User talk:Mrmatiko/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Talk:Paul Dacre

Hi, thank you for intervening against that childish personal attack against me on Talk:Paul Dacre but can I ask why you left the attack on the talk page? I have had to remove that disgusting comment myself. But thanks anyway. Christian1985 (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably should have removed it, I considered editing out the personal attack parts but that would have caused problems. In the end I left it because it was the only way that my comment would make sense and, since it wasn't revealing any personal information that may have been damaging it seemed to be the right thing to do per WP:NPA#Removal of text --Mrmatiko (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Mrmatiko, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Mrmatiko/World Market Center Las Vegas. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

award

	The King Canute Award
	Awarded for your valiant efforts in holding back the tide of foolishness on my talk page. Much appreciated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just couldn't leave that unchallenged. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over contributions to Oratory School entry

I notice the section on Terminology and Slang on the Oratory School page has again been removed even though the page is headed by the standard warning: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009) Ironically, the Rhys Thomas page carries the same warning, yet information about the chap, which, as far as I can see, is unsourced and inverified is allowed to remain. So can you explain why the section in the OS entry had to be removed, even though readers are made aware of the nature of the info by the standard warning. Why one rule for some and another rule for others? pfgpowell 10:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs)

You seem to have missed a key part of the notice "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." The meaning of this statement should be quite clear, if you add unsourced material then other editors should take it down if they consider it to be a problem. Other editors have tried to engage with you in an attempt to find a solution on the talk page (Talk:The_Oratory_School#Slang) yet you appear to have taken a I'm right and that's that attitude. Your refusal to take part in the discussion and instead repeatedly writing sarcastic & uncivil messages on other user's talk pages is very confusing. You claim to have worked at several newspapers, which is why I can't understand your absolute refusal to source your contributions. If you sourced the information then there may not be a problem, yet there doesn't appear to have been any attempt to provide a source (correct me if I'm wrong).

In response to you saying other stuff exists: As other editors have stated, everyone here has a responsibility to improve Wikipedia if you are unable to directly improve the article then make a relevant project aware that a problem exists or write a message on the article talk page, or the talk pages of other contributors of that page. The notice placed at the top of the page isn't a disclaimer, it is a notice to show that someone has identified a problem and was unable to fix it themselves. It is for other editors to improve the article, not as a warning to the people who read the article that it may be unsourced and certainly isn't a reason to add further unsourced material. Whenever people have tried to improve the article on The Oratory School, you have tried reverting it repeatedly by Edit warring. The fact that you seem to think that Nobody who hasn't been to the school should edit the page is very concerning because that completely defeats the point of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. One of the reasons for requiring articles to be well sourced by secondary sources is because this allows anyone to contribute to any article, experts on a topic are welcome to contribute, but shouldn't be demanding that nobody else makes any changes.

Finally, if you consider the actions of Demiurge1000, SudoGhost and myself to be unreasonable then by all means take further action starting at Dispute resolution. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

SAML-based products and services - Link policy violation?

Please explain which links conflict with the policy, and give me guidance to improve. From how I interpret the link farm policy there is not conflict, because the product comparison table only provides useful identification for products and vendors/OSS-organizations, so that would fit into valid use. What am I missing?

(Sorry if I am not using the talk page in the correct way - I am not acquainted with this unorthodox usage pattern)

Rhoerbe (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to improve the article. The main issue isn't so much the Link farm policy but the External links policy. The specific part of that policy is "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." My suggestion is that you replace as many of the external links with Wikilinks as you can. A good article to look to for this purpose is Comparison of instant messaging clients, it isn't a great article, but it has links to all the internal articles for those clients that have articles. Those products that don't have articles are left blank. If you want any help with this then just let me know.

Also, your use of the talk page is fine, it is better if you start your comment at the bottom of the page so it flows from oldest to newest but it isn't a big issue. The talk page Talk:SAML-based products and services might have been better since you would get more input but don't worry about that now.--Mrmatiko (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, understood. Thanks for the example. Rhoerbe (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Most listed products do not have WIki pages. Would it make sense to add those to Wikipedia? If yes, can a template be used to structure the contents of these pages? Rhoerbe (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

slow down! Start by removing the external links, wikilinking those that do have articles and leaving those that don't. Once you've done that then you can start to determine which of the products that don't have articles meet the Notability guidelines. My suggestion would be to create them carefully one at a time in your user space and then submit them to Articles for Creation. If it turns out that most aren't notable enough for Wikipedia then just leave them in without a link.

