User talk:Marek69

If you leave a message here, I will respond here, unless you ask for a response on your talk page.

Awesome!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For being so damn fast! A8UDI 04:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi A8UDI, Thanks very much. :-))

We've got to keep them in check ;-) -- Marek.69 ^talk

:) you can call me Tom. PS- isnt it really really late there in the UK? A8UDI 04:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom! No not really late - just a bit early ;-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

hahah love it. A8UDI 04:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

daayyyummm 2 attacks in one night! you're setting a new standard over there Marek ;) A8UDI 03:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On Palestine

Hello,

In the spirit of a lack of bias or indication of endorsement, I request that 'Palestine' not be referred to as a country until it has become a country. Circumstances surrounding the entity at present include an agreement which is recognized by Israel in which the entity is referred to as the 'Palestinian Authority'.

Best Regards, Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.128.162 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I'm fine with that. Please feel free to change any instances you find.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 04:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting squinchpix.com links

Hello Marek, Please help me. Someone named Hu12 is reverting several links I have to my site at Squinchpix.com. My links are to appropriate and useful pictures. There are no ads on my site. Squinchpix has about 3000 links back to Wikipedia articles. I am a good wiki citizen. Hu12 does not give a reason for deleting my links. Perhaps he doesn't like the pictures. Help!

Hello Marek, O.k. all the links to Squinchpix have now been removed by editors Hu12 and someone name 'CKatz'. I've been told that I'm potentially in a conflict of interest with my links. It is true that I have a small ad on my home page for a book 'The Best of Squinchpix'. I'd forgotten about that since no one has ever purchased a copy of it. Does it require ads to create a conflict of interest? If it does then you should delete all references to paradoxplace.com and sacred-destinations.com. They have hundreds of external links on Wiki and nearly every page linked to contains ads. Their business model is avowedly the travel industry; they sell books, maps, tours, flights, the whole nine yards. Why aren't they being hounded about their links? Unlike them I really have no business model (nor am I ever likely to). But I'm being hounded about fewer than 10 links. Sacred-destinations has 994 external links when I search for it on Wiki. When you click through this external link (Article on 'Sant Pau del Camp'): http://www.sacred-destinations.com/spain/barcelona-sant-pau-del-camp it has a sidebar with links to their business which is selling Books (Amazon), Tours (http://www.partner.viator.com/en/3888/Barcelona/d562-ttd), Hotels, Hostels, and Car Rentals. Their whole business model is ads.

Paradoxplace.com has 134 hits on Wiki. Every last one of these links contains ads or links to their own ad pages. He sells thousands of books from his site. For example, if you click through Wiki's external link in the article 'Abbey of Santo Domingo de Silos': http://www.paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/Spain/Camino_de_Santiago/South_of_Burgos/Santo_Domingo_de_Silos/Domingo_de_Silos.htm (That's the external link) When you click through it leads you to a page where he sells Amazon books.

And there are a lot more. For example seindal.dk which has 26 external links on Wiki and every one leads to a page on which the sidebar reads "MERCHANDISE" which consists of T-shirts, caps, mugs, kids clothing, bags, home&office supplies, mugs, cards, prints, calendars, and stickers. Let's get Seindal off of Wiki! I'll start right now!

Since Wiki is user-edited I'd be happy to tear out their links for you; just let me know.

It's true that I was warned not to spam in August. I was putting up some links in August and I did this out of ignorance truly not knowing that Wiki would regard it as spamming. Since then I've asked permission as I did you for the Venice link. If I AM a spammer and ParadoxPlace and Sacred-Destinations are NOT spammers then I wish you'd explain the difference to me.

Can we be consistent please?

My goal is to take the best and most complete pictures available on the web of various art and architecture and archaeological sites. It's in that spirit that I linked to my site from Wiki.

Best regards,

Bob Consoli—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante4848 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bob, you seem to be having a spot of trouble adding external links from Wikipedia to your website.

I'm sorry to hear this. Please try not to get upset as this situation is incredibly common on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's guidelines on external links can be found on Wikipedia:External links

I have no doubt that your site is indeed appropriate and makes a useful addition to the individual articles.

