User talk:Makemi

For old discussions please see

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page. I will most likely respond on your talk page.

New article question

Hi again Mak. I'd like to create a new page but can't find the 'create new page' button described in the Wikipedia editing section. Bee Coz 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, the page does exist but I want to add to it. You see, Wikipedia lists definitions for the word 'Mode' but not a literary definition. I want create this literary definition and then link it off Wikipedia's 'Literature' page (in the 'list of literary terms' section). Thanks :) Bee Coz 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful - thanks for the help :) Bee Coz 16:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Mak. I'm having trouble with the external links in the 'references' section of my Mode (literature) article. I have typed them in accurately but none of them seem to work? Thanks .. Bee Coz 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! And thank you :) Bee Coz 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mak. Just reporting vandalism on Fellowship of Friends page. Best to you. Veronicapoe

sodexho

did you remove the link to sodexhomagic on Magic Johnson's page? if so, why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.96.173 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Because spam. Mak (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging projects

Hi. I wonder if you know how we might merge the inactive/one member Wikipedia:WikiProject Operetta with the Opera Project? No hurry if you are busy! Best wishes. - Kleinzach 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image on my user page

In this edit here you removed the mountain dew picture from my userbox. This image is the same one on the Mountain Dew page. I feel that there is no problem with me using this image on my userpage for the following reasons.

It is being used to provide identification of the product in question. Obviously...
No free-use alternative can possibly be created due to the nature of the image in question. Yep. I'm gonna get me Adobe Photoshop and I'll have that image myself in no time.
It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the product in any way. Actually, it could be argued that I'm endorsing their product, althought that is not why I put the image on my page.
The photo is only being used for informational purposes, in this case, to show the fact that i enjoy drinking Mountain Dew.

If you have a problem with something on my user page, please leave a message on my talk page. Don't just blow in and change it. A user page is not a normal encyclopedic page. It is (or can be) an extention of its owner. Please respect this in the future.
J.delanoy 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to delete my page

Well you're a little punk. Don't delete my pages, or I'll delete yours. My information is corporate. Goodbye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EGamingSupply (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"My information is corporate." - perhaps that's why it was deleted? Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. Mak (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your username is commercial, which is why you've been blocked. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dronke

I could try, although I don't really know much about him...I just know him in connection to Bernard Silvestris, I think. Adam Bishop 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE

And that drastically lowers their efficiency. WP:PW is enacting WP:IAR in order to get the articles up to standard with the greatest possible speed. We have recently discovered a treasure chest of sources, and a few editors have been charged with sourcing the articles. Having to flip through the histories will drastically slow them down. Now, I will make it clear to this user that what is going on isn't normal. Peace, -- The Hyb rid 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get the same result faster, then we should have every right to do so. -- The Hyb rid 04:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox musical artist

You mentioned on the FAC for Josquin des Prez that {{Infobox musical artist}} was being rejected by the WikiProject (I assume you mean WPMusicians? -- the whole multi-WikiProject thing can get confusing). I hadn't heard that; where did you see it? I feel a bit guilty since it was me who suggested the Josquin infobox on the theory that it was becoming standard, even though it's really designed for pop artists...—Turangalila ^talk 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cavill

hi there was wondering why you keep deleting the article on Patrick Cavill in am creating? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Postberry (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Odhecaton, Josquin, etc.

Hey, thanks for the Odhecaton scan from the Missa L'homme armé super voces musicales! I added it to that article (not sure about the formatting) but that old music notation always looks pretty cool in Renaissance music articles, so what the hey. Thanks for your remarks on Josquin. I have to clean up the references and works list ... argh. But I'm back from Wikibreak. (Wozzeck came to a bad end again, alas. But it was a really good production. Hm, it's already been reviewed.) Antandrus (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FoF Page

Hi Makemi, I noticed you did some edits to the Fellowship of Friend page a while ago. Would you be interesting on helping improving the page? If you read the Talk page you will see a lot of discussion and a mediation process starting. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 01:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, it looks a bit fraught at the moment. Mak (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help w/ signatures

As I said, THANKS! Anyway, I'm new to wiki and I don't mean to plagiarize, but I'm customizing my signature and used yours as a test. Here it is: Curran (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Anyway, unlike yours, there's no link to my talk page, even though I copied and pasted and just changed the basics. Anyway, If you could help me, it would be ever so helpful. Thanks a million. Curran (talk)[reply]

