User talk:Markvs88

Invitation to the Bacon Challenge 2012

Hello! You have been invited to take part in the Bacon Challenge 2012. In case you don't know or need a refresher, the Bacon Challenge is an annual celebration of bacon on Wikipedia in which editors come together to help create, expand, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. The event lasts all the way through National Pig Day 2012, giving participants plenty of time to work at their pleasure. In addition to the Bacon Challenge is the Bacon WikiCup 2012, a side event to the Challenge in which all bacon-related contributions done by those participating in the Challenge are submitted and scored by the scorekeeper (me) based on the scoring chart. At the end of the Challenge, the user with the most points in the Bacon WikiCup will win a shiny trophy for their userpage. In addition, the users who score the highest in specific categories (not yet finalized, but the categories include most image uploads, most article creations, most DYK submissions, and more) will win barnstars. Finally, all participants will receive a medal. While the awards are nice, in the end, the important thing is to have fun and enjoy what we're all here for, which is improving Wikipedia.

If you decide to participate, great! You may add your name to the participants list at the main page of the Bacon Challenge 2012, and pick up the userbox for your userpage if you desire. Signing up for the Challenge will also automatically enter you into the Bacon WikiCup. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine too - maybe next year! In the meantime, if you know anyone who might also be interested in participating, feel free to invite them! The Challenge is open to anyone and accepts participants at any time, so feel free to let anyone who might be interested know.

Note that I, the scorekeeper of the Bacon WikiCup, will be on vacation starting on the 18th of June all the way up until the 5th of July. I will have limited access to the internet, so I may or may not be able to score users' contributions during this time. Sorry for any delay in scoring (but since the Challenge lasts for more than half a year, there's no rush, right? (= ).

I'm looking forward to another fun, successful year. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Meek, SoldierSocks, Santa, Start Now! pictures

Hi Markvs88 I appreciate you offer to help. I tried leaving a message on my talk page as directed but perhaps I did not do it correctly. I have been authorized by the co-founders of Soldier Socks and Santa as well as START Now! to post their respective images. Additionally, I have been authorized to release this photo by Chris Meek into the public domain. Please advise on how I can resolve this issue. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and still learning and appreciate your help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctchange2012 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ctchange2012. Sure, no problem at all!

First, let's discuss what it takes to make an image Public Domain. In your case (because these are organizational/living-person related images), there are basically two ways to go about it:

• A) Find an image that is already free for use (in this case I'd think unlikely?), or you can specifically state on the Meeks (or whatever the URL is) website that this picture is free for use, and then note it into the upload when you add the picture, (example: [[1]]). Note that this would of course require the services of the webmaster/web site owner. This is the "the work of someone else, who has given permission to release it under a free license" option when uploading.
  OR
• B) Take a different picture (NOT a picture of a picture!) with a camera and posting it yourself (example: [[2]]). This is the "entirely my own work" option when uploading.

Note that in example A), this particular image example is old enough to automatically be P.D. whereas in example B), I've personally released it to P.D. IMO, if you upload the same picture(s) again they'll almost certainly be taken off again, unless they have new attribution.

My BEST guess is that it would probably be easiest to do option B) for Meeks, as it takes less than a minute to get a new photo and this way you'll know that THAT is the P.D. image if other sites copy it off of Wikipedia once it is in the Public Domain. As for the other projects, you'll have to find out first if they are copyrighted or not.

I also highly suggest giving Wikipedia:Public domain a good once-over if you choose to use option A) for Meeks and/or are going to work on the other images.

