User talk:Malo/Archive07

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 July 2006 to 5 July 2006:

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Thank you. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick question

If you block •••••• won't it block my new username also? ••••••03:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The block would automatically also block your IP, however this can be rectified by simply unblocking the IP afterwards. Please after you have created a new username, sign back and here and let me know that you have a new account. Thanks. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got a new Username now 65.4.245.88 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do login to your new account, I have already blocked this username again and at the same time unblocked your IP, if you are still unable to edit, please send me an email and let me know by following this link... Special:Emailuser/Malo. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Eon8 recovery

While it's fairly obvious that Eon8 in it's existing state needed a lot of work, I don't think it qualified for deletion. It was a fairly large internet event. I'd be willing to work with you to help clean up and professionalize the article, if you'd be willing to remake it. Try to reply at my FFXIwiki talk page or AIM Feba35, as my memory will probably be too poor to remember to come back here --Feba 05:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree, it was a lot of speculation about nothing. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if the article in it's previous form was not meant for wiki, eon8 definitly deserves a page, not just because it was famous, but also because it's an interesting concept, with interesting results. Regardless, it's been restored now, so that isn't really important huh? -- Feba 09:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.169.233 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 2 July 2006

How is that you determine this is famous? So are you saying that anything you personally determine to be "interesting" is deserving of an article on wikipedia? This is the fundamental problem with memes: They don't have reliable sources, which makes them impossible to verify as being noteworthy. Sure, there are some exceptions to memes, off the top of my head I think that All your base are belong to us, Leeroy Jenkins, and a few others are probably deserving, but there is a key difference with those. In both cases, mainstream media picked them up. My other problem with the article at the time was the fact users were using wikipedia like it was a soapbox, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also the fact that individuals were using the article to speculate screams, "forum", another thing wikipedia is not. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You closed the AfD YOU posted for deletion? Redwolf24 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I also speedied the article before I posted it on AfD, just for the sake of arguement. And in all of my actions I feel justified that I did the right thing. I don't expect to win any popularity contests anytime soon, but that is not necessary to create an encyclopedia. I've still not seen any evidence of notability as laid out in the guidelines of WP:WEB. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It passes the google test doesn't it? It was notable! Maybe you don't feel involved in it but there's so many other people in the world who were. Kousu 05:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You should read the rest of what the google test is, in particular Wikipedia:Google_test#Google_bias. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia National Socialist

Why did you delete the perfectly good Eon8.com article? It could've been cleaned up, sure, but it was a massive event with over 38 thousand people watching it at once and then you delete it. Good to see that Wikipedia allows very mundane articles and stubs, but God forbid an informative article on a milestone in Internet memes. Might as well delete the eBaumsWorld and YTMND pages too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.28.157 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 1 July 2006

How many times must I reference WP:WEB for the guidelines of notability? I feel as if I've already made my opinion more than clear on this topic. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, do you honestly believe that this site is anywhere near as notable as YTMND, or eBaum? Perhaps it could be someday, however there is no way this website is even in the same category with such site in terms of notability, today. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Eon8

Why did you delete eon8? It was highly relevant. Sure, it needed some cleaning up, but deleting it? WTF!

