User talk:Maxl

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

Welcome!

Hello, Maxl, Welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.
Additional tips:
Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
  • Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
  • You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
  • If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
Happy editing!

This is a bit late, so you'll know all the above — but better a late welcome than no welcome at all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Giovanni Cardinal Canestri[edit]

Hi Maxl, you removed the pending delete from this page. I restored the note because the page has to be deleted due to copyright issues.

You may still re-write the article, just click on the temporary subpage link in the copyright violation notice.

--Duk 18:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Sizonenko[edit]

Hi - I moved the article you created to Alexander Sizonenko, which seems to be the correct spelling (rather than Sizomenko). I'll update the references as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni Cardinal Canestri[edit]

Yes, you're right, the link is gone - its been a while! You can click the link above (the section header on this note) to start a new article. Glad to see you are back. --Duk 02:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Walmarting[edit]

There's a vote to delete this article and since you weighed in on the debate article, thought you might want to weigh in.--Beth Wellington 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in and for pointing out I hadnn't signed my comment. Went back and added the signature manually from the history. I've only voted in an AfD once before. How long does it take and is it simply numerical? (There are a lot of "deletes" and only 3 of us so far who voted to "keep" and change in some way.)--Beth Wellington 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alan Aycock, the prof whose site I quoted, has now contributed to this article. Pretty neat, huh?--Beth Wellington 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad for the outcome. And even before the cancellation of the AfD, Rhobite, who had been for its deletion made good edits.--Beth Wellington 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of Wal-Mart[edit]

Thanks for the alert. don't really have time now, as the library closes soon, but maybe later...--Beth Wellington 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


HP7[edit]

Maxl,

I'm sorry if I offended you by removing your edits to Harry Potter 7, but I stand by my actions. Your contribution about the DA makes no sense because it is not written in grammatical English and makes speculations which are not appropriate for Wikipedia. All we can have in the article are definite facts; we can't have everyone's personal view about what will happen. Same thing with the part about Dumbledore's hand -- it's just speculation that it will be important. The other parts of the article only mention definite passages from the book and leave conclusions up to the reader. Also, I do not appreciate the insinuation that I am somehow "biased." That being said, if you have some sort of proof that Dumbledore's hand is important or the teacher will be someone from the DA, please add it. --PKirlin 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7 again[edit]

May I ask you why you reinserted the speculative material which I removed? At the very least, I'd like some sort of discussion on the talk page. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections[edit]

Trivia sections, and the problems that surround them, are not improved by being renamed to "notable facts." The issues continue to exist, regardless of the section name. Please consider the purpose of the {{trivia}} tag, and work to integrate the facts rather than disguise the lists as not trivia. I don't want to go through and revert all the edits you made, but maybe I'll take the time to write prose from those sections. Leebo T/C 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The only problems that surround so-called trivia sections are these stupid tags added by some people who seem to have too much time. The tags are absolute useless while the trivia sections aren't. Whenever I'll come across such a tag I'll remove it. It's jusst a nuisance, nothing else. --Maxl 13:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Everybody works on different things here at Wikipedia, please don't dismiss others' work simply because you don't agree with them. Trivia sections, while not worthless (no one's saying they're worthless) would be much better presented as prose. The tag serves as a reminder to change the section to prose, which flows much better than a list. Leebo T/C 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm pretty sure that someone created an automated process to add trivia tags. It's not "someone with too much time" since it might not be a someone at all. Leebo T/C 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Maxl, I want to join Leebo's call to stop changing the titles of these sections to "Notable facts" ... that only unnecessary clutters up the edit history of the article, does not change the fact that they are "Trivia" sections and contain trivia that falls under Wikipedia guideline, and does not prevent the tags from being re-added. If you have concerns about the tags or the handling of trivia sections, please raise them at Template talk:Trivia and Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 15:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing Trivia tags from articles. They are not a condemnation of the article or the facts contained within the section. They are only a reminder that the information contained within the trivia section should be incorporated into the main body of the article. Bryan26 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing trivia tags from article. This could be construed as vandalism by some editors. --Oscarthecat 15:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Oscarthecat 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please stop changing the names of Trivia sections. Indoles 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The trivia tags are the vandalism. I'm working hard to remove that vandalism. --Maxl 16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The trivia tags are established tags on Wikipedia. Please use the talk page for the trivia tag to discuss your disdain for them, but do NOT just remove them from pages. Pats1 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I would consider what you are doing vandalism. Indoles 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If you remove the trivia tag on Carolina Panthers again, you will be reported for WP:3RR. Pats1 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to blackmail me??? --Maxl 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If it means stopping your vandalism of Wikipedia, yes. Pats1 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You may have misinterpreted the wikipedia guidelines on this, please take a look at WP:TRIVIA. Such tags are deemed as suitable for such content. I'd like to enter into a dialog with on this page before you continue any any further such edits please. Best regards, --Oscarthecat 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. It is not appropriate to merely rename Trivia sections "Additional information", as you did to Howard Webb. No article information is additional, it's just part of the sum of information in the article. And the guidelines currently ask for anything which resembles trivia to be integrated into the article. It is possible, with a little hard work. See Sheffield United F.C. and its edit history to see an example of how. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