Nevermind. I didn't mean to bother you. Apparently it works now (YAY!) Anyway, thanks again for your help and I really appreciate your dedication to new wikipedians like me :) Cheers, Curran (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (<--and I could do this all day now that it works!!!)[reply]

No bother :) Have fun, Mak (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

I was not destroying the work of others! I only improve other people's stuff. I was merely trying to create my own. What do you have against Cheech Vagflaps? I admit, I wrote the article poorly, but I could have improved it with a little more research. Really fascinating story. Not real, of course, but still fascinating! I quote from The Economist (US), August 1, 1992 v324 n7770 p35(2): "Stone walls do not a prison make, especially for Pablo Escobar. The man who runs the Medellin cartel of drug exporters had spent just over a year in jail awaiting trial for murder, drug trafficking and other crimes. The trial was due to open in July, and would have involved moving the accused man to an ordinary prison. The prisoner therefore escaped." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likelyone1 (talk • contribs)

What does that quote have to do with the totally made up article you posted? Absolutely no google hits for that ridiculous name. Pretty clearly a hoax. Mak (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore Rand Kannenberg. We worked very hard on that page. Thank you.

Done. Mak (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Makemi! CJAS

PLEASE RECONSIDER THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS USER/EDITOR

This Editor/User editor UNFAIRLY BLOCKED me. There were no reasons, (vanadalism or its kind) that I did-- for him/her to jump to conclusion that I deserved to be blocked. It started about wheter the AFI various lists on 100 years... 100 movies and its copyright status. This user believed that it is a copyright materials and intended to get rid of the lists on the main articles.

All the lists were remove for a while but-- in a big breakthroug came when a different user wrote to the AFI and ask about the copyright status of the lists. It turns out, according to AFI that it is indeed in Public Domain and can be USE. I tried to restore all the lists but this user was so determined to remove it even knowing all the facts that it is indeed in "public domain".

My conclusion: This user is not really interested in facts but more interested in his/her EGO. Per history this user did have some debate from other users concerning this. I think this user is so certain that he/she was right about the copyright status that he/she did not really do anything about it (write AFI or call them). This user would just satisfied him/herself by just leaving what he/she saw it fit. This user also tend to belittles "anonymous" users. As he/she did not really explain my blockage, he/she had no respect even when I talk courteously. he/she does not discriminate anonymous users as he/she saw ALL of them as the same and tried accusing any user who does not agree a socks.

This user's can not accept the fact the he/she was wrong. And tried removing the lists WITHOUT even doing ANYTHING. He/she kept on saying about the permissions on copyrights are required --yet he/she does not really take any actions about it. This user only interest is for the article to stay what he/she saw fit because it would make him/her look right.

Call All this as my feedback to this particular user. And for all those other users (especially anonumous one), I cautioned you, if ever you gonna have a debate with this user consider that he can very well be bias and egotistical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.96.148 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Erm, you were edit warring and socking. No e-mail from the AFI has been forwarded to the permissions list. I might as well say on the George W. Bush page that I talked to him on the phone and he said he knew there were no WMDs when he invaded Iraq. Well, ok, it's slightly more realistic, but not all that reliable really. Mak (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point---why don't you write AFI or call them and confirm the truth? Or make things happen. To make all this more productive. But you are not really interested doing that, you are just more interested to enforce what you think is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.96.148 (talk • contribs)

Because the person said they already had the e-mail from the AFI. They could just hit "forward" on the e-mail and send it to permissions - en (at) wikimedia (d.t) org (with obvious changes made so spambots won't pick it up from this page). I'm pretty sure the list is not PD, nor does it fall under fair use, nor do I think it's particularly encyclopedic to have the entire lists in our articles. But, if it being PD was verified through OTRS, I would bow out gracefully. It hasn't been. You continued to edit war after Gmaxwell made you aware of the problem on your talk page, and once you were blocked you committed the cardinal wiki-sin of using a sockpuppet. I have no apologies to make to you. Mak (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not help to settle this once and for all? The thing is you do not want to help or cooporate because, you are afraid that it would just prove you are wrong and the best thing you can do is blocking a user who is addressing the fact. And I am not asking for your apology. And you are so obssed accusing me of sockpuppets I think it only shows whos guilty of using such things. .... added in a stream of edits on 21 April 2007 by 67.101.96.148, who didn't sign