Hope this helps, and feel free to ask if you have more questions. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Markvs88--I know it has been some time since we have talked but I now have permission on all four of these images. I went ahead and re-uploaded them with what i think to be the necessary permissions. Have I not put them in the right place? Is there something else I need to do in an effort to ensure they are not removed again? Thank you in advance for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctchange2012 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, Ctchange2012. Your entry on the Comment section of [3] isn't sufficient, as it's just words on a page. Watch this: "I am Chris Meek and I say that Ctchange2012 is lying and I never gave any permission to distribute this image". -- See how easy that was? Is it true? Who knows... and that's why it will likely be deleted again. Please re-read my post from 15:23, 30 August 2011 above, it should answer all of your questions. If it does not, please ask me any further questions here. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing my Trivia section

Hi! Tell me two things: what is MOS, and why you have deleted my Trivia section from Colonial Vipers Article. I know, I haven't give any citation about presence of Vipers in game "Epic", but in game it's no information about this. But, If you look on this intro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtOWXHqf5vY&feature=related

And this gameplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5-9xZSpzJs (especially in 3:00)

you will see, I have right!

Regards! OSH8019 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello OSH8019,

I removed the section for these reasons:

1. Trivia sections should be avoided per the MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections). You could make a section called "In popular culture" or something, but it would require citations.
2. On Wikipedia, anything lacking citations can be deleted at any time.
3. When I reverted it, your addition lacked citations.
4. BTW, you cannot cite Youtube because it is a self publishing site per WP:SELFPUB.

I'm happy to discuss this matter with you, and any further questions you have. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How I can add this section also? I can't find any citations, because they doesn't exist. On this clips it's visible, these starfighters are Vipers. And other crafts comes from Battlestar Galactica too. I want add this information, because I think, it's worth to tell others about it. Regards! OSH8019 (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you for a fact that McDonald's "special sauce" is French salad dressing. It's fact. But it's uncitable. That's the situation you're in now: unless you can find a source, it's going to be removed... and that's true even if I leave it in. Other editors will do the same thing. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Vince Mendoza

I see that you are reverting the Vince Mendoza entry back to older versions, citing that content is posted on other sites. This is not true. I represent Vince and we are trying to update his page, as it has older information. This content is neutral, biographical information from Vince directly. Could you kindly work with me on this so that we can update this page accordingly? Thank you, Jordy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordyfreed (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jordy, actually, I am reverting the page to the 1 September version, which is the last "good" one. Please read the policy: wp:copy-paste. You cannot copy and paste off of the Internet, period. When I can choose random added sentences from an addition that triples the size of the article and they come up verbatim on the Internet, that's wp:plagarism. Of course I am happy to work with you to improve the article.

Note, this isn't the first time this has happened with this article: (See User talk:Mdemartin if you're interested), so I am happy you took the time to write!

Here are the problems with the edits as I see them:

1. All of the content I checked was copied verbatim from other sources. This has to be rememdied, and that means a re-write, not just dropping or changing a few words here-and-there.
2. Per wp:mos, there is over-wikification. For example, jazz is wikified six times when only the first one should be. Others like Joni Mitchell, classical etc.
3. Phrases like "His skill for creating classic, sophisticated string arrangements also led to his orchestral score on the multi-million selling album" are also problematic, as they are promotional in nature. A more neutral wording would be "His string arrangements also led to his orchestral score on the multi-million selling album". In short, there are some wp:peacock terms in the new additions.
4. Citations 3&4 are valueless per wp:verifiabilty as they're not checkable.
5. The article lacks Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources and especially needs Wikipedia:Third-party sources.

Please feel free to ask me for any questions you may have! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

99.20.222.41

actually user: 85.99.71.46 is not me, even though i am planning to add to Branford's climate..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.222.41 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. Right now the similarities are striking. But if you cite your information I have no complaints. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

they where test edits you, i clearly reverted them when i was dumb,btw who are u to keep judging my edits? looks like your the one who has nothing better to do on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazb665 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not supposed to test edit at all, that's what wp:sandbox is for. Who am I? Among other things, I patrol for wp:vandalism. It actually takes very little time. Looks like you're someone who needs to have multiple accounts to vandalize wikipedia in a not very effective fashion? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

i forgot the password to my first account....simple as that and my edits are constructive if u just read the links. is it that hard to just read the links??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazb665 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. Because recovering the password is so difficult.

