User talk:MarkGallagher

Archives

1. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive1 — July–September 2005
2. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive2 — October–December 2005
3. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive3 — January 2006
4. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive4 — February 2006
5. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive5 — March 2006
6. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive6 — April 2006
7. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive7 — May 2006
8. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive8 — June 2006

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spam Bully

You deleted Spam Bully (not encyclopedic, probably copyvio) as I was trying to clean it up. I am not arguing with your reasons for deleting it; both your points are correct. I started a new article with the same name, which is still a stub, and listed it for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spam Bully. I think that it now passes WP:CORP, but I would be grateful if you could have a look at the article and the AfD. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Turnbull & Asser deletion

Didn't you see my comment on the talk page before you deleted this page. I followed the proper procedure with the hangon tag and had just finished the basic rewrite of the article when it told me it had been deleted. Should I just begin the page again or what? Woldo 09:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and created it again. Please discuss first if you have a problem with it and plan to delete it. Thanks Woldo 09:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the AfD on this. I nominated it to stop the speedy deletion confusion that was going on. Still don't understand what the issue there was. I have to admit the nomination was pretty political and a big waste of time. Hopefully the article can become decent now. MyNameIsNotBob 11:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turnbull & Asser you seem to be criticising me for putting a speedy G4 tag on a reposted article that you deleted. What do you suggest I should have done? Bear in mind that I don't have access to deleted versions to check that a repost is really that, so I tag them for an admin to look at. Kevin 11:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Boilerplate for cut&paste moves.

Actually, if you'd like to help me out. I could use a nice template for cut and paste moves. I'm thinking about stealing a few lines off of WP:CUTPASTE, editing them up a bit, and turning that into either a template, or a personal template for editors who use cut&paste rather than the move function. If you'd be willing to help let me know. I'm going to try to write the template in the next day or two if I get time. Kevin_b_er 10:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"speedy", not "lightning"

G'day Reswobslc,

I see you've been doing a lot of good work helping us get rid of nonsense articles and so on. Well done! If I could just make a point ... there's enthusiasm, and then there's enthusiasm.

Among your list of excellent actions, you also tagged The Pavilion, Westville as a speedy candidate when it was only a couple of minutes old. I've deleted it because its author, who had expressed a desire to improve on the article before it was tagged, decided he'd rather revert you than do any improving, and so he can probably just as easily start from scratch at this point. However, as a general rule it's a good idea to be a bit more laid-back about articles that've just been created which the author obviously intends to improve. Killing it before they even start can be very discouraging to new editors. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it empty (or nearly empty) in the first place? (As noted, it's gone, so I can't doublecheck). Where did I miss his expression that he was going to improve it? (no talk page, none was deleted either). If it were really empty, am I really setting him back by tagging it? If I were him, and I saw "this page is tagged because it was empty", would I really feel criticized, or would the encyclopedic non-value of a blank page be obvious, along with the conclusion that if I were to put an article there, it would no longer be empty? As you noted, I did tag a lot of pages (enthusiasm is one way of putting it, or it could simply be that I chose to select pages off the new pages log and that's why new pages were targeted). If I tagged it for some other reason than empty, would you remind me so I know what not to do? Reswobslc 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and questions

Hey Mark, thank you for your message! :) I'm glad you gave me your reactions to my answers. To be honest, I'm still a little unsure about closing close (no pun intended) xfDs. I guess my emphasis on relisting was a result of my wanting to make sure that every decision I made was thoroughly discussed beforehand. Of course, I still want to ensure this, but it's clear that I need to devise a way of doing that without increasing the time that things take to go through processes such as xfD; I hope that comes with experience. Cheers, Tangotango 08:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unification Church clarification

Hello Mark, I just wanted to make a clarification on my edits on the Manhattan Center page. The goal of my contributions to this page is to ensure the factual accuracy of the details on the history of the building. Also, I'm aiming to keep the history section consistent with the history on Manhattan Center's official website. The entries on the official website are neutral, factual, and they should fit well within Wikipedia's standards. The website lists that the building was purchased by the Unification Church. It doesn't say that it was purchased by Sun Myung Moon's Unification church. This phrasing is redundant; similarly, you would not refer to the Church of Scientology as L. Ron Hubbard's Church of Scientology. If you were a Roman Catholic, you would not refer to your church as the Pope's Roman Catholic Church. The leaders (or some cases, originators) of the chuch are assumed. It's not that you wish to hide the information about the leader of the church, you only want to ensure the accuracy of the church's name when it is mentioned. For these reasons, all I ask is that the reference on Manhattan Center's Wikipedia page match the information on the website. Thanks. Manhattan Center 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just adding a note that this was directed at an edit made by "Exucmember"

Category:Socialist Wikipedians

Why is "Category:Socialist Wikipedians" flagged for non-creation? How is it any different than "Category:Liberal Wikipedians"? There are 22 wikipedians who purport to be Socialist Wikipedians! I don't understand. -- Dyslexic agnostic 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet listing