There are no article creation templates because there are no perfect articles. If you can gather at least 5 independent, significant and reliable sources then notability might be established. However these must be used carefully in order to correctly support potentially controversial statements. There is no way that anyone would be able to just spew out a large number of articles that all look the same without compromising the quality of all of them even if they devoted days to the task. With products in particular there is a risk of being seen as spam.

If you need help then just ask here. If you haven't already it might be a good idea to add this page to your watchlist.--Mrmatiko (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing links to vendor pages is OK, but removing links to product pages severely limited the usability of the table. That can't be the intention of the guideline. Do you see the conflict with point 5 of "Links to be avoided" in Wikipedia:External_links Rhoerbe (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, this may be a case of Ignore all rules but it would need consensus. I'll start a discussion on the Talk:SAML-based products and services so that we can try to come to some agreement. I'll also inform anyone who has made more than a minor change to the page about this discussion --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mrmatiko

Clearly, you haven't been informed about User arif. Civility is nor something this user understands, he's been harassing the article continuously, obviously you haven't been working on this article otherwise you would think differently. And who invited you to this issue, only if you can solve it better then me then go ahead. One thing yo don't understand is putting your shoe in others. Next time before entering into other people's issues when you HAVE Nothing to do with it, STAY OUT!! For your information, I am being very civil with you only if you misunderstand, but who knows...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyghazaley (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalising another editor's user page as you did to User:Arif adlany is not a sign of civility. The correct way to solve a dispute is to take it to the talk page of the article and through the use of talk page templates to warn them. I only see a single warning and that is one that I placed on User talk:Arif adlany. Shouting isn't particularly reasonable either. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point now but who talked about shouting capitilization is often used for emphasis and thats how i used it. my mistake was writting it on the user wall, sorry for that. but i must say the user was acting like a child changing the whole article due to his love for harry potter so he changed the grosses to 3 billion, and if u noticed he's new to wiki, probably to get passed semi-protection. excuse my grammar and punctuation its on my phone.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I do understand your frustration, just be careful not to bite the newbies. If you use the warning templates and make constructive suggestions, then they may be converted in to a productive wikipedian––Mrmatiko (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Futebol Campus

Thank you for raising the copyright concern on that article to WP:Copyright problems. I have investigated the possibly copyrighted text under the Google translator and have confirmed that this is a copyvio of http://www.slbenfica.pt/Clube/CentroEstagio/Introducao/introducao.asp and for that case, have removed the content. The text was actually translated from Portuguese, but there you go. Minima© (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit Ciclista Can Dubler

you removed the CSD A7 saying it didn't apply. My impression is that this is an unremarkable company. Why I am wrong? Thanks! I have PROD, but if you feel it can be CSD upon reconsideration, go ahead ;)--Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you are not an admin? Non-admins are not supposed to remove CSD templates. Please do not do so. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can remove a speedy deletion template except the person who created the page, see WP:Speedy or read one of the notices. As for my reasoning it isn't a company, its a race track. PROD or AfD is the best way to go here. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, my apologies. Mental DB updated :P--Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's understandable, don't worry about it, enjoy your New page patrolling. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Unpatrollable" pages

Re Total Active Reflection Coefficient (which was my fault!), etc. Good news! Tom Morris (talk · contribs) has shown me the way of marking a "deleted" page as patrolled without re-creating it. Read my draft instructions and try it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that next time I come across another "Unpatrollable" page. I just tried it and it works, makes it a bit easier for everyone. (Though a bug fix would be nice...) --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You will probably never need to refer to the instructions again but if you do, I have moved them to Wikipedia:Magic spell to deal with "unpatrollable" pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No,

Fails WP:NOTABLE, WP:VERIFY, why decline? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You used the WP:A1 criteria, which is solely for use where there isn't enough context. I didn't change the tag to something else because I couldn't see that it met WP:A7 (importance) as it isn't one of the items where that can be used. Lack of verifiability isn't a speedy deletion criteria. I'm also a bit concerned about how fast you tagged it for speedy deletion, less than a minute after creation, which seems like biting a new editor.