N.F.L. teams[edit]

You may find it informative to participate in a dialog concerning the content of the main page of not only your team but all the N.F.L. teams. Please come and share your thoughts on the subject of content and help form a consensus on that topic.Talk:San Diego Chargers "Epic in Miami -Freezer Bowl" is where you will find the debate and we need you to help us to avoid edit wars. Thanks RMANCIL 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dated cleanup tags[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 15:40 3 June 2007 (UTC).

Hi, I have already explained the basis of how SmackBot works, which you would have seen if you had looked at the edits or read its user page. I don't mind it being stopped in error, but a second stop borders on vandalism. You seem like a dedicated editor, don't waste it fighting unnecessary and unwinnable fights. Rich Farmbrough, 16:20 3 June 2007 (GMT).
Hi Max, please name an article which it has tagged as trivia. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29 3 June 2007 (GMT).

Omar Sharif[edit]

Hi - see see you're still switching trivia tags to other names, despite the warnings. This edit been reverted back to its original state. --Oscarthecat 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you just stop harrassing and blackmailing me???? :/ --Maxl 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No one is harassing or blackmailing you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project -- users must be able to discuss changes with you. Leebo T/C 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes on Tony Blair and Gordon Brown[edit]

Please don't remove the hidden comments from the infoboxes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, they're there for a reason. Tony Blair is still the PM and if you put the date he leaves office in, the incumbent banner is removed from the box. Please don't remove the hidden comments from the Gordon Brown page either as he could be knocked down by a bus tomorrow, in which case he wouldn't become PM. Also, there is no such term a Prime Minister-elect or Prime Minister-designate in the United Kingdom and so Brown remains Chancellor until 27 June. --Philip Stevens 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

going over table for Billings (metric stuff)[edit]

Monthly Normal and Record High and Low Temperatures
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Rec High °F | Rec High °C 68 | 20 72 | 22 80 | 27 92 | 33 96 | 35,5 105 | 40,5 108 | 42 105 | 40.5 103 | 39.5 90 | 32 77 | 25 69 | 20.5
Norm High °F | Norm High °C 32.8 | 0.4 39.5 | 4.2 47.6 | 8,7 57.5 | 14,2 67.4 | 19,7 78 | 25,6 85.8 | 29.9 84.5 | 29.2 71.8 | 22.1 58.9 | 14.9 42.7 | 5.9 34.5 | 1.4
Norm Low °F | Norm Low °C 15.1 | -9.4 20.1 | -6.6 26.4 | -3.1 34.7 | 1.5 44 | 6.7 52.5 | 11.4 58.3 | 14.6 57.3 | 14.1 47.1 | 8.4 37.2 | 2.9 25.6 | -3.6 17.7 | -7.9
Rec Low °F | Rec Low °C -30 | -34.5 -38 | -39 -19 | -28 -5 | -21 14 | -10 32 | 0 41 | 5 35 | 2 22 | -6 -7 | -22 -22 | -30 -32 | -36
Precip (in) | Precip (mm) 0.81 | 20.6 0.58 | 14.7 1.12 | 28.4 1.74 | 44.2 2.48 | 63.0 1.89 | 48.0 1.28 | 32.5 0.85 | 21.6 1.34 | 34.0 1.26 | 32.0 0.75 | 19.1 0.67 | 17.0
Source: USTravelWeather.com [1]

Your Wisdom has been Noted[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Maxl. You have new messages at Redthoreau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rename on Wikimedia commons[edit]

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is username MaxM and I wish it to be the same as my SUL account (this one), Maxl. --Maxl (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cleopatra (1912 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Harry Knowles (actor|Harry Knowles]]: Kephren - Captain of the Guards to the Queen

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Inge Landgut may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] and as the first German dubbing voice of Miss Ellie Ewing ([[Barbara Bel Geddes]]) from [[Dallas (TV Series|Dallas]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit thick when the person who made that vandalism claims that the edit he or she made is not vandalism. And it's a bit odd when the person in question does not manage to talk to someone else in their own words and needs to use a template. That's either laziness or disregard of the person adressed. --Maxl (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you please stop assuming bad faith? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
So it's "bad faith" if I dare utter criticism against you? Well, your last comment here has not really contributed to changing my opinion about you. --Maxl (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Image of Kim Jong-un[edit]

There is currently a vote about this on the Talk Page. As you commented earlier this year, I thought you might be interested.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Maxl. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Wreck-It Ralph 2[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Wreck-It Ralph 2—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:100 Years (film) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

