User talk:Marcus22

Please note: Vandalism or messages that ignore WP:CIVIL will be removed. So will anything else once I am bored seeing it. Rather like that old tree stump in the field... only, actually, erm, I still haven't gotten around to that...

TDVision

This company is notable. For the past 60 years humans have been watching television in 2D. Now along comes a company that can enable 3D broadcast with no loss of resolution or frame rate and no side effects. The citations are very notable and within the stereoscopic community even more so. 3dtech 01:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles I of England

Nice work on the personal rule/tyranny area - any plans to follow up with further (major anyway) changes to the article? I think I must have been recording a spoken version of the article at the same times as you were changing the very words I was reading. :) That's the major downside to the recordings and part of why I'm hoping screen readers get more advanced in the near future - they get out of sync with the article so easily! Thanks. Moulder 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Services: Science, Management, and Engineering

Yeah, I know. I'm worried that someone might take it to WP:DRV, in which case it would probably be overturned. This is first time I've gone against the vote total to that degree. I do try to be a Fair Witness and just try to ascertain community consensus, really. But in this case:

• It had already been relisted once, so I didn't want to relist it again. The fact that articles have to be relisted (and quite a few others come close) might mean that the numbers of AfD commentors are not up to handling the number of articles listed. Relisting articles might tend to exaberate this, leading to a snowball effect. I will relist a discussion a second time if I think it's necessary, useful, and important enough, but I'm very reluctant to do so.
• I consider a "quorum" to be at minimum three commentors (plus the nominator). That is just my personal standard. Less then three commentors, I almost always relist. There was a quorum, but not by whole lot. When the numbers are low, raw vote total make less of an impression on me. 4-1 is not nearly as statistically significant as 8-2, in my opinion.
• I look at strength of arguments as well a raw vote totals. In my opinion, the Delete arguments were not strong. Two were just "per nom", which could indicate that the commentor was just breezing through, and made a quick vote, releying on trust of the nominator, in the interest of making a quorum and avoid a second relisting. It doesn't necessarily indicate this, but there's no way to tell. (Don't get me wrong, the commentors were being helpful, and it usually is helpful.) I didn't give a lot of weight to those comments. If one discounts these entirely, which is arguable, you end up with 2-1 Delete, which is statistically insignificant.
• The other two Delete voters' comments were better, but not very strong, while the one Keep voter was pretty strong, he seemed to know something about the subject and provided a link. I think this one comment was strong enough that one could say that the Keep arguments were somewhat the stronger overall.
• Finally, although I'm not supposed to do this and usually don't, I did consider the encylopedic value of the article, and it seemed to have enough merit I was quite reluctant to delete the article.

So I think that the close was reasonable, although admittedly arguable. Herostratus 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I must have misread the page history. Herostratus 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes in the UK Conservative Party article

Hi. Please see my comments on the article's discussion page regarding three of those changes.... --longlivefolkmusic 23:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with hepatitis C

Would you consider revisiting this discussion? Current opinions run 10-4 in favor of keeping the article and I think all the serious concerns have been addressed. Respectfully, Durova 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

AFDs and "vanity"

Just a note regarding AFDs. The use of WP:VANITY and "vanity" in AFD discussions is now discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. Cheers and happy editing! Jpe|ob 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Marcus22 09:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandal revert

No prob! Happy to have a chance to test out Popups. Good luck with the vandal. :)

Maximilli, 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

BNP

Sorry been very busy over the last couple of days and haven't had much time to spare to go into detail on the subject, hence my lack of reply. Just to clarify I've nothing against anyone trying to improve the article, just as it's a controversial subject it's better to talk first as there are multiple editors involved. I'll post some opinions later tonight. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just replied. Sorry again about the delay, hope we can move forward from here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind giving some input into the current discussion please? Emeraude and I seem to have reached some kind of consensus, but more opinions would be welcome. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BNP again

May I suggest that your edit to the article British National Party was perhaps a little unwise. As you are well aware, this is a very controversial topic and the discussion regarding the introduction seems far from over so it would probably be better to discuss changes on the talk page before making them. Otherwise, you risk your edits being reverted. I note that you have "no desire to enter into a revert war" but I fear this is what may result from making such drastic changes of the article. Adambro 12:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I more or less agree with what you say. The version I have put in can readily be reverted and if it is I shan't change it again. For a while at least. Hence, rest assured, no edit war. (But the discussion, to which you refer, as far as I can tell, was going nowhere. Certain editors are stretching the bounds of debate for their own reasons; redefining Wiki norms to suit and not agreeing to give a little or even at all. It amounts to no more than sophistry. And I want no part in such an endless and thus pointless debate). Marcus22 14:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Please keep an eye on BNP

Copies of this message are being sent to: User: Adambro, User:Fethroesforia, User:Lucy-marie, User:Marcus22, User:One Night In Hackney, User:Robdurbar, User:VoluntarySlave, User:WGee

I am writing to you because over the last few months you have all played a significant part in editing and debating the article BNP. Even though we have not always all seen eye-to-eye, it is the case that all of you have shown an interest in producing an article that is accurate and representative of the subject within WIkipedia policies. The purpose of this message is to alert you to a potential threat to the article and to ask for your help in keeping a watchful eye on it over the next few weeks. I am going to be away from home with only occasional access to a slow dial-up connection.