As you would know by now I am new to this. So I edit my comments quite often as I make mistakes all the time and quite new of signing post. Is that how you judge people here? Those who does not know how to sign is not worthy? Dont worry ill learn that eventually. I am not sure if "added in a stream of edits, who didn't sign" is some kind of attack or not, but you have not still answered my question: What have you done so far to resolve all this? Since you are the most experienced user here and know how to do things around here, why not take initiative of doing of getting that permission you keep on saying? Isn't that how a credible editor should do? or you would just leave this thing again and try to block anyone because of your ego? ... added in a pair of edits on 21 April 2007 by 88800, who didn't sign

Hello IP/88800. It was I who added the note on who wrote the messages that you omitted to sign. I shall ignore most of your questions, as they seem to be rhetorical. Please cut out the speculation of motives and personality ("because of your ego", etc.) because, aside from other possible problems (see WP:NPA), it's extraordinarily boring to read. If you have a request, make it clearly, reasonably, and concisely; otherwise you'll be ignored (or worse). I hope that this is clear. (Incidentally, signing is really easy. You simply hit the "~" key four times in a row.) -- Hoary 08:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IM PRETTY SURE MAKEMI also has socks due to your fast response and extremely in-depth analysis without any comments before and mysteriously admitting after the fact that I used my 88800 name. Maybe, Maybe Not. Also there has also been fast response on my talk page I doubt that its another socks. maybe maybe not. Who knows I maybe just talking to one person here. I DONT CARE. But using socks puppets are not the issue here. Yes I have used sock puppets that is because he UNFAIRLY BLOCKED ME. I used it to bring my point across but this user unfairly zip my lips as this user thinks he controls what is the last say to this issue.88800 08:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not requesting anything, I just want to point out how this user work here. Especially blocking people so easily. I was not vandalizing or anything I was not attacking anyone. No I was blocked because his/her ego.88800 09:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple: please cut the shouting, cut the ad hominems, and please cut the personal speculation. Do that, and follow the usual procedures, and you won't be blocked. Thank you. Moreschi ^Talk 08:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not shout, I did not do any "ad hominems" and personal accusation before he/she unfairly blocked me.88800 08:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this user is really a "good" editor and not being childish--- this user would just stop and say I will cooperate and be doing what I have been suggesting and stop focusing on me not signing my post or using scoks. Write AFI, do the permission thing you have been saying and everyone will be happy. Is this user willing to corporate? I doubt it. I really do not understand why we need a permission with this unless it is copyright material which it is not. The creator of the lists did published the materials on the internet in public domain so its quite illogical why we need permission from wikipedia. Anyway if we really must do that permission thing could you please just help to make this possible? Instead of using your socks to agree with you or unfairly blocking others. For your consideration ill sign my post now. And please stop reordering all this88800 08:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to run across this on RC patrol, and while I normally try to avoid butting in like this, I know some things you two might like to -- specifically, this AFI copyright issue was discussed at the admin noticeboard just last week -- opinions were far from unanimous, but it's clear a significant number of users are very concerned about the list's copyright status. Another user says he's gotten in touch with AFI's people regarding explicit permission to use the list, and he's currently in the process of running this notice past OTRS. If that's done, the issue should be put to rest. (The subtext here is that any amount of arguing the two of you put into this is probably moot, if OTRS replies, so please do bear that in mind!). Hope that helps. Cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point really is that this user/editor is not a good editor at all. This editor would just easily block anyone without any hesitation if he thinks he's/she's right. I was not trying to vandalize things, I wasn't trying to attack anyone. Blocking people should always be the last resort here unless there are clear evidence of vandalism or its kind. The consequence is that if you blocked someone unfairly it would cause more problem than it could resolve. This editor should be aware of that. And the reason why I wrote my feedback because I want other users to know that this user is inconsiderate, bias, egotistical and power hungry especially towards anonymous users. This is only my opinion or feedback, and not an attack, in my experience with this user. I just want people to inform that, and they can decide for themselves88800 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are being disruptive. Stop it. No, Makemi does not sockpuppet. Adminstrators don't, as a rule. Here at Wikipedia, we DefendEachOther. We don't, for your information, AttackEachOther, which is something you don't seem to get. Please stop the entirely baseless personal attacks now: comment on the content and the actions of contributors, not the contributors themselves. We frequently block people for sockpuppetry, disruption, and copyright infringment. You've done the lot, and have been very incivil in the bargain. You don't have anything to complain about. Obey the rules or you'll be blocked again. Moreschi ^Talk 10:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my voice here. 88000/67.101, you need to stop the personal attacks, and you need to stop justifying them, for there is no justification for making them, ever. Read that link. Regarding the public domain claim you make, please recognize that we have extraordinarily strict policies here regarding copyrights, and we enforce them. The burden of proof on a claim of public domain is on the person making the claim, and the website containing the list you persistently add has a clear copyright notice. Please stop harassing Makemi for it is disruptive behavior. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes for Westminster Abbey