Mrmoocow 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Eon8

• Deleting this article was an arrogant, elitist move. By your logic, I guess we should delete everything else related to an internet fad, because nothing is "relevant" enough for you. TheDavesr 05:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read WP:WEB? -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a bureaucratic fuck. WP:WEB says one thing but what it says obviously doesn't work for us. By 'us' I mean the loads of people who've been complaining in various talk pages about the deletion. For example, as others have pointed out, 4chan, Something Awful and friends shouldn't get an article by those criteria. Hell, there even is a proposal to give memes the Official Wikireaucracy Seal Of Approval at Wikipedia:Notability (memes), it just hasn't been incorporated yet! Wikipedia is for "all human knowledge" and the internet culture makes up a significant portion of that; that is to say, print media should not be the only litmus test for content here. Eon8 has been reinstated now (if it was you then thanks), so this diatribe is officially pointless, however it makes me feel better to raise my voice against the bureaucracy. So there ;) Kousu 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you as surprised as I am that there doesn't yet exist a page for bureaucratic fuck? I mean Wow, seriously. For all of the number of times that an administrator has done something unpopular on wikipedia, you'd think that some self-righteous person would have created just such an article to explain the kind of asshole that I am. 4chan and Something Awful have the own articles, and for good reason. They are long existing sites, with massive communities. However I think the point you were trying to make was that a great deal of the memes from these sites are never notable enough for wikipedia and for good reason. Verifiability. Anyone with an account on one of these site and start some meme, and that in and of itself makes it notable? Hell no. Despite the fact that I still feel justified in all of my actions to this point I have seen that a second afd has been created and if the community finds that this article should stay, than so be it. I will not stand in the way of what I see to be a non-notable website. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that "anyone with an account" cannot just "start some meme". A meme has to catch on for people to call it a meme. This caught on. It caught on big. That's what makes it notable. Kousu 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How do we verify which memes are notable? How many sets of forums or blogs must mention a meme before it gains notability? Which of these forums fall under the group of reliable sources? This article is about a website, a website where people speculated as to it's purpose. The entire article is built upon speculation. A group of people speculating does not make something noteworthy. Nor are their speculations noteworthy. We're not looking for truth, but rather verifiability. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I see "No original research" and see how most meme articles could count as that (seeing as only the really popular ones ever wind up filtering down to the out-of-touch mainstream media). On the other hand, I don't think that rule applies so cleanly here: it is mainly designed to make wikipedia credible with the traditional media, however memes do not fit in with that at all. Also, there's a good practical reason for having meme articles: if wikipedia doesn't cover them the only recourse for people who don't know about a meme is encyclopediadamatica or that-other-wiki-that-I-forget-right-now which, while funny, are intentionally full of misinformation. Kousu 07:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of you people posting hate-mail here on malo's page seem not to have realised there was an attempt at consensus building on the AfD page, and before the YTMND sock puppet squad arrived, most of the editors posting were in agreement that Eon8 was failing the WP:WEB test and everything being posted at the time was NOTHING BUT unverifiable speculation. Now that it's all over, have the creators of the so-called "social experiment" learnt anything worth writing down in history? No. Wikipedia should be above this massive in-joke that made most of you look like fools. --  Netsnipe  CVU ^(Talk)  07:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not flaming. 'bureaucratic fuck' was not used for the strong language, but in reference to the semi-established term and as for the rest I've been arguing reasonably, haven't I?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kousu (talk • contribs) 07:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

At first I took offence at your use of the term. However now not so much. Let me tell you why. I think it is because you are thinking in terms of "Encyclopedia damatica", while I am thinking in terms of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. This isn't ment to be elitist of me, but rather it is my attempt to explain our obivous opposing views on the situation. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I repect your oppinion but come on eon8 was a pretty big event. Your not the only one on the internet you can have your oppinion but go to the talk page and take a look there is no agreement on what should be done. Why delete it? what do you have to gain are you jealous you were left out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.111.190 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 July 2006

Well sir, I'll tell you the same thing I've told everyone, because no one seems to be listening to what I have said so far. We here at wikipedia have a certain set of rules, they are guidelines rather. These guidelines set forth what is to be included in the encyclopedia. I point you to WP:WEB and WP:MEME both of which directly handle this situation. In more basic terms, this article is not notable enough. Despite the dozens of new users and anonymous IPs that want to keep the article, "because it was cool", I deleted it because I followed guidelines on verifiability and reliable sources. Something that all of these new users neglect to bother reading. Instead they look to wikipedia a place where they can immortalize some guy's social experiment. This is not forum, this is not a blog, however there are numerous individuals out there who would use wikipedia as such. And this saddens me. However I don't see why you should worry. I seriously doubt this article will ever be deleted again, and that is just because a number of individuals who have never read any wikipedia policies, and have editted very few articles will kick and scream "foul" and in turn carry more weight in their opinion without valid reasoning. The thing is that this shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is not a democracy, instead it is a bureacracy. Where individuals follow a set of reasoning and logic to determine what should be here and what shouldn't. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Armking

Feel free to delete it if you think it gives unwarranted attention to that vandal.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 07:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vigilance is greatly appreciated

