-mole. Incidents like this do come back to haunt people in RfAs (see this one, for instance) and things like that. You come across as juvenile and immature. I really hope that is not the case, that you're just up too late or something. I have a lot of respect for Fastily; I don't take it personally if he chose to deal with the situation differently. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some other admin work to do. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had never mentioned that it had been turned down at RFPP, I wouldn't have mentioned it looked like forum shopping. The name of the page is administrator intervention against vandalism, not Requests for Blocks. In a situation which is as you have described, it's often better to take it to AN/I anyway ... from the sound of it, a rangeblock would work better if he just keeps changing IPs, and that's usually beyond our capability at AIV (for one thing, you have to checkuser the range to make sure you won't cause problems for existing users, and I can't do that). Also, if you have to submit something like this to AIV again, make sure to include the diff that would really justify the block. I have looked through all the contributions from both IPs and can't exactly find the sort of edit that led to this warning. I'm hardly the only admin who might look it over and think, gee, that's someone trying to be productive, just not knowing or understanding how to source things. Perhaps you could have tried discussing things in a non-templated fashion? Or looking for some sources for that yourself, adding them and then leaving a note on the IP's talk page letting him know that you had and you appreciated his attempts to contribute and here's how he could do it better next time? There are many ways to be a good Wikipedian without biting newbies. I note that Fastily unblocked both IPs two minutes later on the grounds that I had declined the AIV. I'm amused that you would suggest I'm not doing my job by blocking this guy when I'm 20th all-time in making blocks (and probably higher if you don't count inactive admins and bots). Look, if this user keeps up like this I'm happy to reconsider. It's just not as simple a situation on its face as I think you'd like it to be. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Eric D Angell
Sorry about deleting your Speedy Delete template. I was tired-er than I realized and I confused it with prod deletion. Thanks for handling that whole thing calmly, and...well, I'd say I hope to come across you again, but I don't really deal with BLPs much, so... good working with you!

Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
WikiPuppies! (bark) 19:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on Eliza Swenson
Hi, I wanted to let you know I challenged your CSD A7 on Eliza Swenson. In my opinion the claims regarding her appearance in films is a claim of importance sufficient to pass criteria A7. I have applied a WP:PROD to the article on notability grounds, and I have no objection if you would like to pursue an AfD on the article. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  23:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My new article
Hi,

Thank you for the notice about adding a reference to Taylor Carman. This is my first Wikipedia article. I have since added a reference. Can you kindly tell me if I have done it correctly?

With thanks, --BlueonGray (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)