On 1 June, I added to the BNP infobox the descriptor 'fascist', with appropriate references (as had been discussed a few weeks back - see archive discussion). I was happy for anyone to question this in the usual way and, indeed, had other references available if necessary. Almost coincidentally, an anonymous editor User:86.146.242.233, began making a series of edits without justification. On the talk page, he referred to previous editors (i.e. you) as "the many militant liberals and communists" and indicated that he was "also going to be going through the whole article because I notice most of it is either liberals or nationalists posting their points of views". I asked him to identify his position and was told "You're fucked up, leave the god damn article alone" and he told me to "stop trolling the BNP article". He also made inappropriate comments on the user pages of other editors to the BNP article and, for no reason I can fathom, did this to the user page of a 14 year old: [[1]].

User talk:86.146.242.233 shows he received several warnings and was eventually banned from editing (having only recently, it seems, been released from an earlier ban). This might have been the end of the matter, but the following day a new editor appeared with the name User:Evianmineralwater and proceeded to make identical edits to BNP and some related articles. I reported my suspicions that 86.146.242.233 and Evian were identical to adminUser:Anthony.bradbury who agreed it seemed to be the same person but told me had been banned again. In fact, he was banned for using a trade name and returned almost immediately as User: Mineralwaterisgreat. (I had misunderstood what the admin had told me and assumed he had been banned for vandalism and so reverted his edits on that basis, earning a rebuke from another admin for my mistake.)

Mineral has made the following statements, among others.

Wikipedia is "corrupt piece of shit populated with idiots". Rebuked by an admin, he replied, "Wikipedia IS corrupt AND populated by idiots."

On the references I had provided: "I'm not reading the references because they are obviously left wing and I'm not buying a god damn book."

About me: "This guy wants to keep adding fascism to describe the BNP when it has been refused on both the disambiguation page and the main page. Isn't it clear to see he's just a troll without the best interests of the article in mind?" (I'm not sure what he means by being refused.)

Elsewhere, he has said he is a BNP member and that he intends to edit the article to remove anything he regards as anti-BNP bias.

Now I can deal with personal attacks or ignore them as the mood takes me, but this user is clearly setting out with a POV agenda that we have, I believe, worked hard to keep out of the article. (And, yes, it has sometimes been heated but I still think we have done a good job between us.) I am even happy to debate with BNP members and supporters if they use rational arguments and respect the views of others. (An honourable mention here to Fethroesforia.) I would hate to see the good work we have done go to waste, so I ask that you keep an eye on the article and ensure that edits are made in the correct wikipedian spirit, backed up with sources as appropriate and discussed in the talk page where necessary. It is highly likely that this person could reappear under other names.

(Incidentally, it is ironic that this person has chosen to attack me so vehemently given that, apart from regularly removing the BNP ARE WANKERS type of vandalism and correcting references, the only edit I can recall ever having made to the actual article is to add 'fascism' to the infobox.) Sorry to go on, and I know you are all busy with other projects. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Emeraude 10:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Project European Union

Hello Marcus22, you are member of the project European Union. I try to create a new project page for the project. You can see it at here Because this should be the project page for all it´s members, please tell me, what you think about it. Please leave your comments on the talkpage of the project.--Thw1309 11:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Edward III of England‎

Marcus, could you have another look at your recent edit to this article. Aside from a significant portion of info towards the end of the article that appeared to be simply lopped off without explanation, the References section is fragmented - so not sure if all that was what you intended... Cheers, Ian Rose 13:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the References are back, but the edit is still far to radical and unilateral. Keep in mind that the article was promoted to FA-status by consensus of the community, but currently it is nothing like the way it was then. It was promoted with a total of 45 footnotes, now it has 15! I would agree that the "Chivalry and national identity"-section was too listy, that happened after the promotion, but that doesn't warrant its removal. "Assessment and character" is absolutely vital. Being bold is alright, but this is just blatant disregard for community consensus. Lampman 20:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• erm.. calm down. Marcus22 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Response about possible sock puppet

I just saw your comment on my talk page and it seems you are onto something about the possible sock puppet. I put a "suspected sock puppet" message on his talk page and filed a request for an IP check. I will also try to repair some of the damage he has done to articles.Spylab 16:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Malvern Fringe Festival

Hi,

Thanks for the edits to the Malvern Fringe Festival page, it was getting a little untidy and I hadn't the time to clear it up. I only have one query - you altered a sentence that said: "Throughout its history Malvern Fringe featured an impressive array of performers, many of whom have gone on to become international stars. ", citing that it was a dubious fact.

