User talk:MarkGallagher/Archive5

Football in Australia

Hi Mark! I was just doing some categorisation to match the idea that Football in Australia, Australian football competitions, etc are umbrella categories, but came across the one small problem. To have Aussie rules subcategories of these, we will need to create separate categories for Australian rules football in Australia, Australian rules football competitions in Australia, etc, as the Australian rules football categories include things like the Ontario Football League and so on. JPD (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it's sliat there. That football 9soccer0 seems fair enough. But so many people have simply put football and this is confusing when you see footballer. They have to realise that a name change does notr happen just like that and they have to realise if they try it as strong as that it's just going to confuse people at the moment. Also they have said they want to their sport known as football too, but are changing all the Aussie Rules player that say footballer to Aussie rules footballer and keeping the footballer name reserved for themselves. Its one thing to call them footballers, but they are trying to rename ours and keep the tag only for socecr players. This will not do. We will not be told we can not use this tag for aussie rules players or rugby players because they say only socecr player can have it now.

Thanks for your support

rƒa · ɐƒɹ

Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice

Why, in fact, I did. SushiGeek 05:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be nasty to me. Why are you deciding to take temper out on me? SushiGeek 05:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You did? How odd." This comes across as rude. SushiGeek 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skiffle

So mention of every skiffle band at Skiffle bands is to be removed? There is no compromise? The information simply vanishes? Badagnani 02:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good to know. Many of the editors voting were quite dismissive of the page, and genre, as if the actual names of active groups were not important. I work very hard here and it's good to know that not everyone is so dismissive of others' work documenting little-known musical traditions. Badagnani 03:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Israelov

Okay I merged content from all those five articles into The Apprentice 4 (and what a nasty task that was as I learned more than I ever wanted to know about this show !). The articles can be deleted now, a task I leave to you. During my efforts I noticed that the AFD notice had been removed from the Adam Israelov article for some reason. Cheers and happy editing. No Guru 05:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rm deletion for Andheri Station

Hi!!

I see that you have removed the deletion tag I set for Andheri station. Why is that? Looks to me that the article has to be deleted. Cheers!! The Silent Contributor 11:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanites etc.

Hi, thanks for your comments on my "Arvanitic" AfDs. I might have to explain why perhaps I sounded a bit more aggressive in my AfD comments than may have been necessary. This was after a huge POV dispute that lasted 7 months, and in which I became involved only a few weeks ago. I acted as a kind of informal neutral mediator (and pretty successfully, I dare to say), and when I felt we were very close to the outline of a fair solution, I attempted a tie-break by creating substantially rewritten versions of the two main articles (Arvanites and Arvanitic language) along those lines myself. Ever since then, there's been a sudden almost deafening silence on the two talk pages, no substantial criticism of those versions has been articulated - and yet, some people (who had kept out of the NPOV negotiations at the time) keep making nonce hit-and-run attacks on the article, every one or two weeks or so. This one was the heaviest so far, and really got on my nerves. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Hi Mark! If it really is so important that "AfD is not a vote", wouldn't it be a good idea to change all the parts of the "How to" section which talk about "vote pages" and countign "as your vote"? JPD (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Andrews University?

Noticed reversion on Andrews_Unversity for 143.207.8.4... Wondering why reversion of press release addition? It is a public press release from the University Relations department and under free copyright... Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaewyn (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 March 2006

-- Thanks for your response... when we received the press release it did have copyleft notice but I guess the author didn't want to include it. Vaewyn 14:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impastato's

Hey. I just reverted this[1] edit on the assumption that you know what you're doing, but I'm a little curious re. why this redirects to McDonald's. Can I trouble you to elucidate? Thanks :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:CVU.png

Thanks for uploading Image:CVU.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie Angst

I knew I was going to get a spanking for that. I had just reached my fill of faboys coming onto wikipedia and removing relevant content from celebrity articles because they feel it is damaging to the reputation of their cherished idol, and I snapped. Pacian 22:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paularizzuto

Mark, can you please look at this potential Aus-politics-vandal-sleeper-account: User:Paularizzuto. It hasn't been used since it was started in January but the userpage is a cc of Ambi's userpage and I think someone should tag and block it. I asked Longhair the other day but he doesn't seem to have been online for a couple of days. Thanks Mark. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that so quickly, Mark. I appreciate it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Nation

