User talk:Makemi/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


New article question[edit]

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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


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

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

Merging projects[edit]

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)

Image on my user page[edit]

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.

  1. It is being used to provide identification of the product in question. Obviously...
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)

Way to delete my page[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

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

Peter Dronke[edit]

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)


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 Hybrid 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Infobox musical artist[edit]

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)

Patrick Cavill[edit]

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

Odhecaton, Josquin, etc.[edit]

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)

FoF Page[edit]

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)

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

Thanks for your help w/ signatures[edit]

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)

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!!!)

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

Deleted article[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

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

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

Thank you very much, Makemi! CJAS[edit]


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 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

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)

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

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, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

Succession boxes for Westminster Abbey[edit]


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?


MDCollins (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

New page patrol[edit]

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

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

Template:Britten operas[edit]

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)

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)

And again...[edit]

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


[1] :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 00:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question on the Kelly Martin RfC[edit]

I have removed your question to Chrislk02 on the Kelly Martin RfC, not because of its substance, but because the format of user conduct RfC's is to have each user commenting in his or her separate section. The consensus is that this makes the RfC easier to follow and prevents a lot of useless argumentation back-and-forth (the same thing is done on the arbitration pages). You can of course post your question on the talkpage or on the user's talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ech. Whichever. Would it be WP:POINTy to move that page to Wikipedia:Requests for pillory? Mak (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. In any event, it's become clear enough that whatever issues may exist about the subject's editing, the community for better or worse does not seem to be regarding this RfC as a useful vehicle for addressing them. Newyorkbrad 03:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, What is 3420+1239? --Gmaxwell 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Great to meet you[edit]

Keep in touch. I can be emailed through Wiki. Philippe 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


That's gorgeous! How did you know what was one my favorites? The Easter Sequence ... appropriated by Lutherans as Christ lag in Todesbanden ... I was always surprised that there aren't more polyphonic compositions of the Renaissance based on that, since it would make such a wonderful cantus firmus. Nice job!! :) Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lovely recording. Very sensual. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 19:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


I can see by userpage that you are a dog lover. While my username might suggest otherwise, I can assure you that I, too, am a dog lover myself; in fact, I have several dogs. However, as you probably have no doubt noticed, some people take their love of dogs a little too seriously. At risk of commiting a grievous faux pas here on the 'pedia, I nevertheless feel that it is my duty to inform you, Wikipedian to Wikipedian, that in my estimation you are a part of this subdivision of "extreme" dog lovers. Why else would you delete a list of things that are faster than dogs? Are you afraid of the truth? I love dogs but I am not deluded into believing that there is nothing faster than a dog. It is ireefutable fact that there are things that are faster than dogs. Wikipedia is a library of facts. I sincerely hope we can come to some sort of friendly agreement or compromise on the dog issue. Yours very truly, Rubber cat 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, ok, it's funny, but that article was total bollocks. It's staying deleted, since it doesn't have encyclopedic value. But nice try :) Mak (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on my userpage[edit]

I reverted vandalism on it. ;) --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there just in case you didn;t know there was a vandal blanking your user page but I took care of that Arnon Chaffin 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you dealt with the vandalism to my user page, it is not necessary to notify me; furthermore, doing so only serves to memorialize the vandalism. Please do continue to revert vandalism, but please don't feel obliged to tell me about it. Thanks, and remember, this is an encyclopedia: why don't you improve it today? Mak (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

CD/DVD covers[edit]