And instead of talking over why your edits aren't useful, you go edit warring. That makes perfect sense too... say, shouldn't you learn the rules before you decide to go breaking them? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

breaking what rules?? what are you talking about??? please make more sense when you type — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.222.41 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So, are you bothering to click the links I'm putting up here? Probably not. You don't even know how to sign your name, and you're a wp:sockpuppet. Enjoy your block! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Danbury Fair (shopping mall)‎

This is in response to your comment on my talk page on from 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC): Hello, Newzack. I've reverted your edits on this page because they were uncited and because they were a little "bloggy". Terms like "this is no longer true" aren't good to add to an encyclopedia, since there's no point of reference as to when you're talking about. I'm happy to discuss this further if you wish. Best, Markvs88

Hello, Markvs88! Firstly, I couldn't figure out how to respond to your post on my "talk" page, so I'm posting it here. Should I just click "[edit]" on the entry and edit what you wrote?

Secondly, it's quite nice to know that there is oversight on Wikipedia. I've edited a few articles, added to some, etc. Mostly minor things. And you're quite correct, my change to the Danbury page is a bit un-0cited and un-encyclopedic. And the only way I can explain why is just that I was in a rush and couldn't quickly find a website that backs up my data.

The main point of contention here is http://www.seenewengland.com/see_connecticut.html which states, "Danbury Fair Mall, is the largest mall in New England". I can cite wikipedia itself to prove this to be false. According to the respective wikipedia pages Danbury Fair is "1,292,578 square feet" and Westfield Connecticut Post is "1,334,000 square feet". Also, there's Holyoke Mall at "1,600,000 sq ft" in Massachusetts, which is a much larger mall also in New England.

So how about this:

As of 2011, Danbury Fair is one of the largest shopping malls in Connecticut as well as the fifth largest in New England. It is located off of Interstate 84 and U.S. Route 7 in the city of Danbury opposite the Danbury Municipal Airport.

I just changed it, I'm sure you noticed, with a few other minor updates.

-Zack

Hello, Newzack!

Yes, to reply to any message, just click "Edit" (either the tab on top of the page and scroll to where you want to go, or the edit link just above the section's line), put a colon on the next line, and start typing, of course finishing with four tildas.

IE: ''':This is a test reply. ~~~~''':As for your other queries, here are a few things to bear in mind:

1. There is some oversight, yes. Mostly it comes from a few determined editors of various dispositions and the members of various Wikiprojects. I work on WikiProject Connecticut, so this article happens to be one I "watch". Feel free to join sometime if you're so inclined.
2. In general, it's not the best practice to replace a third party source with a first party source (even if it is newer), as you did with the Danbury Fair article. This is because the site is self published, and so less reliable. You may want to look over this article on verifiabilty.
3. It is not possible to cite Wikipedia for anything, as Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Yes, I know that seems contradictory, but that's the rule.
4. The trouble with Holyoke Mall at Ingleside is two fold: a) The source citing its size is itself [4] and b) Per the original research rule we're not allowed to compare wikipages and decide on what's right! So we need a neutral citation for what is the largest mall in CT and/or New England...
5. No worries re: the edit, everyone is shaky in the beginning. I know that more than a few of my first edits were undone!
6. As for the best source, we do have the 2010 mall survey on the Westfarms Mall page (citation #1). I've been meaning to propogate it as a citation on the various mall pages, but (as usual) I got sidetracked. Check it out if you like.

PS: I highly recommend writing your replies in a word processor and then pasting them. More than once I've lost a longish reply because someone else came along and there was an edit conflict! Nice meeting you, Markvs88 (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well thank you, Markvs88! I appreciate the indoctrination. I've adjusted the citations for Danbury Fair Mall. I've been to these malls and so know these facts myself, but I realize the need to have cited references of some kind, of course! Again, thank you for your help. I'm sure we'll speak again about something else in the future!Newzack (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to drop a line anytime. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

received your note regarding everard mott williams

Professor and Dean at Carnegie Mellon. In reference to your question of the three articles listed below and to whether they refer to Dr. williams. The three articles I put into the wikipedia article come from Actual (original) clippings kept by Mrs. Everard Mott Williams about her late husband.