Many thanks for carrying out your mass annihilation policy and reverting the vandalism on my userpage. May you be blessed and have minty fresh breath. Dar-Ape 19:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pete Peters

User [Pete Peters] flounced yesterday after a week or so of vandalism and disruption. He wasimmediately replaced by IP 209.148.90.129, who you blocked for vandalizing the Bourque page (a check of the IP contributions suggests strongly it's Bourque himself doing vanity postings. Arthur Ellis 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... What you talking about Arthur Ellis? Arthur Ellis is a controversial charachter, I wouldn't put much stock into his comments. Pete Peters 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want either of you to think I'm favoring the other. It's clear that you two are having some sort of on going disagreement. I'm not about to take sides, however I do expect both of you to adhere to wikipedia policies and guidelines on civility, verifiablity, neutral point of view, and etiquette to name a few. Try and work this out on talk pages. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in Toronto, the IP he has referred to is not in the GTA. We have our differences, I don't know why he feels the need to go every admin guy around, and complain about me. Read other peoples talk sections, he has offended others. I have left his sock puppet acussation on my user talk page, for comical purposes. Thanks again Pete Peters 01:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Spider63 comments

I posted several links to photos and substantive information, and you deleted them all. I presume that you did not look at a single one. I would like to know who I can appeal this to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider63 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 2 July 2006

I don't have a problem with good honest, neutral point of view information. My message to you that I left on your talk page was regarding you blatant spamming of the website regarding collectibles. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC) My website is full of photos and information about action figures. There are tons of other websites also listed as external links. Why have you singled mine out?

Malo does mean evil in Spanish. Considering how you do your job, it is very appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider63 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 July 2006

Funny. But that doesn't change the fact that you were spamming that web address all over wikipedia. Evil, maybe. But I'm definitely fair.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, different pages of the website were posted to specific action figure themes. You should admit that you did not even look at those pages before deleting them. The Ernie Pyle link went to the Ernie Pyle action figure photos. The Roadblock link went to the Roadblock action figure photos. How is that spam? I have requested Mediation on this matter. You are wrong.

INVITATION TO MEDIATION

I have posted several content-specific external links to my website that relates to action figures and GI Joe. There are many others just like mine. You deleted my links, and not the others. I hereby request Mediation of this dispute, as I believe that your actions were wrong and inappropriate. I also believe that the timing of your deletions shows that you never looked at any of the specific links and mass-deleted them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider63 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 2 July 2006

You are more than welcome to do so. I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Mediation for more information. However I think you should also be aware of WP:SPAM. If you could please sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~ -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you just admitted that this was your own website [1] you were clearly in violation of WP:SPAM and I gave you notice [2]. Feel free to seek mediation, however I'm afraid you are wasting your time. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever review any of the links??? I guess not. So you deleted them just because you felt like it.

I did. Did you read WP:SPAM? -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. And I added a response regarding that which you have deleted so that your page shows you as having the last word. You are a very petty, and very miserable little person. Too bad that you are in some minor position to harass others. Your pages are full of complaints about you. Your so-called expertise is in the naval issues but you edit all over Wikipedia on subjects that you are completely ignorant about. spider63 (talk · contribs)

According to the definition of Spam on Wikipedia (the link you provided) "There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming (or "internal spamming"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities"

How does an external link to a specfic page with photos and information about a specific action figure; from a collector's non-commercial website fit into the definition above?? Your deletions were wrong, and they were malicious. spider63 (talk · contribs)

Request Mediation, and then ask for Arbitration on the topic. Let the other Wikipedia editors see that Malo is abusing his authority. spider63 (talk · contribs)

You believe that I have some sort of personal vendetta against you. And despite my attempts to explain to you the how and why things work around here, it is my belief that you don't want to hear it. I've explained to you more than once that they fact of the matter was it was YOUR personal website that you were linking to. And if you are upset that "I am getting the last word", you shouldn't be, because the last word doesn't mean anything to me. But I can see that it does to you. I am only attempting to explain my reasoning. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting some vandalism on my talkpage. --Zagsa 02:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

IP adress: 24.94.126.250

I am wondering why you blocked this IP adress. If it is for edits to Polisario Front, then I request he be unblocked has he was just extremely irratated by the reverts of his edits. I know that is not a reason to make his edits, but I do not feel it is worthy of a block. Please respond via my talk page. Thanks. False Prophet 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page about this. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifacation. I was not aware of the severity of the users edits. False Prophet 02:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

USS Reclaimer (ARS-42)

Aloha malo.