Hi. Here is my list. There are some operettas with them: Orpheus in the Underworld, The Gondoliers, Patience, Princess Ida, The Merry Widow, Die Fledermaus, Also a lot of singers. I have just looked at sopranos and found the following Jane Eaglen (lots here), Waltraud Meier, June Anderson, Deborah Voigt, Lesley Garrett. Good luck! --Kleinzach 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done :) Pretty much. June Anderson I left because promo shots have a better Fair Use rationale, although I'd much prefer it if we could find a free image (I've looked, but haven't found one yet). Plus, frankly, it looks like Orbicle is pretty attached to having that image in the article - baby steps, don't you know. Mak (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I once worked with June Anderson, er - rapid change of subject - here are some tenors: Marcelo Álvarez, Rockwell Blake, Giuseppe Di Stefano, Juan Diego Flórez, Beniamino Gigli, Salvatore Licitra, Rolando Villazón. BTW I've adopted your capitalized gibberish banner - great! --Kleinzach 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW you might have misunderstood about June Anderson. The problem is not the top photo - it's the four CD/DVD images below. --Kleinzach 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha, cool, I hope she was nice. I did misunderstand about her article, I'll go fix it. Thanks. And cool that you adopted the banner! I actually stole it from Kelly Martin. I think it's important, because the way I learned how things were done on Wikipedia originally was to lurk on other peoples' talk pages, so I think it's good when people don't have to look up every other word, as though Wikipedia were a foreign land :) Mak (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have removed a lot of "cover" CD/DVD art from opera performer pages, and having reviewed the guidelines at [2] I believe I understand why, as they were viewed as being used for "identification" purposes as opposed to "identification and critical commentary." I guess what I'm not comprehending is that, for example, on one of the composer pages, Philip Glass for example, I see fairly blatant copyright violations (since 2004 in the case of the Philip Glass photograph by Annie Leibovitz) with no attempt to sustain a fair use explanation [3]. Why the concern regarding the covers (which litter the Internet) but these more obvious examples have been let slide? Just curious, as I am attempting to sort out what appears to be allowed on some pages but not others. (Should it really have anything to do with how "attached" someone is to the image - referencing your comment regarding Orbicle above?) Thanks. Nickbigd 14 May 2007

There has been something of a shift in how we deal with non-free images. For a while people were getting quite free about their interpretation of "fair use", and there are still many articles which, in my view, abuse fair use. There was a statement from the foundation, essentially asking projects to tighten up and clarify when non-free images are and are not allowed. A big thing to keep in mind when discussing fair use on Wikipedia is that this is not simply a project to make an encyclopedia which can be accessed for free, but to create an encyclopedia which can be re-used and re-distributed freely. If this were a fully professional non-free encyclopedia venture, many of the images which are used as "fair use" would be licensed for $30 or so, for the whole run of the encyclopedia. I don't think we should use promotional images and disc covers as window dressing, and then hide behind being a non-profit to justify not licensing them.
Why I haven't removed all non-free images from all articles yet - let's see, there are a lot of reasons. I'll admit, when I'm going through and removing a whole bunch of images from articles, if I think leaving one from fifty will mean that I can successfully remove 49 without a huge stink being made, I'll do that, and then wait until I have the energy to deal with a big stink before I remove that last one. Sometimes if you decide to remove all 50 instead, someone will get pissed off and mass-revert you and be generally unpleasant, and it doesn't help your cause, get rid of non-free images, or make you any friends. Also, Wikipedia is freaking big. Really big. And I do have other things to do. So, I have not gone through every article to check the images, and I don't see it as my responsibility to do so. There are a lot of people on Wikipedia, and I like to think that if I don't get around to it, someone else will (sometimes, unfortunately, this isn't the case). Mak (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response; I certainly wasn't aware of this "shift." Since you have taken a particular interest in removing these images, since some of the articles I had contributed to seem to have been the first identified for cleanup by Kleinzach, and since I'm for equal treatment, I'll be happy to provide you with a list of other opera-related articles that have cover art images at my earliest opportunity. Also, I was wondering if you could respond to my inquiry about the appropriateness of the Annie Liebovitz photo on the Philip Glass page. That image has been on this site for several years, as opposed to the album art which was just added a few months ago. Thanks again.Nickbigd 15 May 2007
As for the Glass article - yeah, it should probably be removed. There's no rationale for its use. Go for it. And you can tag the image {{orfud}}, and it should be deleted soon. You can do the same for other articles which have non-free images which are being used under unreasonable/questionable claims of "fair use". Mak (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Just want to make sure I understand because it appears the {{orfud}} tag/template contains language regarding images that are not being used in any articles, and these images we're discussing are not orphans right? Am I missing something? By the way, there's a tag there already that already suggests the the photo lacks a sufficient claim of fair use, but doesn't seemt to give any timetable/deadline. I'm happy to by proceed myself, but do not want to go about this improperly. Just trying to learn the ropes here. Thanks in advance for any clarification. [4]. Nickbigd 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Sure, no problem. The images should be orphaned by removing them from the article they appear in. Once they are removed they will be orphaned. If they are being used appropriately in another article, they should not be deleted, and so they should not have the {{orfud}} template put on them. Mak (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FoF Page[edit]