Malvern Fringe has actually hosted a number of these performers before they became houshold names. For example, Lee Evans appeared before he won the Perrier award at Edinburgh, and Eddie Izzard appeared in about 1990 or 91. Hence, I feel our claim was justified, however poorly cited.

As we have a number of old Fringe programmes, could you recommend a good way to cite performances, so that we can maintain our initial claim? We would rather keep the list as it is, discriminating by genre, rather than by date - see the Perrier Comedy Award page for an example of this, as it best shows off the range of acts that we've put on.

Thanks,

Janus 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• For my part I think you could put back the original claim if it is true as you suggest. (It's just that sometimes claims like these are installed by overenthusiastic editors and are not really based in fact). Hard to see how you could use old programmes as sources unless they are readily available to the public. So I'd just go ahead and put it back. Apologies for deleting it in the first place! Marcus22 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

celine dion - all by myself

Hello. I don't want to start an argument but I totally disagree with your removal of certain information on the Celine dion section of the All by myself article. First of all, you claim that the information is not relevant and should be included on an article about Celine Dion rather than on that song. You are totally wrong because most of the information you removed pertains to the recording of that particular song, NOT Celine's general career. So in fact the information is 100 percent relevant and in fact serves to improve wikipedia in terms of offering extensive information on the recording of that particular song (celine's version). you dont honestly believe that all the information for the recording of each and every particular song should be included on the article of the artist themself? Please take a look at other artist pages, and note that they are general biographies with significant mentions of highs and lows in their career - but only glossing generally over such points, with links to articles which discuss more extensively each specific song-album-video, etc.

If you would look at pages for other songs that have been remade often - you will notice a similar pattern - as the information about Celine follows the same format as other artists.

You not only extensively reduced the section on celine's recording of the song, you even removed the ongoing single-chronology of Celine which was extremely important. Many artists on wikipedia who have a devoted fanbase that has added extensive information for them have included the extremely resourceful "single chronology" which provides link for each preceding (and following) single on each page of that artist's single.

I didn't even restore all the information on that page - simply the bit pertaining to the single chronology which is essential and completely follows the preset format on wikipedia thus far. I am simply messaging you to ask you to stop removing relevant information. Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The polite way to address such a matter is to say something like "You've done a good job at tidying up the Celine Dion section in blah blah blah.... but I feel it is best to put back the (bits you have put back)". As it is, I have no problem with your re-inserting that piece, if you feel it is needed. But before I drastically edited that section it was a right mess. The article IS now much better than it was. regards Marcus22 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks a lot for coming to a compromise. :) Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox - hi again

Hello. I noticed that you again removed the infobox including Celine Dion's singles chronology on the all by myself page. First off I'm well aware of the edit dispute you're having with Max24, which I don't want to get into. I just want to say that regardless of your different feelings regarding the issue - while you might have a point that the article is not about Celine, however you should not remove the infobox involving her singles chronology as that is an established practice on wikipedia.

First, please take a look at Wiki Project Songs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs

This is a huge collaborative project and the singles infobox follows exactly the established format and if you looked around at a lot of major artists' pages it's exactly the same.

Please take a look at artist pages from artists that are still big such as Mariah Carey and Madonna to diminished artists such as Brandy. This isn't a case of Celine Dion fans like me and Max24 taking our idolizing to a bad level, it's a case of continuing an established practice on wikipedia. Most major artists have singles chronologies on wikipedia as a resourceful piece of information.

Please take a look at an example such as Mariah Carey's Love Takes Time or Madonna's Ray of Light (song). You'll notice on the right there is an infobox which shows the following AND preceding single. Thus that infobox serves as a necessary continuation of the singles chronology.

Now I'm sure you'll ask about remakes. In the case of Mariah for example, she covered "I'll be there" from the Jackson 5, and thus if you follow on the infobox on the right from one single to the other you'll eventually get to the I'll be there page which has infoboxes for ALL of the artists who released that song as a single (both Mariah Carey and Jackson 5).