You have locked this article with unsourced, badly written and probably defamatory material, inserted by an anonymous user and removed three times by me, still in the text. This is ridiculous. You should either remove this material yourself or unlock the article so that I can do so. This is not a "content dispute" between two editors. It is one editor (me) cleaning up vandalism, and your "neutral" intervention has left the vandal's rubbish locked into the text. This is a misuse of your Admin powers and I ask you to rectify this at once. Adam 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm note sure why the edit history shows my edit as the last one, but the material I reverted still being there. It was late at night and possibly I didn't delete it the last time as I intended to. In any case it is still there and must be removed. I am aware of course that parties to disputes between editors always think their version is the "right" one. But this is not such a case, as I said above. I suggest you read the material I have been trying to delete and you will see that I am right. It is garbage, and it is potentially defamatory since it accuses named people of misconduct. Adam 01:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam is quite right. There is an entire paragraph that is blatantly biased and defamatory, to the extent that it is a potential legal liability to Wikipedia. It must be removed. ~~Forgive the wheel war, but I am going to unprotect the article and remove the defamatory material. I won't reprotect but I have no objection to you doing so. Snottygobble 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)~~ Silly me, I forgot that I can edit protected pages. I have reverted to the version of 4 January. The article remains protected. Snottygobble 02:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lefty

Fine. But if when the page is unprotected it is put back up I will apply to have the page deleted as an attack page. Xtra 03:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least until this is resolved, can you please unprotect the page because I am updating my user block column. I will remove the facts about Xtra until it's resolved. Lefty on campus 03:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC) --.[reply]

Permanently would be nicer. (and they are not facts) Xtra 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I like your no bullshit approach MarkGallagher. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lefty on campus has put back up the same accusations, but rather than mentioning me by name, links to my userpage. Is that acceptable? Xtra 07:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC) See [2], can you please have it removed? Xtra 10:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the poor chappie that decided to help with a WP:3O (which was removed from the talk page). After it was removed and replaced with the "right-wing vandals", I did post a comment on WP:PAIN requesting an admin to have a look, if you're dealing with it, you may want to remove that notice from there to avoid duplicated effort. Cheers, MartinRe 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moe

Mark - Image:Calmoe.gif - fair comment - I've now added full source details, hope this now looks ok. --OscarTheCat ^talk 07:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lefty

Lefty on Campus has added it again after being warned. please revert it and block Lefty for persistent personal attacks. Xtra 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garglebutt

Could you please similarly block this user for his User:Talk page personal attack. I won't remove it because I don't want to be in a revert war and it his page I figure. But I would appreciate you taking some action or explaining what action I should take. --2006BC 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's the first thing you see on his Talkpage[3]. It contains a reference to me which is a clear personal attack. Wikipedia policy seems very clearly against this. I've only recently been reading the policies to make sure I was understanding what was going on. If I've misunderstood, please let me know. If personal attacks are tolerated on User talk pages, can you point out to me where that is set out in the policy. --2006BC 04:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept what you say about the definition. It contains an allegation that I engaged in fraud. This is not true. It defames me. I want it removed. You say you were looking for something more substantial, I think it qualifies. Perhaps if it said "weapons smuggler" or "North Korean spy" it might be more serious. As it stands, it's serious enough. Please help me with this, I am reaching the end of my patience. --2006BC 04:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have talked with the newspaper about their allegation. They have not repeated them. It is a lie. And it defames me. It is being republished here. I would like to know which part of Wikipedia policy permits this. It seems very clearly outside of the rules. I don't want be precious about this but it's a serious allegation, it's a lie. And I want you to remove it please. And to block the perpertrator if he persists. --2006BC 05:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me in Wikipedia policy where references to newspaper articles are allowed to form the basis of personal attacks in this community. I have read through it carefully but must have missed it. --2006BC 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So a personal attack is permitted, providing it is sourced to a newspaper, is that what you're saying? --2006BC 06:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed. I preferred not to remove it myself preferring to follow a process I am yet to entirely figure out. I think I have been very patient as it happens. Do you disagree? --2006BC 06:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the quote has been removed by Ben and Darren repeatedly in the last 24 hours; so much for WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL.

I have chosen to stop trying to work on the Melbourne University student unions articles as these guys have provoked me into making some rash statements after a never ending tirade of POV edits and reverts. The quote is one of a number that are(were?) in the article which were being constantly reverted or modified by them because it was critical of them, while at the same time they tried to inject a lot of fairly irrelevant and baseless POV stuff about the liquidator, Talk:Dean McVeigh who they obviously are at odds with (per their vitriolic blogs mentioned in the article).

The quote is there because I don't want to lose it during the ensuing edit warring as it is quite likely to be removed in my absence and it is a reminder of an experience I had at Uni many years ago with a no holds barred attempt by NUS to get my student union to affiliate with them via a misleading and dishonest campaign. This has led me to observe that there is very little said in the current articles about the inappropriate conduct of some student politicians and the adverse impact they can have on tertiary institutions.

The collusion of these two editors to remove comments critical of themselves and other student politicians makes me realise that there is a story here that isn't being told and I intend to submit an article on this contentious subject for peer review.