Hi Makemi, can you help with the Fellowship_of_Friends page? You did some edits a while ago and we need more editors to keep it neutral. Thanks! Mario Fantoni 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Scarborough Fair/Canticle (single)[edit]

Makemi, you expressed your opinion and removed the 1967 singles category from the Scarborough Fair article. Would you do me a favor and start an article for the single listed in this section title? Since there is no information needed it would be a redirect with only the following content:

#redirect ][Scarborough Fair]]
][category:1967 singles]]      (with the first brackets pointed to the right, of course)

I'd do it myself, but I can't originate the article as an anon. I think you'll see if we do it this way we both get what we want: The song article won't contain the single category, and yet the song title will show up in the category list of 1967 singles. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the support, and for months of shepherding me along and generally poking me in the right direction when I was a biteable newbie. Thanks to you, I stayed unbitten, and I owe you a lot. Thanks for everything :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome :) Antandrus did the same for me, and hopefully you can do the same for another newbie. Mak (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe and music[edit]

You removed three images from Edgar Allan Poe and music. I suppose I can't disagree with the removal of the image of Philip Glass, but the two album covers, I believe, are covered as fair use - the article in question discusses those two albums (albeit briefly). I see no reason to question their fair usage. Am I wrong? -Midnightdreary 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so let me know what you think. :) -Midnightdreary 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm responding here too (thanks for the response, by the way). Umm... I don't know, I'd think that the Lou Reed album is a better argument. The article is on Edgar Allan Poe's appearances in music - Lou Reed dedicated that entire album to Poe, including these songs based on Poe or his works: "Edgar Allan Poe," "The Valley of Unrest," "The Raven," "The Pit and the Pendulum," "Hop Frog" and arguments could be made for a couple others. Sgt. Pepper's has Edgar on the cover amongst 100 other people and they mention him once in "I Am The Walrus." But I have to edit the image's description to do either one? That sounds odd. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go. -Midnightdreary 16:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GPS Tour Guide[edit]

Just curious why you deleted the 'GPS Tour Guide' article?

Thanks, Scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Good question. I deleted it because it had been orphaned since September (meaning absolutely no other articles linked to it) and it was started by someone named "Gps watcher", indicating that they were involved with a commercial product connected to the article, and almost all the edits had been to add external links. There were no third-party sources given for the article, it was basically an advertisement for a product. Mak (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mark[edit]

I am M473M471C (My Page in Wikipedia it was User:WikiMathema). I want is to Open a WikiMathema to Create Articles of Art, Cinema and Music (Three Concepts inside the Context of Avant garde independent culture).

Is it Possible To open My Account?

I live in Osorno, Chile.

Greetings for you!!! M47H3M471C (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixing Up an Article[edit]

Hey, Mak! I have a few questions for you. Using your powers of "infinite knowledge" of Wikipedia, could you tell me what I would have to do to fix up a page almost entirely? You see, there's a page on the Warriors series by Erin Hunter and the article also has a Characters page as well for the different characters in the books. The Characters page is at a ridiculous 194 kilobytes length and it's getting longer since we'll be adding in some missing characters. We've been discussing on rearranging the article a little bit on the talk page, but no one seems to be doing anything about it yet. I've heard someone say that you'd probably need to contact an administrator before making such a change to an article, but what I want to know is 1) If contacting an administrator first is true; 2) If true, where I can contact one; and 3) Anything else that I'd have to do before fixing up the page entirely. I hope you can get this message as soon as possible. Thanks so much for the help!

