User talk:Makemi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:09, 29 March 2007

For old discussions please see

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

Latitude and wealth

Fyi, I sent the article to deletion review, asking that the delete decision be overturned. As the original nominator, your comments are appreciated. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on 360 Architecture

After you took the page down for being advert, I made changes that I feel adjusted the page to address your problems with it. Later the page was taken down because a user did not feel that it asserted merit as an organization or company. Please view revisions at User:Sdkucera/360 Architecture.

A direct quote from the guidelines for Wikipedia's organizations and companies states, "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."

360 has built corporate headquarters for two Fortune 500 companies, and is currently the architect for two major league sports stadiums (one estimated at $500 million and the other estimated at over $1 billion) in addition to the other projects I have listed on the page. There are also links to multiple publications that have featured work of and done feature articles on 360 Architecture. I strongly believe this constitues "notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" as listed in the guidelines.

Best Regards,

Sdkucera 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asola

Ciao! i've moved again Gianmateo Asola to Giovanni Matteo Asola. Please don't revert it. Don't care if your English sources spell him that way: for the reasons I've tried to explain in the talk, or if it's mostly used in English countries. That English form is simply wrong, as nobody is called "Mateo" nor in Italy nor in Anglo-Saxon countries. Thus, if we are going to have accuracy here, we should get rid from errors, even if coming from (apparently) respectable sources. I think, for Italian stuff is better to consider Italian sources as more reliable, don't you agree? Bye and good work!!! --Attilios 09:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not come up with any sources whatsoever, Italian or otherwise, that spell his name your preferred way! He was a 16th century man, of course the spelling of his name is not going to sound right to modern Italians. In addition, the convention for English Wikipedia is to use English spellings. Since I have given multiple sources in the past for "my" (i.e. the rest of the world's) spelling, I am moving it back, until you come up with a solid source for this particular man. Again, the standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Mak (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all with you. Just an example. I've just corrected an article from 1911 Britannics (is there any more apprently reliable English source than Britannica?) in which Porziuncola was called a "city", when it's (and has even been) a church instead. And I could list thousands of them, even from 1993 Britannica I've in my bookshelf... I can't really stand the way you stuck to English source(s), when I've showed you so much how are they our-of-date (not to say something worse, beginning with "Shi" and anding with "y"...) regarding many Italian arguments. articles? I listed many reliable sources, some even in English (a phD thesis!!!), but of course you didn't even check them. What is "all the world"? I've showed you German, Spanish, English, French, Italian sources.... when the only source you gave so far is the Grove Dictionary. Anyway, as you are so unreasonable, I'll let the argument go. Are you happy now? Bye and good (?) work. --Attilios 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ornaments

Absolutely! That's a great idea. The only thing I find baffling is that we don't have one already: appears that the ornaments article has some decently expanded descriptions of a very few, but I haven't found anything like a list elsewhere. As you know--as a singer--there are lots. Good work; we can use this. :) Antandrus (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock on sister. And if you like 'dem ornaments, and since we've already entered this tier of musicology dorkiness, can I tell you that I read a fantastic article by Barry Cooper titled "Beethoven’s Appoggiatura’s: long or short?" I'll never think about appoggiaturas the same way again. MarkBuckles (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Mia Banggs

Could you please undelete this article? She is notable by the fact that she has appeared in over 100 movies, as stated in WP:PORNBIO. This was clearly not a vanity article. Epbr123 16:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "using any simple count of number of films that a performer starred in to determine notability is very controversial." The article gives absolutely no non-trivial external coverage for her. I think our biographies of living people should be held to a much higher standard of sourcing than other articles, and there is no indication that this person is any more notable than anyone else in the adult film industry. Mak (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article had reliable sources proving that she is a prolific pornstar. That is all that is needed. WP:PORNBIO states 'modern American heterosexual performers are usually notable if they appear in more than 100 films'. The WP:PORNBIO criteria are derived from results of past AfD discussions which shows that precedants have been set. I've seen many articles like this at AfD discussions and they've always been kept. There are many less notable porn stars than her on Wikipedia. Epbr123 17:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources show little more than that she exists and acts in porn movies. I'm not convinced, you can get someone else to delete it if you want, but I'm not going to. Mak (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she's been in a lot of porn movies, doesn't that show she is famous. Can't you undelete it and then let it go to a AfD discussion? Epbr123 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Lot's of porn is made. So are lots of cans of Coca-cola. That doesn't mean that any cog in a giant industry is notable. But fine, for the purpose of process-wonkery I will AfD it. Mak (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Epbr123 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 24 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Académie de Poésie et de Musique, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

credentials

When I used, "In almost all circumstances" I was thinking of checkusers who, apparently, are required to be verified at some point.MikeURL 19:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not for credentials though, that's real identities, and it's to the WMF, not on a public community page. Totally different things. Mak (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Do not vandalise user pages, as you did to mine, or I may report you. I'll describe the vandalism:

Deleted my town.
Deleted my TOB.
Deleted my age.
Deleted my birthdate. Replay7 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put that information on your userpage, it's best to keep excessive personal information private on the internet, since you never know who will come across it. Mak (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Corrie - Photo Deletion

Want to know why you deleted RachelProtest.jpeg without discussion after four years of being in the article and mounds of discussion about that picture in particular. In fact, there are much more questionable photos used in the article that were not deleted, so my question is why was that image was singled out? As for reinstating the picture, it was, again four years ago, distributed by ISM (I believe without any restrictions, though it was a long time ago) and published in dozens of media outlets including AP and Reuters. I already uploaded a replacement given to me by the person who took the picture, and it was deleted as well, for reasons I don't know since the page is completely gone. What is going on here? Mgaines 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked why this image was singled out to begin with, before I uploaded my copy. I'd appreciate an answer. Mgaines 01:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt responses. I will re-upload the photo with the correct copyright information. I do still take issue with images being deleted for political reasons, or at least singled out for political reasons, and I'm not blaming you specifically but when an image has been debated for literally four years and then all of a sudden gets deleted because someone on one side of an issue emails an admin, I think that is problematic. Mgaines 14:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Welcome

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. Just wanted to say thanks to Mak for my welcome. Bee Coz 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mak. Also discovered I can hit the four tildes button in the toolbar ;) Bee Coz 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mak, was wondering if you could tell me how to justify a paragraph? Have looked in the editing help section but can't find the information. Thank you, Bee Coz 16:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Bee Coz 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentaries in Learning Torah

Can you please explain what is wrong with linking to relevant commentaries in LearningTorah.org and why they were deleted? This is not spam but content directly relevant to each section of the Torah as listed. It is also in fact, exactly in keeping with the other similar commentaries that have also been created in the past for other such repositories of content.

For example - all of these pages:

Commentaries from the Jewish Theological Seminary Commentaries from the University of Judaism Torah Insights and Torah Tidbits from the Orthodox Union Commentaries and Family Shabbat Table Talk from the Union for Reform Judaism Commentaries from Reconstructionist Judaism Commentaries from Chabad-Lubavitch Commentaries from Torah.org Commentaries from Aish.com Commentaries from Shiur.com Commentaries from Torah from Dixie Commentary from Ohr Sameach Commentaries and Shabbat Table Talk from The Sephardic Institute

Thank you very much in advance.

--Torahorg 21:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Torah Org[reply]

I have removed some of those from at least one article. The existence of spam from other sources does not excuse continued spam. Also, your links seemed to be more to a forum than to scholarly commentaries, although it's possible that I only saw one section of your site. Also, your adding the links may be a Conflict of interest in editing, see WP:COI for our policy on that. That you were adding the same site to many pages at once speaks to spam to me. Mak (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mak, I understand your concern and agree with you 100% about the SPAM. But in fact, this site is not a forum at all and the commentaries are coming from the best scholars who provide their articles and feedback about Torah issues exactly relevant for these sections. For example, you can look at the Category list or the Featured divrei Torah including Rabbis such as Berel Wein Parshas Devarim-Harsh Hugs. The reason there were so many links was simply because someone showed me the other day that there was a listing of commentaries on Wikipedia (as above) and it made perfect sense to add these links as well. I would ask you to reconsider your decision to delete the links. The content is relevant, some of the best scholars in the Torah world have there commentary in these links, and I believe it does meet the Wikipedia guidelines. --Torahorg 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi there, I just joined Wikipedia, and already I think it is great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chriskid321 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 --[[User:Torahorg|Torahorg]] 21:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[[User:Torah Org|Torah Org]]
 :I have removed some of those from at least one article. The existence of spam from other sources does not excuse continued spam. Also, your links seemed to be more to a forum than to scholarly commentaries, although it's possible that I only saw one section of your site. Also, your adding the links may be a Conflict of interest in editing, see [[WP:COI]] for our policy on that. That you were adding the same site to many pages at once speaks to spam to me. [[User:Makemi|Mak]] <font color="green">[[User talk:Makemi|(talk)]]</font> 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
+Mak, I understand your concern and agree with you 100% about the SPAM. But in fact, this site is not a forum at all and the commentaries are coming from the best scholars who provide their articles and feedback about Torah issues exactly relevant for these sections. For example, you can look at the Category list or the Featured divrei Torah including Rabbis such as Berel Wein [http://www.learningtorah.org/Home/Default.aspx Parshas Devarim-Harsh Hugs]. The reason there were so many links was simply because someone showed me the other day that there was a listing of commentaries on Wikipedia (as above) and it made perfect sense to add these links as well. I would ask you to reconsider your decision to delete the links. The content is relevant, some of the best scholars in the Torah world have there commentary in these links, and I believe it does meet the Wikipedia guidelines. --[[User:Torahorg|Torahorg]] 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 == Thank You ==