Pittsburgh Press January 27, 1938 East Presbyterian Church Week, January 17, 1958, Vol 11, No. 17 New York Times, June 22, 196

All Related to Dr. Williams and his accomplishments to science, humanity and the world. Thanks for reading and remembering a great man, although it looks like it may have been you who deleted his picture??

regards.

Doug Camp Grandson of Everard Mott Williams

61.170.145.28 (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Doug and thanks for the note! However, the actual reasons I reverted your edits are:

1. You were changing some dates from an acceptable date standard (i.ei: "January 17, 1958") to an unacceptable one ("1/17/1958") per wp:date (please see the 3rd point under the correct/incorrect table).
2. The image you're linking to does not exist, as it was deleted on 26 May 2010 by another editor for lack of attribution. You can see the trail here: [5]. If you look above to the "Meek, SoldierSocks, Santa, Start Now! pictures" section above on my talk page, you can see the possible fixes for this that I gave another editor with a similar issue.
3. You're were also removing {{reflist}}, which is a tag allowing for wp:inline citations and should never be removed from an article. The sources should really be entered as inline citations so it's clear how they are being referred to.

Note: there's really no way to prove or disprove your being a grandson of Mr. Williams or not, so its actually not relevant to this end. Even people with their "own" articles aren't given much leeway in that respect.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask anytime. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hooker

Why would you revert to the "political" version of the Thomas Hooker page? If you notice, the citations for the "political" Hooker are very old, and some are long-discredited (such as Walker's "TH: Founder, Preacher, Democrat"). I suggest that, rather than use the Hooker page to debate the historiography, it is better to keep to the established history -- Hooker's religious role and influence -- and not perpetuate old tales that have no foundation other than being repeated over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.44.41 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello 76.214.44.41. Very simply, because you removed a little over 15% of an article, including the deletion of cited points with no discussion. Then you also changed the Connecticut Colony and History of the Connecticut Constitution articles to distance/remove Hooker from them. Needless to say, I'm rather sceptical about those edits. You obviously have used WP before, yet this IP account you made the changes under has no other edits on it. You sound like someone whom has some expertise on the subject, but you should read up on wp:verifiability not truth... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New Haven climate

Listen, You can't win. You can't beat me. That’s why I'll always be a winner and you'll always be a loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.222.41 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to "beat" you. You keep beating yourself. Also, I have no idea what you mean by "winning"... do you have so little to do in life that you think that what you're doing makes the least bit difference? You get blocked, articles get locked... and your posts are reverted. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

hey look who's talking, you do as much reverting as i do so yeah and by that i mean i will make sure i always have the last edit because no one but you has a problem with my edits.....that are referenced.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.222.41 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep taking it personally if you like, that's not my concern. You'll get blocked, articles get locked... and your posts are reverted again. BTW, not just anything can be considered a valid reference, and some travel site that doesn't even have an author clearly doesn't pass being a reliable source on climate. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hooker - A Reply

I appreciate your response. For me, it seemed odd that Hooker -- a leading theologian and preacher -- would be so tightly bound to political development. Users of Wikipedia would suspect, on the basis of what has been written here, that Hooker was Connecticut's political leader -- everywhere you read about Connecticut government, Hooker is mentioned. My thinking was, in the absence of any good authority for this view, then it ought not to be sanctioned. That is, I do not seek to add anything "unverifiable" to Wikipedia. Rather, I am simply pointing out that, just because the same "story" has been told repeatedly in "verifiable" sources, does not make it so -- not one of the "verifiable" sources, by the way, is based on original research; they all simply repeat a story that started in the 1860s. (On that point, ever wonder why no one in Hooker's lifetime or for 200 years after considered him a political figure or the source of authority for the ideas of Connecticut's government? In other words, how can I prove a negative: that the mere fact that one person, in the 1860s, started calling Hooker the founder of a political Connecticut, should not be the basis for Wikipedia's "verified" version of Connecticut history?) I do respect your position in enforcing the Wikipedia rules, but it dissappoints me that a fictionalized version of history is being peddled -- again, and to reiterate, all because of a history that was created in the 1860s. I had hoped that Wikipedia would aspire to more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.44.41 (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello 76.214.44.41, and thanks for your reply.