Respectively, Spottedstar 19:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Victimae Paschali Laudes.ogg[edit]

Hello. Your nomination for featured sound status,

, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Thank you for creating and nominating it! --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Your singing of
has been judged a Featured Damn Good Performance of a Sequence by, um, I mean, wow, thanks for recording it and putting it up! MIT's currently putting up my early music course on OpenCourseWare, and I'll definitely link to this recording from the site, and probably the other pieces you've recorded which also were discussed in class. Best! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks :) I hope it/they will be useful. You know that under the license you can do more than just link, them, right? If you want you could put it on the site itself or make CDs or whatever. That's a cool thing about free content licenses. It's really nice to know they're being put to use beyond WP. If you have any requests, feel free to let me know. :) Mak (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Baseballsayanything.jpg[edit]

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Baseballsayanything.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not it! It was a vandalism revision. Mak (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How did he know[edit]

that I was a Newcastle FC fan! [5] -- lol. Have a great Saturday! Antandrus (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

G&S pictures[edit]

No problem. I think that those video covers were from some company pushing their productions anyhow. There is PLENTY of public domain stuff for G&S on the web - after all, it's all 19th century stuff and was well-published in the US well before 1923. The problem was that I didn't understand how to upload images to Wikipedia (because I'm not very good with computers - I didn't understand that I had to save them to my computer first - Duh!- , and I've now figured it out. So, more art to come. Be well, -- Ssilvers 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New Grove complaint/question[edit]

Hi Makemi--have you encountered this complaint before? See Talk:Francesco_Corteccia. Haven't we been through this? Do you remember where the discussion was? People outside of the "classical music" area assessing articles have, understandably, never heard of the New Grove, and are complaining that since it's not accessible except by subscription, its use as a source for the article can justify downgrading an article's assessment. Not that it matters terribly what "grade" the article gets, but I think that's just a touch ridiculous. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your (not so recent) welcome[edit]

I wondered when I started contributing again who would welcome me. I was so pleased that it was you, Makemi. Your welcome was one of the very few nice things that happened. Very best wishes. --Ferstel 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortuna Desperata[edit]

Thank you (but not much) for your unconstructive reversion! Bob aka Linuxlad 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem, could you please state it clearly, and assume I was acting in good faith? It is my opinion that either the Mass should be redlinked, or it should say something like "Missa Fortuna desperata", based on the secular Italian song "Fortuna desperata" blahblah blah". What do you think of that? I appreciate the new article, I was just thinking we could use more articles on the secular songs of the Renaissance. My understanding is that it's important to make sure that it's very clear where links are taking the reader. Missa "Fortuna desperata" and "Fortuna desperata" are two different subjects, so to me it seems like it's misleading to put [[Fortuna desperata|Missa Fortuna desperata]]. I hope now you at least understand the reason I reverted. Feel free to give your opinion. Mak (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
1) Your point is valid 2) I'm not in a position to write even a stub on the mass 3) But a link into Fortuna Desperata from Josquin is needed even as a short term fix 5) It's past my bedtime and above my paygrade so I ask you to make an appropriate constructive fix :-) - Bob aka Linuxlad 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Antandrus kindly fixed it while I slept:-). I have now started Fors seulement! (Another 'dismal ditty'?) Bob aka Linuxlad 13:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Mak. Can't remember how to put in a spoiler warning ?? Thanks Bee Coz 17:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Could you please give your comment at the discussion at Talk:List of political parties by country. Electionworld Talk? 18:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Election notice: Your endorsement[edit]

Hi! You have endorsed one of the candidates in the current board elections. However, you have not provided a link from your local project (this one) to your user page on Meta, so we have no way of confirming that you are the same person. Please provide a link to Meta from your user page or user talk page to Meta, then reinstate your endorsement, which I struck and indented. If you like to have your user page in a certain way, you can do it in a diff, like this], but then you have to provide the link to the diff for us. Thank you for your cooperation! Jon Harald Søby 19:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


You have hoaxy mail. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks Mak :) (Re: Spoiler advice) Bee Coz 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BM userbox?[edit]

I notice that on your Bachelor's of Music userbox, there's an image of a toilet. Is this on purpose or vandalism? —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 01:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on purpose. I think there's a whole explanation of it somewhere in my archives. Mak (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Account[edit]

How do I delete my Wikipedia account? LovePatsyCline 16:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't delete the account, but you can request that your user and talk pages be deleted by placing {{db-owner}} on them. Mak (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But how do you delete the accutual page? LovePatsyCline 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What actual page? Only administrators can delete pages, but if you put the template {{db-owner}} on a page which is in your own userspace (such as User:LovePatsyCline or [[User talk:LovePatsyCline) someone will happily come and delete it for you. Mak (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now, thanks for your help. LovePatsyCline 16:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Europa Riconosciuta[edit]