Hi,

You reverted the addition of a succession box from Henry Purcell because you felt the information looked wrong. Fair play - it may well be, I based these boxes from the organist list at the Westminster Abbey page. Was the incorrect information the title of the position (I just made one that I thought fitted), in which case could it be added under the title of Organist? Or in fact is that list inaccurate in itself, in which case several other boxes may need changing. Are you against the idea of the succession box in general?

Thanks,

–MDCollins (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol

Hey! No fair! You get to delete the nonsense before I tag it! :-) Coren 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, sorry. Mak (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Britten operas

Hi. I had to put the Aldeburgh beach scallop shell into the above because we don't have any image of Britten (that I can see) anywhere in en.WP. I notice that you've got an old Time Magazine cover in the Esperanto wiki which I assume is kosher and above-board. Any chance that you could move it across into these parts - into the Britten article would be good - so that I can ditch the shell and make Britten uniform with the other opera composer templates? Best --GuillaumeTell 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I didn't upload it onto the Esperanto Wikipedia, but I did upload it to the English Wikipedia, and later deleted it, because I didn't think it really satisfied the fair use requirements. We can't use that image simply as an illustration of "Benjamin Britten", and we definitely can't use it on a template of his operas. Although we could make a fair use argument for using the Time image on the Britten article if we added a section on the illustration of Britten created for Time, it would not be acceptable right now. I'd much prefer it if we could find someone with a picture of Britten that we could get released under the GFDL or CC-BY. For more on "fair use" on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Mak (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again...

Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Slean

Makemi: I notice that you have removed my Sarah Slean link. You have identified it as SPAM. Has she made tish identification? I notified her of the review on June 21, 2006. She visited the page, and did not object. Why do you?

Sarah Slean's visit to the page in question:

canonical name m42.net81-66-59.noos.fr. aliases addresses 81.66.59.42

81.66.59.42 - - [03/Jul/2006:16:04:27 -0400] "GET /w3terra/ols/sarah_slean.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 7751 81.66.59.42 - - [03/Jul/2006:16:04:28 -0400] "GET /w3terra/ols/graphics/sarah-rv.JPG HTTP/1.1" 200 6491 81.66.59.42 - - [03/Jul/2006:16:04:28 -0400] "GET /w3terra/ols/graphics/sarah-drahy.JPG HTTP/1.1" 200 8245 81.66.59.42 - - [03/Jul/2006:16:04:28 -0400] "GET /w3terra/ols/graphics/sarah-rs.JPG HTTP/1.1" 200 9744 81.66.59.42 - - [03/Jul/2006:16:04:30 -0400] "GET /w3terra/ols/graphics/sarah-rt.JPG HTTP/1.1" 200 9684 81.66.59.42 - - [03/Jul/2006:16:04:30 -0400] "GET /w3terra/mil/graphics/audion2.GIF HTTP/1.1" 200 8065 81.66.59.42 - - [03/Jul/2006:16:04:30 -0400] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 404 289 81.66.59.42 - - [03/Jul/2006:16:04:31 -0400] "GET /w3terra/ols/graphics/sarah-gram-o-phone-r.JPG HTTP/1.1" 200 48183

PLEASE RESTORE THIS LINK AND THE PHOTOGRAPH

This photographs was properly identified for copyright purposes...

C.C. to Ant... Eventual contact to Sarah herself by this artist/writer

xena starwoman