However, I'm guessing what the other editors are objecting to is a conflict of interest, i.e. that you are adding the external links to a site you own.

You can read Wikipedia's guidelines on this in Wikipedia: Advertising and conflicts of interest

In this case you may want to add your link to the article's talk page and let another editor decide.

The argument you present above, that there are links to similar, or worse sites, unfortunately is also covered by the following Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. However, I do agree with you though that we should be consistent.

I'm sorry that you are experiencing these problems, but I think that if you familiarise yourself with the pages I have suggested, you may find a solution.

I hope this helps.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob, as I outlined on Hu12's page, your conflict of interest lies in the fact that you are assessing your own site as being worthy of inclusion, instead of leaving it to other, uninvolved editors. Your desire to share photos is certainly appreciated, but it would be far better for you to simply upload images to Wikipedia rather than adding external links to your own site. That would allow much better use of the images, and better integration within articles relating to the photos. Simply adding external links is not really a viable option. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Marek,

Thank you for looking into this. I guess the frustrating thing is that the pictures to which I linked definitely enhance the articles in which they were placed. However, I undertake never to link to Squinchpix again since that's your policy.

I'm asking you, if you will, to consider undeleting these links. Follow the links if you have the time and judge for yourself whether they're relevant to the articles in which they were inserted. CKatz says that it's not a viable option to use the external links feature for this purpose. Well, it's certainly viable for some people to do it. I think it's the lack of consistency that's the puzzling thing. I confess that I don't really understand it.

Anyway, that's what I'm asking. Either way; no more links to Squinchpix on my part. That's a promise.

Dante4848 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

Hello Marek69! I am a new editor, and I see by the talk page for 128.0.178.178 that Fastily had, in October 2009 blocked the user for three years. I caught one today, and you caught another vandalized page. Maybe the block was not placed? Maybe I should ask Fastily?--Thatguyflint ^{Talk to me!}03:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thatguyflint,looking at the IPs edit history, it seems that they can only edit their own talk page. Nevertheless they are using this ability to attack other editors. I will put a report of their behaviour in to AIV. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers Marek.69 ^talk 04:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also informed User:Fastily of the situation -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what, no I'm not even worried!

Hello Marek. Conte di Cavour should be banned from wikipedia in my opiinion. 110,000 bytes of info he has deleted from Italy. Now I've reverted it. I'll get the support of other users to prove that he is wrong.--Theologiae (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Rely, and now I'm really desperate!

Hi Theologiae, I've had a look at the Italy article, and in my opinion reverting back to the version of 17 October 2009 is a little bit drastic.

More so, the fact that, apart from yourself and user Conte di Cavour, a further 40 individual users (including myself) have made edits to the article since this date.

I have left my comments on the article's talk page.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kylie Anne Colvin

Hi. I see you vandal warned the creator of this for blanking the page. Generally, when an article creator blanks a page, and there are no other significant edits, it is tantamount to a creator request for deletion. It is generally not vandalism. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim, thanks for letting me know. I have now removed my warning. Cheers :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Stuff like this happens to us all, and it's all a learning experience. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronicles Magazine

Someone has been hijacking the Chronicles Magazine entry. See the discussion section. I reverted the entry back to its pre-hijacked form. --CM732 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi CM732, thank you for informing me of this. -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

heartless control everything????

what was wrong with putting both the reversed lyrics and the lyrics how they sound in the song it was constructive it still had the right lyrics so wtf dude lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.144.181 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry but it looked like someone messing around at first glance. Thanks for explaining. -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

4chan page

I would like to delete the 4chan mediation request. I'm penneth. The username is close to my actual name and I would request, as per my right to privacy, for it to be removed from the site. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penneth (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Penneth, Maybe you could put this request on the Requests for mediation/4chan page itself or contact the administator, Ryan Postlethwaite, who seems to be dealing with the mediation request.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 03:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

my User Page

Hi,Marek69,its me,Purz12.Thank you for the advice on my User Page.It looks awesome! If you mind,you can take a look at it,can you?You can get there by pressing on my signature.I also made a sub page about my made up robot.It has a hyperlink to it. Thank you!And make a new page for your discussion,its overfilling. P.S. Put your comments about my pages on my Talk Page. Thanks! --Adam "Purz" Purzynski (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adam. Your user page makes good reading :-)

If you want any further design tips, have a look at Wikipedia:User page design center.