Why am I being stalked by these guys even after I caved to their inappropriate edits and reverts.

Is the quote an example of something that is critical of their real life personas? Yes, but I'm not the one making the critical remarks.
Are they or were they student politicans? Yes.
Is it unfortunate that they have ignored repeated advice from other editors and admins not to edit articles in which they are personally involved? Yes.
Did they repeatedly remove tags from the talk page making their involvement clear to avoid suggestions of bias? Yes.[4]
Did they repeatedly remove facts from the article that were critical of them? Yes.[5]
Are the conniving and deceitful? Yes. Note how Ben uses my real name here[6] even though I removed it from my user page last year, and Darren added my full name to his user page I presume to intimidate me[7], and Ben decided it would be better to remove it claiming he had no idea who I was[8]. Note I couldn't be bother lodging a complaint about this and various other threats and harrassment.
Is the quote a personal attack against them? Of course not, it is a quote from a newspaper article that is still published on The Age website despite Ben's claim to have discussed it with the paper.

The bottom line is the quote will remain until I have time to gather some references to start my new article and if these guys weren't stalking my edits they would be none the wiser.

Garglebutt / (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and despite Ben's assurance that he wouldn't revert the quote but would instead follow due process, I have had to restore it 13 times today. Could you stop that happening please. I'd rather not lodge a formal complaint as I'm sick of dealing with these guys. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more and more personal attacks. This time I am a "provacateur" "conniving" and "deceitful."

What is the utility of having a personal attack on a Talk User page? None.

Unlike Garglebutt I have honestly disclosed who I am and my interest. His interest can only be speculated on.

By the standards Wikipedia sets for itself, its commitment not to lie and defame and its requirement that we engage with each other without resort to personal commentary and attacks, this is clearly a low point.

Note the clear threat that he intends to write a new article presumably documenting the "connivance, provocations and deceit" he was been subjected to by "idiots, criminals and people who are notable and never will be" (all his words). These are not the actions of an experienced editor who seeks to include. Far from it. If you don't or can't take action, can you please let me know what you recommend. --2006BC 10:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I removed Garglebutt's statements, my apologies, my PC seemed to hang. In response to those, I won't be removing the personal attack in fact I'm going to take a pause overnight and decide what my next step should be. Thank you for taking an interest Mark, I won't pretend I'm satisfied with what's been done because I'm not but I thank you for spending time on it anyway. Have a good one. --2006BC 10:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry as I can't give you the answer you want. Although I accept that removing the comment would placate all, I'm not inclined to placate the people who are hounding me as they have already caused me to stop editing a number of articles out of frustration over revert wars. I will keep the quote there for the time being until I decide whether to proceed with the article (which will almost certainly draw a lot of adverse attention) or proceed with the RFC about these users as suggested by LbMixPro. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now it is going to serve as a prompt for me to take some form of action. I am currently backed into a corner and feeling dangerous so I need to mull this over for a day or so before deciding how to proceed. One way or another I expect the quote will be gone within the next week; either into an article or out of my life. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lefty

Lefty has listed me on personal attacks. I think you are made an error of judgement yesterday. Xtra 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get blocked for removing a personal attack against myself, yet 2006BC and DarrenRay get away with repetedly removing an alleged personal attack (printed in a newspaper) from Garglebutt's page? Where is the sense in that? Xtra 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore his antics from now on. It is a waste of my Wikipedia time. Xtra 02:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING! IF YOU EDIT HERE, YOU HATE FREEDOM!

Hey Mark, just wanted to tell you that the email you sent to the mailing list yesterday about the guy who asked "who the heck is this Jimbo person?" literally had me laughing out loud. It was hilarious! Thanks for the laugh, mate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moe (Calvin and Hobbes character)

Mark - the page is protected while a merge discussion takes place. Could you pop the {{merge|Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes}} tag onto the page for me? I've done the same for the remaining (unprotected) Calvin character pages. Cheers. --OscarTheCat ^talk 08:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugs

I don't feel I need to defend myself too much but I do want to point out that User:AChan joined WP on the day of a major POV dispute re the Dean McVeigh article (before it got redirected) and confirms he is a friend of Darren Ray and was asked to come onto WP to weigh into the debate. I'm trying to be good but I'm afraid my tolerance for subversion is pretty light on. The sad thing is that both DarrenRay and AChan are starting to make some good contributions. I can't help but wonder what would happen if 2006BC wasn't there to stir the pot... Garglebutt / (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Bar

I liked your comments about bad AfD nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monkey Bar. I usually fix nominations that aren't properly formed (if they haven't transcluded everything properly, etc) but nominations that don't give a good reason are different. Perhaps everyone should start speedy keeping anything where there's no good reason given by the nominator? If people complain we'll just say that process is important :) --bainer (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla and Jimbo Wales

OK, I will contact Jimbo Wales, but I don't know whether I should leave the message on his discussion board or to the board of a person he is mentioning.