The correct title for this is Europa riconosciuta but someone made it into a re-direct. If you are around and have a moment to spare would it be possible to move it back? Best wishes. -- Kleinzach 13:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mak (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I thought it was impossible to go faster than the speed of light! -- Kleinzach 13:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of Choice (US school desegregation)[edit]

I failed to put an under construction sign when I went away to look up the relevant Supreme Court decisions. It is really quite a different issue from the the one in the article you redirected it to. I will categorize it under History of African-American civil rights, more than Education. It's about generally ill-fated plans during 1965-68, meant to evade complete school integration while not defying Brown II (1955). I'll get back to it tomorrow, if you approve.--Gacelo 00:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, apologies if I was too bold. I thought it was written by someone who was trying to find the School choice article, which is why I redirected, but you can of course undo it since I was wrong/mistaken. Mak (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Forward Together (Church of Scotland)[edit]

You are unfairly deleting a new entry for Forward Together - an organisation which has existed within the Church of SCotland for more than a decade. Other groups within the Church of Scotland are listed on Wikipedia - why are you targetting Forward Together? I'm trying to make the entry as encyclopedic as possible - please let this entry get started. Please restore and stop deleting this article before it gets started.Webmaster-Forward-Together 00:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the note I left on your talk page and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Mak (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lepers Produtcions[edit]

Hi, you deleted all the pages I was creating. Why did you do it? Did I make mistakes? Thank you for you answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grisanti (talkcontribs)

The articles you were creating did not make a case for the importance of the subjects, or link to any third party sources on the importance of the subjects. Also, the group of articles you were creating made a Walled garden (media), making it seem like you probably have a Conflict of interest with this group of people. Mak (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmmh ok . My aim was to add this in the netlabels section. Net labels are however an underground thing and this one is also in the net label catalogue

and I was looking at those in Netlabels Category

lot of them got no link to a third party sources.

If i remake the page should I include what? where is listed as a Net Label?

looking on google I've found these one

Thank you for your help


It's all really a question of referencing your stuff to reliable sources, y'know? Otherwise stuff tends not to stick around. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


I noticed on your commons userpage that you've uploaded a lot of songs (keep up the good work, by the way). When you upload songs, can you please add it to the list at Wikipedia:Sound/list? It's basically my attempt to keep track of what songs are available, where they are used, and who is uploading them. Raul654 14:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that list really out of date? And doesn't it use big scary tables that make me not want to try to update it because I'm going to break it? Oh well, ok, I'll try. Do you only want the ones that are being used in WP articles currently? (I'm not positive if that's all of them at this point) Mak (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The list is somewhat out of date, in the sense that I haven't been actively trying to add new files to it. Commons is too big and badly organized, and my time is limited (and committed to other jobs). But it is, as far as I am aware, the closest thing we have to a comprehensive list.
The formatting itself is relatively simple. Let's say you upload blah.ogg, add this to the table:
|[[media:blah.ogg|blah.ogg]] [[:image:blah.ogg|*]]
|[[Name of appropriate article]]
|[[Composer's article]]
|Comment (license, website source, 'etc)
I most-certainly want you to include all songs you have uploaded. One purpose of the list is to assist in integrating uploaded files into their relevant articles. Raul654 02:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

David Rodd[edit]

Why did you just delete the page on David Rodd?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable sopranos[edit]

Perhaps I can have your advice? I put this up for deletion (or rather to be made into a redirect) and the Afd notice was removed from the article page. I'm not sure where to go from here. (I'm also not sure if I even completed the nomination process.) Any ideas? Thanks. -- Kleinzach 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone (Moreschi?) has replaced the tag on the page, and I've completed the nomination (you have to add it to the day's AfD's), so you should be all set for debate to go forward. Mak (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. -- Kleinzach 07:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


[6] Aah, nice work. Good to have met another person who actually contributes content! Did anyone ever say you do good work? :) Yeah, I'm sure they have, but I just wanted to say so again.