It is relevant to the article since the topic was brought up there. --Maxl (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
In addition, do NOT elete other peoples' edits on discussion pages even if you disagree with what the user wrote. Discuss but do NOT delete!!! --Maxl (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:TPO.
Article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it.
You don't like WP:NOR. Venting your feelings on the article's talk page will not improve the article. Feel free to take the issue to the village pump. Perhaps you will be able to build a consensus to change this core policy. Until then, it is a core policy.
You think the film does not exist. Your opinion will not change the article. Feel free to take this issue to your personal blog. Until someone presents your argument in a reliable source or Wikipedia changes its core policies, your opinion on the article's topic is not appropriate material for the article's talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who said so. And while an opinion might not change the article several might. Plus, it's totally legal to speak your opinion. And, once again, you have NO AUTHORITY to delete other peoples' discussion posts! --Maxl (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:100 Years (film) for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Per WP:TALK: "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above." Your comments are your opinion as to whether or not the film exists which is general discussion of the article's topic. SummerPhDv2.0 15:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from telling me what I am, in your opinion, allowed to say and what not as this exceeds your autority. I do NOT violate any wikipedia rules simply by disagreeing with you, and that's all this is about. And you have, so far, failed to contribute anything sensible to all the discussions we had. Instead of sticking with actual topic you tried to force on me your interpretation of the rules. Do you really think you should complain about others' posts being allegedly off-topic when yours don't have anything to do with the topic discussed? By the way, your attitude of assumed authority is very annoying. Please remind yourself that you do not possess more authority than any other user on the wikipedia and please DO change your tone.
Please do NOT post this or any other pre-fabricated text on my discussion page again. If you wish to tell me something please do so in your own words.--Maxl (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:100 Years (film) to state your opinions, thoughts or feelings about the article's topic. They are for discussion related to making the article better; not for you to talk about your opinions, thoughts or feelings about the article's topic. If you want to talk about why you think it isn't a film, feel free to use a blog, Internet forum or social media to do so, instead of on article talk pages. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines explains this. WP:TALK makes it clear that it is common practice to simply delete comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article). Your comments are your opinion as to whether or not the film exists which is general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You haven't read what I wrote on the film's discussion page, have you? I took in question that this film does not exist. We have no proof it does. This is about the film and is within the rules. I do not care whether this pleases you or not. Let me remind you, you are trying to force your point of view and your interpretation of the rules on me but, as I said, doing so exceeds your authority. As to the opinion, like everyone I AM permitted to say my opinion, whether you like it or not. We are not in North Korea! Well, I noticed before that talking to you is like talking at a wall since you do not listen and just keep forcing through your point of view. I see no sense in continuing that discussion since you are not ready to discuss anything but your personal point of view which you never take into question. There is no point discussing anything with a person as obtuse as yourself. --Maxl (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not North Korea? True. Nevertheless, Wikipedia's article talk pages are limited to discussions on how to improve their associated articles. Your opinions, thoughts and feelings are off-topic. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines allow me, you or anyone else to remove such off-topic chat from article talk pages. It is also why we have the consensus warnings (which you dislike) warning against such behavior.
The core question here is what article talk pages are for. My "interpretation" of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines is that talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. What is your interpretation of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines? - SummerPhDv2.0 00:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
My interpretation is that it is completely all right to discuss whether a film for whose existance there is no actual proof warrants an article or not and that's what I tried to do. Apparently you did not like that discussion and that's why you claimed it was against the rules. --Maxl (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Your original comment -- the one you are backpedaling to defend -- does not say anything about the article. It is essentially two parts: A rant against WP:NOR (one of Wikipedia's core policies) and your opinion that the film does not exist.
Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Byelection is a typo[edit]

'Typo' is an abbreviation for 'typographical error'. I made no error in spelling it that way. I do not understand your reference to British English since the term is not used in any other variant. It started off in the nineteenth century as "bye-election" (previously they were generally known as 'single elections' as almost all places returning Members to Parliament had two Members, so an election for one seat would happen if a vacancy occurred mid-term). The hyphenated term was once usual but is now less common than the unhyphenated one.

It was no error. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course it is an error. I consulted my Oxford Dictionary of English which has an entry for by-election but none for the word without a hyphen. This means that "by-election" is spelled with a hyphen. I suppose that you are ready to accept the Oxford Dictionary of English as an authority in English spelling, especially insofar as British English is concerned. I don't understand why you are so attached to the word without the hyphen when it is definitely wrong. --Maxl (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Dictionaries do not prescribe usage, they report on it. If it is wrong ever to refer to a "byelection" as such, then there are a great many people who are also getting it wrong: The Guardian, The Times, and Justice of the Peace Ltd. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)