Yes, I agree that it is likely that the claims regarding the influence of Hooker in early Connecticut may not be entirely accurate. However, we must also consider that state and religion were not nearly as seperated then as they are today (as shown in the opening of the Fundamental Orders). That said, no one would be opposed to your adding content to the contrary regarding Hooker, if it is validly cited. But as you say, it is very hard to prove a negative.

So, how to deal with this issue? As with so many other issues on WP... it's not what's necessarily true, it's what can be verified. If you can find any documentation to support your point, it would go a long way towards Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which would likely get to some of the changes you aspire to. However, it is very unlikely that as a matter of scholarship that it would overturn it entirely since it's basically been accepted as history by the State and so many people, they way they accept the Wright Brothers as having invented the airplane. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You're really helpful

I would have appreciated at least a response from my previous inquiry.

Thanks for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.48.2 (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, as I replied to you above on this page! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, why did you alter, dramatically, the Lime Rock Park entry?

Dear "Markvs88,"

I want to be civil and polite, so I'll start off by asking you why you [dramatically] changed the entry for Lime Rock Park.

a) I spent a lot of time and did a lot of research -- including the fact that I've been working for and with Lime Rock Park since 1989 -- before I entered my information.

b) I guess I'm asking, what credentials do you have to make those changes?

c) Everything I entered is factual, and much of it sourced directly from those involved in both the original construction as well as the 2008 work.

d) For much of the historic references, I sourced from Rich Taylor's book -- Taylor, by the way, whom I know and am in contact with -- which was vetted extremely closely before it was published.

Please explain.

Thanks,

Rick Roso RosoAtLimeRock (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)RosoAtLimeRock rick@limerock.com rjroso@lierock.com

Hello Rick! First off, I thank you for your letter, it's nice to deal with reasonable people. To answer your questions...

a) I appreciate that, but here's the problem: none of what I cut was referenced. Per Wp:Verifiability, you need to reference additions to Wikipedia so that they are not challenged as "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed..." This is why I posted that notice on the talk page of the article when I removed the text back in July.

b) Since anyone can remove unreferenced text at any time on Wikipedia, no particular credentials are needed, but (if you care) I have been on for 5+ years and generally work on fighting vandalism and improving WikiProject Connecticut articles, which Lime Rock Park is a part of.

c) That's exactly why the text needs to be cited. I could (if I was a prick) have edited it to say that the track was built by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and without a citation it would be just as valid. I'm not saying what you added isn't true, I'm saying that it was unsourced for 6+ months after I tagged it in January, and for a few years before that.

d) This point is nice, but since I am Rich Taylor, it doesn't matter. (Okay, I'm betting that you just read that sentance twice wondering what I'm talking about...) Do you see what I just did there? I'm claiming something without attribution. Which is the same problem: You may or may not be Rick Roso. You may or may not know Rich Taylor. Simply put, there is no way for anyone to know that, and the wp:burden is on you, the adding editor, to prove what you're saying is verifiable.

Please feel free to ask me anything you like, I'm happy to help in any way possible to get your content re-added with sourcing. What the article really needs are some Wikipedia:Third-party sources for citations. You may want to look at Indianapolis Motor Speedway or another track article to get some ideas. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mark. According to The Enduring Vision, Fifth Edition (written by Boyer, Clark, Kett, Salisbury, Sitkoff and Woloch) Sir Edmund Andros was quoted as telling a group of colonists, outraged by his limiting their towns to a single meeting each year and overriding all their elected legislatures, "you have no more privileges left to you than not be sold for slaves." However, I don't know whether I should add this to the Sir Edmund Andros page being that the textbook is copyrighted.