So I just got back from the library with another pile of books on 15th and 16th century music to pillage for useful bits, and took a couple days of vacation to allow for that pillagement. I was hoping the weather would suck so I wouldn't feel bad about staying inside working on Wikipedia, but the weather never sucks where I live, so I'll compromise by taking my laptop outside. Thanks for the supportive comment on my talk page, btw. That's exactly it. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It always takes me far more time than one would expect to add little tid-bits like that. No problem about the comment. It doesn't seem to have been very successful (it's better not to know if an article is missing a major aspect of a person's work? Beethoven without mentioning the 9th symphony? or deafness? this is a good article? insane!) Anyway, I'm thinking of working up an article on Nuns in Western classical music, but it's a huge topic, it makes me a bit nervous. I hope your books are nice and rich :) Sounds like a lot of fun. Mak (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a great article idea. Those big topics can be written any way you want and copiously illustrated and ... yeah, they make me nervous too. I've been looking at chanson, thinking that this could be completely rewritten and turned into an actual useful article on the topic, but the scope of the task makes me tremble a bit. (Maybe we should make an informal list, within the early music area, of "articles that suck"? I might start doing this.) Antandrus (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we have gained enough editors that we can now create an early music cabal and organize to create FA-quality, if not FA-tortured, articles on important subjects? or would that be more trouble than it's worth? I think it makes sense to at least make a list of major early music topics which need a lot of work. Mak (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm afraid I've never heard of that term (or Grimani, sadly). Componimento dramatico just means "dramatic composition" in modern Italian. Not very enlightening. This site [7] thinks P&M is an oratorio whereas this site [8] thinks it's an opera ("Her work, Pallade e Marte, a componimento dramatico, was the first operatic work by a women composer to be performed in the Vienna Court Theatre"). Confusing. --Folantin 20:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dead Game[edit]

Hello. I'm Robert G. Schroeder Jr. and you deleted my entry into Wikipedia with no tag on it or anything. No discussion attempted. No nothing. My book is all over the Internet, and that can be verified very easily. Granted, not a best seller. --Stryteler 03:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, about writing articles about yourself, your company, or your book. Mak (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the advice.


For some reason, reading this reminded me of this. But I just have a twisted sense of humor. There's still some cookies left on my page if you're hungry ... Oh, and nice work on this!  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... to be honest, I couldn't bring myself to read that whole mess. I'm astonished you seemed to. There's nothing that makes my eyes glaze over quite like nationalist rants. Yeah, I'm kinda setting the background for a Nuns in Western classical music article... although no one seems to be sure if this group were really nuns, and they lost their music, and can't decide whether their works were operas or oratorios or... argh, sometimes being interested in women in early music is a big pain in the butt. At least once you get to the 18th century for male composers a bit more is certain, and people don't misplace their manuscripts quite so much. Maybe I should take a field trip to the Austrian Nat'l Library and see if they misshelved it. (steals a sip of beer instead) Mak (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message/Dan Patrick page[edit]

I am the one who sent the message about people vandalizing the Dan Patrick page. Since Dan Patrick stated yesterday that he was leaving ESPN I have been cleaning up adds from other sites, messages that Dan was leaving ESPN for porn, and just other untruths. I am just confused on what you suggested? Were you stating that I was the problem? Cause I don't think I was. I have just been deleting all the non-truths that have been posted. If I was doing something wrong or can do something better please let me know but please do explain cause at this time I am very confused. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biofreeze8 (talkcontribs)

It looks like there is a revert war over the inclusion of "July 10, 2007, Keith Olbermann will take over as host of ESPN Radio’s “The Big Show". Olbermann will take over on August 20 with co-host Mickey Rivers." I have no idea about the facts of the case, but it doesn't look like obvious vandalism or spam; although it is unsourced. For things like this it is better to discuss it on the talk page, rather than repeatedly revert. I wasn't trying to admonish anyone, just suggest that it be discussed on the article talk page, rather than having continual reverts. Mak (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. It is spam. Mickey Rivers is a ex-ballplayer that Dan Patrick interviewed who for 10 minutes mumbled and you couldn't understand him at all. For the past 5 years they have used that sound bite as a running joke. That is why it was false and considered spam.