Is there any way to get yourself delisted as a puppetmaster? This page has been up for several weeks now; the accusations are completely baseless, except for Dzinkin (a friend of mine who I asked to contribute to a discussion where someone was dismissing facts because he didn't like me -- I wasn't aware at the time that this was frowned upon), but I have no way to prove it. The person who made the accusations has shown no signs of backing down, even though his only evidence is random new users agreeing with me. What can I do here? -TPIRFanSteve 00:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is pertinent, as well. -TPIRFanSteve 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. -TPIRFanSteve 12:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Company editor editing article

Would you be able to investigate the editing of the Turnbull & Asser web page by the ip user 80.168.52.51 which according to this site belongs to Turnbull & Asser. You will find a number of contributions to the article here. As you will notice these are severely POV and you can understand why I went and did a WHOIS search. Thanks for any assistance you can muster. MyNameIsNotBob 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fagatron

I deleted and wanted to protect this from recreation, but couldn't work out how to as there isn't a protect tab. What's the trick? Tyrenius 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

inflammatory messages

Good day I am sorry i fail to see why it is wrong to bring the user's vandalism to peoples attention. That user has vandalized many articles. Perhaps i could say it in a nicer way, i dont know, but thats why the notice board is there in first place, to let other users know that someone is vandalizing, Don't you agree? --Spahbod 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Greater and Lesser Tunbs

Sorry to bother you again, but i dont understand why you protected this article: Greater and Lesser Tunbs. User:MARVEL is constantly changing persian gulf artciles to his POV, changing persia gulf to arabian gulf, moving arvandrud to arabic shat al arab, and in the greater tunbs article he has put in this: are Emirati islands occupied by Iranians in 1971. But the islands are iranian. I dont know if i gave you bad impression for some reason, but i am really not the bad guy here, i am just trying to not let these articles be vandalized. --Spahbod 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, i know that edit wars is not something wikipedia approves of. I believe that you looking at this from a neutral POV perhaps do not appreciate why i just reverted and called it vandalism. As i explained for Mr Aron Brennema here: [1], the edits this user on many articles is really vandalism, he does not show a different POV or add other disputed facts, he simply changes all persian names of persian gulf or the Greater and Lesser Tunbs islands or Shatt al-Arab to arabic names, claiming they belong to arabs, moving whole pages to arabic names and such. If this is not vandalism then what is. Thanks for your time. --Spahbod 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect the page so we can correct it! it is factually wrong and has been vandalised.Khosrow II 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Protecting deleted articles

Thank you kindly! I thought I'd been forgotten about over that one...

Admin needs admin assistance

Thanks to having a computer
plugged into a Netgear router

I can access Wikimedia
and the whole of Wikipedia.

Now that I've been R-F-A'd
trolls and vandals are dismayed

when they find they aren't so clever
after they've been blocked forever.

I go in at quite a breeze
getting rid of CSDs:

I blast to sub-atomic particles
non-notable and nonsense articles.

But though I've spammed and though I've pleaded
I cannot find the know-how needed

to get deleted ones protected -
they keep on getting resurrected!

--Tyrenius 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Check your email

Thanks! Computerjoe's talk 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

user:MARVEL

Hello, it seems to me User:MARVEL is User:True Paths sock puppet. User true paths account was made today, and all his contributaions involved the very same ones MARVEL was editing: [2]. Furthermore you will find the very same line on both users userpage: Im Concerned with history here:[3] and here: [4] --Spahbod 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, thank you for looking into this, i really appreciate it. :) --Spahbod 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Greater and Lesser Tunbs

I understand you had to protect the page to stop edit war but his was not just a difference of opinion this is the clear case of one side ignoring the facts. they keeps labeling the islands as “occupied”, that is extreme POV push. The island belongs to Iran according to all maps of the world and only UAE claim that they are occupied. It is a very politically motivated edit. We can of course mention that UAE claims these islands To be sure we represent both sides but they want to completely shut the other side and only represent the UAE government. Also the official and UN sanctioned name of the gulf is Persian Gulf and even the page in WP is titled Persian Gulf, naming dispute section mentions other alternatives, still they keeps reverting it without any explanation. I don’t know if it is one person or more but I think they should be given a warning. Thanks.Gol 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Please see this edit from MARVEL [5] - he is pushing an Arab nationalist POV by calling Persian Gulf as "Arabian Gulf" and claiming that the islands are "occupied" when they are historically part of Iranian mainland. He has not even provided sources for his "opposing" views. Hope that helps clarify things. Thank you. Khorshid 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Burning Spear pages

Hi, I'm not creating empty pages, I'm creating new pages for the Burinng Spear album discography.

Burning Spear pages

Thanks for the heads up, I can see where you are coming from

Stephanie Adams

Hi, I saw you protected the article and removed the unsourced section. Thanks. What is the best thing to do in such a case? (if protection isn't there yet) In one hand the section should be removed per WP:BLP, but one also doesn't want to edit war. I only removed it once when I saw it, but wanted to remove it again after it was re added but thought the better of it. :) Garion96 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)