Kind Regards & Happy Wiki-ing Marek.69 ^talk 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My userpage

Hi, thanks for reverting that vandalism, are we going to see you at another meetup soon? I'm skipping December but will be around in Jan. ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again WereSpielChequers, No Problem. As for the meetup, I'm not sure at the moment (December is likely to be very busy). I'll probably know closer to the time...

All the best :-) Marek.69 ^talk 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IP 208.122.68.39

No fair! I was going to report him! Darn, so close! :P You work fast... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thejadefalcon, I'm sorry, I am trying to slow down for you ;-) Marek.69 ^talk 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no matter. Someone has to take on ClueBot before it becomes sentient and kills us all. I'll stick to fighting J.delanoy for his title. :D --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol! I thought ClueBot was one of us :O -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That what it wants you to think. Don't be fooled by its automaton exterior! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But we've been exchanging e-mails for months...? -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure user:Cluebot is attending the next meetup in London. I think you must have him confused with J.delanoy^.bot -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. Sorry. A very easy mistake to make. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Good Luck with the title fight; J.delanoy is a truly formidable opponent. He will not be easy to defeat. -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Should I start playing Rocky music? :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think it will help :] -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

School page vandalism

Thank you for helping us twart vandals who were trying to deface the information about our school, Walsingham Academy. I don't know how you do it, but it works great! Directorbrandx (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No Problem. You're welcome Directorbrandx :-) Marek.69 ^talk 16:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming error?

Hi, are you using a bot to generate welcome messages on anonymous IP talk pages? It would be helpful if the first edit of the IP were examined before posting a welcome message. In those cases where the intent of the editor is clearly to spam Wikipedia, a warning rather than a welcome is warranted. Such was the case at User talk:93.139.8.176. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Amatulić, In answer to your question, no I'm not using a bot to generate welcome messages.

I carefully review each edit, by each new (or, as yet, unwelcomed) IP, manually and then leave an appropriate message using either Friendly or Twinkle.

If you look again at the IP you give as an example 93.139.8.176, you will notice that it was me who reverted the edit in question, which, as you rightly said, was clearly Spam.

Also, the template I used, {{Welcomespam}}, I think, reflects this message and also serves as a warning (If I could ask you to please take some time to read the template message again...).

In this case, as it was the anon IP's first edit I thought it friendlier to assume good faith and provide them with links to the relevant Wikipedia policies, rather that immediately warn them.

I hope this answers your question.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you are correct. I overlooked the spam part of the message; it looked like a standard welcome template at first glance. And thanks for the explanation of how welcoming works. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem :-) There are a number of welcome and warning templates available and I usually try to match the appropriate template to the new users first few edits. Cheers Marek.69 ^talk 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a thanks

Hi Marek69,

I just wanted to say thanks for your helpful and constructive edits you have made to the Hungarian articles that I (as the dogsbody) and User:Monkap (as the translator) have worked on. No particular mentions, just small, good edits. It is appreciated.

I like the thing on your user page about edit summary, BTW. I may steal it.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon, thank you for message. I have recently been working on improving European city articles and have been concentrating on Eastern European articles, so will probably be doing some more work on the Hungarian articles.

Thank you for your words of encouragement, it's always good to receive positive feedback.

Regarding the edit summary thing, feel free to take it, (although I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, sorry).

Best wishes to yourself and to your partner. :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is always good to get "positive feedback", or as we say in English, "thanks". As it happened I noticed your edits in a totally different area, I forget which as I am somewhat an omnivore, but remembered you had tidied up a few things on the articles we had edited together, Monkap and I, which I think stand good at least as wikified translations but there is only so far one can go as we are not experts in everything, or anything, our job as I see it is to provide a good wikified English translation and then others can take it and correct it or add to it.