Can you please tell me why you deleted my article?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagesanddetails (talkcontribs)

The article you created read like advertising copy for a company. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. Mak (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

i dont understand why you deleted the history. that is not an advertisement, that is facts as they are the inventor of the automatic watch & mentioned on the automatic watch page. i was merely putting an extention on a dead link that already existed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagesanddetails (talkcontribs)

"The Perrelet brand reflect a timeless atmosphere that is inherent to traditional luxury watchmaking, as characterized by the four key qualities of authenticity, creativity, reliability and quality." Sure reads like advertising to me. And Perrelet was not linked until you linked it, there was a link to the man who I suppose created the brand. Mak (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ok--i understand that..but why did you delete the whole thing?? the man who created the brand was mentioned in the timeline, i was going to link that as well. i dont understand why that history cant be on there

Deleted Article[edit]

Mark you just deleted the article that I wrote called Adidas Boys, was curious to why this was deleted before I even finished teh article Chicagogangs

Replied on your talk page. Mak (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


The information does have 3rd party recognition from the website The page comes from a current wiki pafe under Chicago Street Gangs. I am willing to create pages for all the gangs listed on that list, I have accurate up to date information on every gang on there. But I am not going to waste my time to have pages deleted the minute I am done with them. Please advise on how I can create the pages without them being deleted. Chicagogangs is clearly your own site. It is preferred to have sources which are unrelated either to the author or to the subject, which show the importance of the subject. Have there been any news articles on this group? Any outside coverage aside from your own website? Any books written about them? Also, the article did not link even to your own source. As I said before, just because something exists does not mean it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Mak (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Restore Sangreal Sodality and Marcia L Pickands[edit]

Hi Mak. This is getting frustrating. The Sangreal Sodality is listed among significant orders on your occult magical groups page and many far less significant occult orders have pages describing the groups, what they do and believe their leaders and linking to the organizations official website. Unless Wikipedia feels ALL occult orders have no place this really should stop happening in all fairness

I discussed this with another editor last night who was going to delete the page simply because he did not know about the significance of the group until further research since he is not a member of any occult order and then after checking into things he realized that it was not appropriate to delete the order at all

I can see from the comments here you too seem fair minded and reasonable (I did deal with one Wikipedia person in the beginning who ..well..was not) BUT I'd really appreciate if we could focus on improving and adding to the article even more rather than having to take all this time repeatedly to have the same discussion with different editors

I did a bunch of work on the page and so did some other folks and I really wish folks would check into the history and nature of occult orders and even other related pages before eliminating the page again

Can you help?


Renee Levant

Many thanks[edit]

Many thanks for your kind support. It is much appreciated. Kind regards Dwsolo 15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)dwsolo

I do appreciate your fairness. As you noted, I am new to Wikipedia, and still learning. I have spent hours to make what I think valuable contributions, based on fact. I am trying to follow the rules. As you so well said, if some do not know certain areas, it doesn't make them necessarily judges. If I spend time doing what I am doing now, it's because my aim is to share knowledge, accurate knowledge.(Highland14 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

re highland14's Salomon Gluck page, i was not aware that foriegn language refs are allowed, but if so, fair enough. However, that is not the main problem i have. if you read the article you will see that, as yet no notability has been given beyond him being a member of the french resistance, the same could be said of thousands of other people, and while i'm not denying that makes him a brave man, i see nothing in the article that makes him stand out as a notable resistance worker.--Jac16888 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking IP Talk pages[edit]

Wow, seriously. I've unblocked. Blanking an old DYK message? That's not vandalism. And blanking one's own talk page isn't an acceptable reason on its own to block a user. Mak (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking an IP talk page is considered disruptive behaviour. See discussion here and elsewhere. Unregistered editors do not own their user page in the same sense that registered accounts do. Two other editors have asked this anon to leave the discussion in place; if nothing else, civility would dictate leaving it there for a few more days before rudely blanking it. Also, in the future, I'd appreciate if you discuss undoing my actions with me beforehand. Thank you. Owen× 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
And template messages are a crappy way to try to communicate with another human being. And it's clearly a static IP. And that IP does good work. And what's the big deal with blanking a discussion on one's own talk page? I've seen consensus other places that it's just fine. Stop with the "IP editors are vandals and second class citizens" nonsense. And admin actions are easily un-doable for a reason - so that people can easily undo them when they're dumb and harmful to the encyclopedia. I thought it would be best for the encyclopedia if a good contributor wasn't blocked and get pissed off for a really stupid reason. I thought that was more important than protecting your ego. Go write an article. Mak (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind advice. When you're ready to talk in a civilized manner, I'll be happy to discuss. Owen× 01:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well, I have no interest in discussing. So I guess we're done. Mak (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)