For now I have questions for you:

1) Are there any general rules defining which Template is abusive and which is not?

2)Is is enough that one person asks for the removal of the Template and it will be removed? If not - how many people should do it.

3) Is there a proper formal way to get the removed Template brought back. What circumstances should take place?

4) You said that Ghirla was right to remove my message. Is it the rule that anyone can remove one's messages or it was because my message was particularly offensive.

Thank you in advance for answering these questions and not behaving in the way Ghirla did. Jasra 14:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trent

I'm sorry but why did you feel the need to edit the Trent entry? The livejournal community was added so current and future students checking wikipedia could find a forum where students of Trent discuss various things about the university. Since you are not a student at Trent, and in fact live many thousands of kilometres away I ask why you felt it necessary to make that edit?

football woe

Hi Mark, just a pre-emptive apology if I'm prodding a sore that won't heal (which I probably am). Understand that I'm not seeking a sea-change in vernacular, just a more judicious approach to the application of "agreed rules". ⁂veila # 12:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

User:Adnghiem501

This will be my last edit at the English Wikipedia today. And for you, thanks for deleting my user page. I shall be using my new but same username with the first three capitalized letters: User:ADNghiem501, but I've made no contribs since I created that account. It would be under a more appropriate name for me. Now, I'm deliberately retired from use of my old username that because usernames' first letters are always capitalized (according to Wikipedia:Username). Supportedly, my old username should have been correct as adnghiem501 on which the first letter is lowercased. I didn't realize this when I first created my account on the Wikipedia. BTW, I'm going to stop being active by this username, and to leave my old contribs in advance to my old account which I had been editing in many months. And I'm not making redirs of my old page to the new one either. Please recreate my User: and User talk: pages by copying the following notice below and pasting it to both pages:

{| style="margin:1; background:#cc3300; color:white;" align=center width=100% class="toccolours"
|align=center|'''This user name is no longer active.'''
This user name has formerly been used on Wikipedia, but at the request of the user who formerly used it, has been retired from use. If you need to contact the user who created this account, you should use the "E-mail this user" function on the left hand side.
|}

that shows the example that I obtained from User:Hedley's page when previewing edit below:

This user name is no longer active.

This user name has formerly been used on Wikipedia, but at the request of the user who formerly used it, has been retired from use. If you need to contact the user who created this account, you should use the "E-mail this user" function on the left hand side.

I don't prefer to add myself this notice to them, because I'm ceasing my old account ahead. You can go ahead and placed it without in doubt.

Finally, I would appreciate I seek for your help in advance, as well as others. If you would like to respond to me on somewhere rather than your talk page, feel free to leave a message on User talk:ADNghiem501. adnghiem501 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Hello, I recall to have been discussing with you the problem of stalking last year when you told me that stalking could lead to an admin action. Could you help me to understand where I may find data on what stalking is, where I can make a formal complaint and what punishment to the stalker it could entail? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig suggestion

Have you ever considered changing your sig's link to this talk page to be "Befuddle me!" instead of "Fuddle me!"? Funnier, IMO. --maru (talk) contribs 05:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete request

Coulds you please delete this page for me South Australian Super League. I had trouble creating the correct page, so I tried this and it worked. Then I couldn't move it to the correct page as the previous attempt half appeared. strange. thanks. BTW... I get an over 30kb warning on your discussion page. --Executive.koala 06:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huh? i looked up what Sockpuppet means. I think you guys were missing the point. It was meant like me calling you Grant65. I was poking fun. Anyway, I think after asking him not to do it, it becomes vandalism, but point taken about diluting the meaning by using it willy nilly. thanks for deleting the above entry. --Executive.koala 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what made me look the term up. I shouldn't have gone down that path anyway. He's done more good work than I ever will here, but I'm getting very tired of this belligerent nannying. --Executive.koala 10:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Country Pary

This was the official name of the Liberals in Victoria from some time in the 1940s until about 1970 - I have forgotten the dates. It arose from the effort by the Liberals to drive the Country Party out of existence by appropriating the name and contesting country seats, with some success. Similarly the South Australian Liberals were called the Liberal Country League for many years. Adam 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "Liberal Country Party" was the official name of the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party. All that happened at some point around 1970 was that the name was changed to "Liberal Party." The same thing happened in South Australia around the same time. Adam 06:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DaGizza's RfA

Hi MarkGallagher/Archive5, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza^Chat ^© 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark

Last month you deleted Campaign for American Leadership in the Middle East as per the AfD. But there was a redirect, at The Campaign for American Leadership in the Middle East (CALME). Could you speedy delete that, please? Cheers! Proto||type 08:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]