It may seem like I'm only giving examples for artists I may know of but I assure you this is an established practice on wikipedia that has taken a huge collaborative effort from many. So I invite you to visit many famous song pages which have been remade and released as a single by many artists to realize that the infobox is necessary for the singles chronoly of Celine and is only part of the established practice on wikipedia. If you take it off the page - it totally disrupts the chronology thus someone on the page for the single preceding "All by myself" will not have a link to follow for the next single.

Again, I'm well aware of the dispute you're having with Max24 in which you feel he's adding excessive information. Even when I first restored the infobox and left a comment on your page I only re-added the infobox and not all the other info Max24 added. My point is that I'm not going to get into this dispute with you guys but since you had agreed earlier to at least keep the infobox, please - when you revert his edits at least keep the infobox. I believe this is reasonable because it is NOT in my bias for Celine Dion as a fan but just continuing established practice on wikipedia for any major artist. Again I invite you to visit the pages of other major songs recorded and released as singles by other popular artists. Everything from Endless Love (song), Right Here Waiting or How Do I Live among the multitudes. Even a Celine Dion song which has been covered by another artist and RELEASEd as a single has the same separate infobox for that artists' singles chronology (The Prayer (Celine Dion and Andrea Bocelli song). Note that not all artists who covered a song get their own infobox by wiki standards - many artists covered certain extremely popular standards, and only get brief mentions on wikipedia - however if you see the common practice on wikipedia, only those who cover the songs AND release them as a commercial single get their own infobox as that covered song has thus become part of their singles chronology.

In fact, if anything All by myself would need another infobox for Eric Carmen's version himself that would go before Celine's as it is the original. But it would only appear as if his fans have not made a singles chronology at all for him yet. Thank you. Celinefanatictocorrector (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The adventures of Robinson Crusoe (TV Series)

I removed the speedy-delete tag that someone else applied and replaced it with an {{underconstruction}} tag, which lets other editors know you're still working on the article. It's a good idea to start with this when you begin a new article, especially if you start with just a bit an add on a little at a time. Simply remove the tag when you're done, and everything's cool. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. Much appreciated. There seem to be some trigger happy people around tonight. But thanks anyway! Marcus22 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Patience

Thank you. I will try to be more considerate in the future. Monkeytheboy (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Limousin

I removed the wiki blog page from Limousin because it didn't seem to add anything. While wiki technology may have been used to construct this blog, I don't think there is anything magic about all wikis, per se. That is, we have maybe half a dozen Wikis that are "trustworthy" within the Wikipedia "family" as it were. But not all the rest, including literally hundreds of others that are established for other reasons than encyclopedic ones. Just a means of getting online with a format and rules of mutual participation, I believe. But they all have different rules and conventions many of which do not blend with our encyclopedia, as I understand it.

Also, there didn't seem to be any content at all when I was looking at it. This is pretty much the standard for WP:EL - they have to add something today that won't ever be added to the article. I didn't see that. Did you? Student7 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Hi, thanks for taking the time out to explain your view. I understand what you are saying but, whilst it may be a small and amateur Wiki, it's certainly not a blog and it does have some content in it (not much admittedly). I can also quote you two other rules akin to WP:EL: one is, 'ignore all rules' and the other is 'WP is not paper'. This is not a business advertising itself, not a blog and not a spam link. And it is relevant to the article. It stays for me. regards Marcus22 (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it you agree that all wikis aren't eligible per se just by virtue of calling themselves "wikis"?

If so, I was wondering if you can point to a particular fact that appears in this wiki today that can not or will not ever be in the article (as per WP:EL and that would be useful to a researcher? Thank you. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• First off, apologies for taking so long to get back to you. As to your comments, firstly, I agree with you, I dont think all Wikis are necessarily eligible per se. If a Wiki site has been set up to no benefit for anyone, then it definitely does not belong. But on the second point, I'm puzzled: it's surely self-evident that a local regional Wiki has the potential (and the space) to contain hundreds of pages of information that just could not - for reasons of space if nothing else - make it into the Wikipedia article? For the substantial English population of the Limousin region, the Wikipedia article may provide an introduction, but it would be the local Wiki which gave the detail. Seems to me that that is what External Links are for. regards Marcus22 (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #13. It just occured to me that one of the more highly developed wikis, WikiTravel, is never given as an external reference. I figured that there had to be a reason why. Student7 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I understand fully your a europhile bastard who thinks its accpetable for an unklected commission to run our country and for the government to lie to the people and to give £100,000 a minute to the EU, what more can we expect from a socialist. You keep reverting the edit that UKIP is Libertarian, im a member of Young Independence, and a party member for 4 years, and i know better than most that UKIP is libertarian, how about googleing it you europhile. Oh you wont because the truth wil be reveals, and the EU hate free speech and the truth. The EU's days are numbered, the people are the greatest weapon.

UKIP [2]