User talk:Malo/Archive12

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 March 2007 and 6 June 2007:

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

Thank you. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Villiers_Club

Please could you undelete Villiers_Club. It is no less notable than Bullingdon_Club or Piers_Gaveston_Society. Part of the history of Oxford. Thank you. Adrianhealey1 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (AdrianHealey1)

I deleted it because there was no claim or sources as to what makes this club notable. If there exists independent sources and accounts which have covered this group, it may be deemed notable, but thus far we have nothing to go on. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The criterion seems to be whether or not the club lists notable old members, which it does have. The trouble is that I am not willing to publish their names without their permission, which they won't give, so I'm being punished for being discreet. 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (AdrianHealey1)

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Also even if you have the names of supposedly notable members, you must be able to verify that information based upon reliable sources, (please see Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Reliable sources respectively). -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi cross

Hi! I noticed that you deleted the page Nazi cross, which was a redirect to Swastika. My rationale for creating this redirect was that "swastika" is a word that can be difficult to remember and to spell, and it is quite likely that people might use "nazi cross" as a search term since the swastika has come to be associated with the Nazi movement. Knowing this, maybe you would reconsider your deletion of this redirect? Byxakissaren 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I haven't heard anything from you on this subject, so I have recreated the redirect. If you still think it should be deleted, feel free to list it at Redirects for discussion. Byxakissaren 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I've been reviewing my actions and I'm not exactly certain why at the time I felt it was an inaccurate term, however I won't oppose its recreation. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Stipe Photo

Please stop posting this picture for the article's main image. Even if it isn't your intention, I and others might consider it vandalism and will report you if you do it again. Thank you Dannyg3332 20:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is claiming vandalism at work here. However what is your claim against the posting of this image (Image:Michael_Stipe_sings_Padova_2003.jpg)? Furthermore I would like to refer you to wikipedia's 3 revert policy at WP:3RR, which I'm afraid you may have already violated. Regardless we need to have a dialouge on this issue rather than continue to have multiple parties revert each other. I have started a new topic on the talk page at Talk:Michael_Stipe#Image_reverts. Please go there and make a case for whatever your view point may be. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

tang

I re-edited it. let's keep the vocabulary gender-neutral, and either clearly mention the name of the sailor's wife, or just say "the wife of ....." Odst 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine, thanks for helping to clarify. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalise

Malo you dont know what you are talking about. Is palestine not in the southwest of syria.. Yes it is, Palestine should be interchangeable with Israel as a country in the south west of syria. Would you like me to report your vandalisms of the syrian page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.34.63 (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Please have a look at the CIA factbook entry on Syria. It clearly states that the Golan Heights are occupied by Israel. You clearly have an agenda to push in your edits. Palestine is a region, while the State of Palestine has no sovereign territory. It is as if you would like the world to ignore the existance of the country known as Israel. All of the other borders listed for the country of Syria are also countries, not regions. Why should the country that occupies the Golan Heights be any different? -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is internationally recognised that the golan heights is syrian territory therefore there should be no mention of it being israeli territory , Israel is below the golan heights and palestine is west bank and gaza. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.34.63 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Then cite a reliable source for your claims. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Airscreen comment mistakenly left on an archive page

I do not see the AIRSCREEN article as advertising. Many people wonder what an inflatable movie screen is and how it works. Many people have never seen this but heard about AIRSCREEN, so I find it absolutely fair to have the AIRSCREEN article.

Why are you against this? We do not mention a company name in that article like in former times others have done.

Christian Kremer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Airscreen (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC) mistakenly to User talk:Malo/Archive12

Forgive the delay in response to you message, however you left it on an uncreated archive page User talk:Malo/Archive12. To answer your question, I'm afraid that I do see the article as being promotional in nature. It does not seek to maintain a neutral point of view, nor does it cite reliable sources, also the fact that the word "Airscreen" is a registered trademark also raises ethical questions, in regards to your shameless promotion of the term. Furthuremore, your account created this article once before and it was deleted through an AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airscreen. If you wish to contest this deletion I suggest you take it before Wikipedia:Deletion review, and allow the community to decide. I don't believe this page should contain in article, instead it should probably be redirected to Inflatable movie screen. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