Thank you for editing and fixing my page on the USS Reclaimer. You did a great job and it looks great. It feels good to have the Reclaimer added to Wikipedia as it was home for thousands of hard working sailors over its 60 or so years of service. Thank you again.

christopher lavoieClavoie 03:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I enjoy reading about all sorts of ship histories. So thank you. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

unsigned comments from User:Boukenger

What the hell are you talking about copyrighted reviews for? I was helping you out, sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boukenger (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 July 2006

While I am sure that you believed you were "helping me out", in actuality, your contributions came from a website which copyrights its material. For example the edits you made here contains the lines

      CREW:'
 	Help GameSpot | GameFAQs | Metacritic | MP3.com | TV.com
 	prefs | logout DegrassiNomad level 1 (62%)
 	0 n/a My Shows Kids Incorporated

Which is a pretty clear indicator that you probably copied this from the tv.com website where your username must be DegrassiNomad. Please understand that such content on that website is Copyright © 2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. And by posting it here on wikipedia you are violating the copyright. Although I might have been mistaken in calling it a review, when it seems to be more like an episode list. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

WPASR

Hi, what's wrong with WPASR? Wasr 01:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Mr. Lefty said it best at User_talk:WP:ASR as the same goes for User:WP:ASR. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I can explain more fully. The link at WP:ASR is a shortcut we use to refer to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, which is an official wikipedia guidelines page. If you had a username as WP:ASR, or WPASR, and you signed comments, it would confuse other users, to the point that they may attempt to go to that page instead of your userpage. Please read WP:U for more info on username, and what is and is not appropriate. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, But...

Well... First, thank you for reminding me about my user name. But I really love my Chinese name. Well, Maybe I'll change my name some time. But... I didn't make up my mind... It's a hard decision for me to decide. May be I will, maybe I won't? 百家姓之四 (Lee) 討論 (Discussion) 04:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean you no disrespect. However I am concerned that your username may make it difficult for other users of the english wikipedia to reach you. That is all. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

battleships

Hi there: thank you for inserting the photo into my article on Agincourt. Being a fairly new user, I have not yet quite grasped the details of the mechanism for finding photos, though I can insert them when I do find them. I have written a number of articles on Victorian battleships, and would appreciate the insertion of any other photos that you may locate. p.s. your userboxes appear to have vanished from your userpage. In view of the amount of vandalism you seem to have suffered, I hesitate to do anything except to tell you.--Anthony.bradbury 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you review Wikipedia:Uploading images as well as Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Basically you just have to upload the images first to the wikipedia server before they can be displayed on the site. Now the two major things to remember when uploading: 1) always give the source of your material and 2) be sure that you use the correct license for the image, most of which can be found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Failure to cite a source, or use the correct tag, might result in that image being deleted. Please let me know if I can answer any specific questions that you might have. Oh and don't worry about my userboxes, they seem fine now, it might just be a server issue. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 15:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well,

it IS vandalism, Yugoslavs are an ethnic group and proof was provided in the article. The user in question has provided no proof or references, but rather his opinion. The page should be protected from unregistered users, I am open to discussion, but this user is simply a troll and I have nothing to say to HIM. --serbiana - talk 05:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

All I am asking is that you consider the possibility that this user is trying to make a genuine argument. I'm not asking you to believe it. It is clear that you feel strongly about the subject, in fact it is quite evident from the fact that you have a link to the Yugoslavia article in your signature. The user is questioning the proof provided already. True it would help his argument to provide evidence to the contrary, either way, it may need to be reviewed. Also calling other users "Trolls" because you disagree with them, does not help foster a neutral point of view, which is essential in creating an unbiased article. Personally I have no opinion on the subject, but I'd at least be open to hear each sides arguments. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)