As for the edit summary, one of my own pet hates is blank edit summaries and personally I should liek to see the server just refuse them (including if they have the C-style comment /* section */ before it). I am sure from your own declared editing habits it is perennially annoying to have to check an edit where it might be simply a typo correction or whatever, though of course we all know that vandals lurk under those too, but it chips away at good faith. There were 48 in a row the other day on Alan Bennett by no doubt a good faith editor, but how am I or are you to make head or tail of them when none has an edit summary? So your little animation saying "this is an edit summary box, put stuff here" or whatever it says, I found both amusing and constructive. You can check my user page for other pet hates, a few of which you may agree with, and those you don't, will make you think. WP:OWNFEET, an essay another relatively newbie editor wrote after I hammered home the need for progressive improvement instead of [reculer our mieux avancer] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) may also interest you a little. I am really a newbie WP editor but not by any means a new editor in real life, since technical documentation is part of my job. Which is why, for example, all my templates are documented with testcases.

Keep up the good work, it really is appreciated, and I imagine you get little thanks for it and much criticism. Si Trew (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I share you views wholeheartedly on edit summaries. If you wish to use the userbox, here's the code:

{{User:Marek69/edit_summary_template}}

It didn't originally have the wording you mentioned, but your comments inspired me, so it does now...

Thanks again and take care ;-)) Marek.69 ^talk 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Marek, thanks for reverting vandalism to my page! LovesMacs (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi LovesMacs, No Problem. You're very welcome :-) Marek.69 ^talk 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne (a friendly heads-up)

Say, fellow vandal fighter, check your edit on Charlemagne when you get a chance and then pull 24.150.179.156's warning on his talk page. He's on our side! It was an easy mistake to make, looked like content blanking and was reported as such, but it wasn't. You can catch me next time I flub one. Yours in vandal detestation, Jusdafax 02:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know Jusdafax. I should have looked the edit more carefully. Cheers :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Main Page

Hi Marek,

Who and how do we contact someone who can do something about it, when an item in the main page ("In the News", "On This day", or "Did you know") is apparently erred? Morogoso (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I've never thought about that. My guess would be that you go to the article that the main page is talking about and post a message on the talk page, explaining what's wrong. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, either that or report it on the main page talk page I suppose. Which article are you referring to Morogoso? -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at talk page

Hi Marek. Sorry for my extremeness in my message, I was just infuriated by Conte di Cavour's exaggerated edit. Anyway, look at the Italy talk page to see the new developments...

Reply when you see this message--Theologiae (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Theologiae, Thanks for the update. I have been following the developments on the Italy talk page.

There is currently a poll in progress, initiated by Sicilianmandolin on 24 November 2009

However there is no time limit specified for its duration.

I suggest waiting a bit longer (perhaps a couple of days) to ensure a fair vote on the proposal.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok

So Marek you think that we should wait some more days for a fair poll, I agree. I am willing to take Sicilianmandolin's considerations into account, and if there are enough people saying so, can you help me in restoring some old info? Can I just know your opinion on the matter?--Theologiae (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much summed up my opinion in my User_talk:Marek69#You_know_what.2C_no_I.27m_not_even_worried.21comments above.

I haven't made that many edits to the Italy article, so am relative unfamiliar with it.

Unfortunately I have not had time to carefully review the article and to form a strong opinion either way, which is why I entered the discussion as neutral.

You do seem to have several editors who support your views, so at the moment it seem unlikely that the reversion to the 17.10.2009 version will be kept.

Restoring info is relatively easy: If you go into edit history, you can select the version you prefer and make a comparison with the current version and click ‘compare selected revision’.

This will show you all the additions and removals since your preferred version.

Regards Marek.69 ^talk 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Another quick question

I get it Marek that doing the 'compare' thing is what to do to restore, but how can I or anyone be sure that by doing so another person's edits haven't been deleted? Anyway, thanks for the help, and still keep an eye on the talk page. Reply and ciao!--Theologiae (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You use the ‘compare selected revision’ feature only to compare the two versions, not to restore.

The changes will have to be done manually.

Regards Marek.69 ^talk 20:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

why did you take that off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.12.230 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you revert the truth?

The contect marked is either not NPOV or is not verifiable and in fact the contect which is not verifiable is mostly untrue, that's why it's not. For example the colonel did not develope this game a team of programmers hired my the Army did. That's just one example.