IT asset management double standard

You cannot post one FOR-PROFIT organization like International Association of IT Asset Managers and not be able to post others like LicenseLogic. I repeat both are FOR-PROFIT, do not be fooled by the "association" part. So either pull all "external link"s off of "IT asset management" or allow other for profits to post that provide IT Asset Management trainings. Harryair02 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually look at the other link at the time, however you are correct it really doesn't belong there, so I removed it. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advertising, thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the links on Business analysis and Project management should be removed. IAITAM is not the same thing as a private company providing ITAM services. It is the governing and certifying body of ITAM. You can't have double standards when you are comparing apples and oranges. --Kmsiever 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:218.186.9.5

Any chance you could turn autoblock off so that I don't get caught in any? Cheers. – Chacor 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked to check, and you shouldn't have any problems with being autoblocked from that IP. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks. – Chacor 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dannymwantsimogenjinbondage

Shouldn't User:Dannymwantsimogenjinbondage have had autoblock disabled? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, probably. I have just removed the autoblock. Thanks for mentioning it. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am an alumni and it is all true so doubtful that you went to school

I doubt u are an alumni like i am and it is true what I put so wouldn't call the truth vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J1e2f3f4 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Still Pending AFD Deletion

I was just about to add some additional notability to the Still Pending article when I noticed that the article had been deleted. Is there a process for bringing the article back in order that I may supplement the notability of the article? Thanks in advance for any assistance Stampsations 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Stampsations

The next step would be to take the article to deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review. From there a process can begin to determine whether or not an article should have been deleted or if it should be restored. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

unsigned comment

leave me alone.

stop hassling me. ok?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yippeedo! (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 April 2007

Stop vandalizing and I'll have no reason to bother you. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the IIEC

I think that if you would have actually looked into the fact of the matter you would have found that the edits that were not based on facts were made by other people. I was simply editing for format.

That and the IIEC does not appreciate your deletion of their page. They fight oppression like this daily because of their sexual preference. You did not even give them a chance to finish editing their page in order to support it with factual documents.

Thank you for being absurdly self-righteous.

And screw signing comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoochie Coochie Man (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2007

The article you are referring to was International Interspecies Erotica Convention, which I deleted. I did look into it, and you happen to have been the only user which edited the article. After, trying to search for any reliable information on the group with this name I found none. If you can cite some reliable sources, and verify, the notability of the organization you were writing about, then by all means recreate the article. Otherwise, please stop wasting our time. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Asshat

Don't block me you motherfucking asshat!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.4.205.215 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

I wanted to thank you for your help at the Warhammer 40,000 page. SanchiTachi 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:XxXlukeyboiXxX Please see my note about on the bottom of that page. I don't believe he was vandalizing, per se, but that he was new, wanted to add his own spin, and got stuck in the middle of the reverts. I could be wrong, but I hope not. SanchiTachi 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At first I didn't believe that user was vandalizing either, but then there was this edit, followed by a page blanking a minute later on a completely unrelated article[1]. I have given this user two warnings and they seemed to have stopped, hence I see no need for any further action. Thanks for stopping by. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I just saw it. I try to go out of my way to accomodate new people, add sources to allow what they say in, try to rewrite to give them the spirit of what they want while conforming, etc, but all it seems that happens for this is that I get bitten. Meh. I kinda regret coming back here. SanchiTachi 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

regarding Image:USS Edwards 0561904.jpg

Hi, I noticed that you replaced the image Image:USS Edwards 0561904.jpg with a different image of the vessel. While I think it is very likely the the image you uploaded is an old US Navy image, and hence in the public domain, I was wondering if you can tell me where you got this image. It is important to have the correct source for such images otherwise, images without sources may get deleted. If you could please add a web address, or if you got it from a book please cite the source. I notice that you stated your father served aboard this ship, and perhaps this photo is from his personal collection, and if so that's fine too, I just want to make sure we have the correct source listed for the image. If you have any questions, or I can be of further help, please let me know. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Source of original image: http://www.destroyerhistory.org/benson-gleavesclass/619edwards_02.html

--Jason Palpatine 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Acknowlegement requested please. -- Jason Palpatine 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

Sorry about that, I check the image again and that seems to be fine now. The source is good. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

www33.brinkster

You marked for deletion though I put a tag asking for it to stay. This was my response. Perhaps there is a better way to address this problem.

Talk:Www.33.brinkster From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

This page is of vital importance to the integrity of Wikipedia. It may be simple in its effect, I do plan on adding various examples of material as I have for Garrett Morgan. The site www33.brinkster.com has brought notoriety to itself by linking fictitious articles sprinkled with facts. Many times the users who link www33.brinkster.com often also attribute the actual accomplishments of many people of note to others who either never existed or have no connection whatsoever. Every link on Wikipedia that uses the www33.brinkster.com link is used to discredit people of note that are of African descent. Further, attempts to reason, contest, and refute said allegations (ie that the American Traffic Signal Co. invented the modern streetlight and not Garrett Morgan) have been met with vandalism, reversions to previous erroneous versions, and out and out subterfuge. The site is only designed to discredit those of African descent and it is important for users to KNOW that these links are not verifiable or legitimate.

Many of the www33.brinkster.com links fly in the face of articles researched and posted by (the US) Federal Highway Authority, Massachusettes Institute of Technology, The Smithsonian, University of Houston, the US and British Patent offices. A quick Wiki search of www33.brinkster.com can follow the trail these bigots have left on the face of Wikipedia.

When following the source material for www33.brinkster.com it is often vague or unfounded material that dissipates within a link or two.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 23:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

ShardIPBlockingIsFascist...

...is continuing obscene PAs directed toward you on his user talk page. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

shipwreck link

Explain how a link about a site that recovers shipwrecks is innapropriate to a page entitled "shipwreck". My posted link is *Odyssey Marine Exploration (underwater exploration and recovery of shipwrecks) If you notice, all of the other external links pertain to the same as the one that I posted. If you feel it does not belong on a few of the other pages, then feel free to delete it but I am not intentionally spamming this site, nor am I affiliated with the site that I am introducing to the page, which I feel belongs on it. I only posted it on 3-4 pages that I feel it pertains to. If you want to ban me from editing, then go ahead, but ban all of the other users first who innapropriately print worthless material (i.e. Uncyclopedia). This site is supposed to exist for the public. If not, then do not let anyone publically edit it. Also, from seeing other comments on this page, it appears that you wrongfully delete other people's relevant information, which leads me to believe that the wiki is opinionated and bias towards only the ones it sees fit, not all relevant contributors. It should be all or nothing. Either the organization wiki should edit the info themselves, or let users edit the info by submitting it and allowing time for wiki to thoroughly review the material, not just prejudge it quickly. A good example of a wiki-type of site that does this is the IMDB, which screens and eventually posts relevant info. I hope wiki is at least paying you to do this, since you seem to be like some of the rent-a-cop overly obsesed security guards which I have work with in the past. I hope that you pass this message on to the wiki, so they may consider reviewing it, along with other posts, to see that there needs to be a change in the procedure on how the wiki gathers and eventually posts it information, so that it can be done in a fair and just way. Sammyc2k 04:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that we have a number of policies that have been reviewed and revised by many experienced users. I am just trying to follow these policies in order make the English Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I would first like to point you to our policy on external links Wikipedia:External links. Please believe me that I was not trying to pick on you specifically. I agree that many of these articles already have a number of external links, many of which should probably not be there. I question the relevance of this particular website to not only the article on Shipwreck, but also its relevance to List of shipwrecks (i.e. does this site have a good and reputable list of shipwrecks), Archaeology of shipwrecks, Wreck diving, and Treasure hunting (marine). Which is all of the articles that you placed this external link to. If you believe that this website contributes something unique to a particular article, then by all means add it to that specific article. But please remember that "Wikipedia is not a collection of links", and that adding the same URL to a number of articles can be seen as link spamming. As for fact that you think I'm a paid, rent-a-cop for wikipedia, I assure you that I am not, nor does wikipedia even do this. I'm a volunteer like everyone else. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 14:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you question the relevence of the site, then please go to the site or go do a search in yahoo or CNN. They just made world news, as far as discovering over 500 million dollars of coins, in a shipwreck. Here is an example of a search on yahoo and on Cnn: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070518/20070518005315.html?.v=1 http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/treasure.ship.ap/index.html As you can see, they set a world record for the largest treasure find from a shipwreck, so please tell me what page to add it to and how to go about doing so, since you feel it doesn't have any relevance to a shipwreck or to a marine treasure/treasure hunting. If you want to know if I am telling the truth or not, then go to the above links, as well as the company link, to see that it is a world known company. I am not affiliated with the link that I was adding. It is just something that I am interested in and since it made world news, I feel it has some relevance in the wiki, or else then all of the other links to all of the smaller, independent companies, as well as the countless articles about them should all be removed as well. I don't feel that it is fair that the wiki can pick and choose what it likes to view as important enough to include information on. Also, I don't think that the intergalactic guardians of the wiki should be quick to accuse someone of spamming, just because they added the link to 3 or 4 pages in the same general topic. As I said in the above message, maybe wiki should have a better system of monitoring incoming changes and not allow random people to just edit something.... Instead they should submit changes to a wiki administrator, such as yourself, who will then decide where the information belongs. That would avoid the whole, assumption of whether or not the person is legit or a spammer. Just direct me on how to go about adding an article, so I can then add the relevant link to the appropriate page. Sammyc2k 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of adding that link to a number of articles I believe it should be added to the article on the company itself Odyssey Marine Exploration, which it seems was just created due to this recent news. From here it would probably be more appropriate to tie this article to the other articles on wikipedia such as List of shipwrecks, Shipwreck, Archaeology of shipwrecks, Wreck diving, and Treasure hunting (marine). Thank you for taking the time to explain your actions and voice your concerns regarding the way Wikipedia handles situations. I have added a welcome message to your talk page. In it are some links to better acquaint yourself with Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you feel that I have put you off. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

well, like I said, it made world news. It did get added and I saw the news on the main page. Of course I could have ben lying and just spamming. This is why perhaps wiki should have ppl submit info to editors, instead of alowing pl to directly edit info, only to get deleted or told later on that they are spammers. It would avoid alot of confusion (even though this would be a slower editing process, but would be more accurate). I have seen several mistakes on the wiki and I'm sute the staff is aware that many mistakes or misinformation occur from time to time. So I feel that wiki should change their format and have ppl submit info that gets proofread first. I know that they may not,Sammyc2k 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC) unless enough people request it. Where can I go to submit this request?

USS Ross DDG-71 page

Good afternoon Malo, Rosswiki71 is curious as to why the recent changes were reverted since they are actual facts. Also, the Marmaris, Turkey should read Aksaz, Turkey. Updated changes will be posted. Thank you.

Rosswiki71 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Rosswiki71Rosswiki71 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is that you please cite a reliable source when adding new information. Thank you. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Department of Education (NSW, Australia) - Shared IP block

Hi, you were the most recent person to block one of the shared IPs from the NSW DET range... this is a huge problem that no one seems to be very aware of. I know something could be done on the DET's part to fix this as their Internet Acceptable Use policy is very strict. I'd like some help in starting to talk to the DET about either blocking the edit pages via their proxy or sending a memo out to all schools about this. Please let me know if I'm on the wrong track or just completely insane ;) VoltageX 02:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know exactly which IP you are referring to. thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns)

I apologise, User talk:61.88.131.154 but the DET owns most of 61.88.131.*

Also, the DET can now tell you which student accessed which Wiki page and when, but I suspect you'd have to have a pretty good reason to get that info.

VoltageX 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I have unblocked this address for the time being. I have also added templates to the userpage to better identify the shared IP. Please also be aware that if vandalism continues from this address, you can expect more blocks, however at least now, individuals are encouraged to create their own account, which won't be affected from such future IP blocks. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this sounds rude, but unblocking doesn't really solve the problem, which is vandalism of WP by various students anywhere/everywhere in the NSW public school system - I can almost guarantee you'll have to re-block the IP at some stage. What I was hoping for was some help in contacting the DET and making them aware of the issue. VoltageX 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Barry McHorn Talk

I can't find a talk page for the hoax Barry McHorn. Help please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.152.237 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 June 2007

To the best of my knowledge this article never had a talk page. I deleted the article regarding, Barry McHorn because it appeared to be a hoax without reliable sources. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:HT1.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:HT1.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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 05:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Simply deep (album).jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Simply deep (album).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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)