This appears to have been resolved by someone changing to an appropriate redirect, which seems like the best idea. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am appaled at this statement, first of all, I was told not to tag so quickly, then I see other people (even administrators!) tagging/deleting pages just minutes after creation which creates a huge contradiction upon the community. I also created a notice as you can see Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines suggest a wait of 10 - 15 minutes before tagging an article for speedy deletion unless it is a copyvio, attack page or technical deletion. Just because some other editors tag too fast, and apply the speedy deletion criteria too loosely, doesn't mean that you should too. I thought that I'd seen you point out another editor's overly speedy nomination for speedy deletion, which is why I was a bit surprised, you seem like a good editor and I hope that you continue editing for a long time yet.

Just so you know, administrators aren't any different to other editors, in theory they are selected from the most responsible users but from time to time everyone makes mistakes, if you notice this then just let them know. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Jacob_T._Russell

Sir, the article under different name (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_T_Russell&action=edit&redlink=1) was already deleted in a speedy way just 6 days ago for the reasons of, and I quote „‎A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion”. I believe the content of the article is about the same, but you should check it out for yourself. So, I don't understand your hesitation to delete it. I may have stated the reason in not the best way, but you were not right to remove the tag. You should consider reverting your edit here. Regards. Snooker (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, which is why I removed the tag and won't be reverting the edit. Not showing importance is a valid reason, and it may apply here. If you think so then use {{db-person}} . Thanks --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a hint, I'm not very familiar with the tags in en.wikipedia. Best of luck. Snooker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

Support for your Categorization of the article on Shamshad Hussain

Hi Mrmatiko, I strongly support the Category:Indian artists which you added using HotCat to the article Shamshad Hussain which I started. Unfortunately somebody removed this Category and is bent on removing it even after my re-addition. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to the deletion discussion please? Thanks. --Mrmatiko (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This one. It was changed by Off2RioRob. I reversed it, but he undid my edit as well. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit you refer to was about removing the Indian flag from the nationality, which is against the manual of style specifically "avoid flag icons in infoboxes" so User:Off2riorob was correct in removing the flag. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see

User talk:Funandtrvl#Edit warring --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

CSD on Magma Fincorp Limited

Please see my edit summary for the reason I denied your speedy deletion nomination. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For archive purposes the reason was: "172 branches in 20 states, that's a pretty credible claim to notability"

A kitten for you!

Because all WikiJaguars are a WikiKitten at some point :P

Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that made me laugh a bit too loud... --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The National Campus for the Archaeology of Israel

don't need to delet. LOOK HERE =>> Israel Antiquities Authority. פארוק (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I proposed it for deletion was because it doesn't show why the building is notable in any way. Notability is not inherited and requires multiple independent & reliable sources that cover the building in a reasonable amount of depth. If you disagree with the proposal then just remove the tag & add some references that show notability. Good luck. --Mrmatiko (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ok. this area is still under construction. פארוק (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

REALLY!

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO TO ME? NOBODY INVITED YOU TO THIS ARGUMENT, AND YOU JUST GO TO MY TALK PAGE TO POST AN UNWELCOMED AND MOST LIBELOUS MESSAGE! CONTROL YOUR IMPULSES, REALLY. I FEEL HARASSED BY YOU AND user: a_man_alone. REALLY! --Moses I. L. Foch (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a standard no personal attacks template on your talk page to make you aware that your comments on Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2#Why God why were considered to be a personal attack. The purpose of user talk pages is to discuss things with other editors, I left that note to point out that your attitude towards another editor was unacceptable.

You seem to be fairly concerned about fancruft and the influence of fans on wikipedia, if you have a good proposal to deal with this then go to the village pump and have a full discussion there instead of specific article talk pages. Just make sure that you remain civil even if people criticise your ideas and don't try to discredit them personally.--Mrmatiko (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Userboxes

Your point being...? I edit with strict neutrality, therefore there is no problem Colofac (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The concern is that your "No Homo" userbox is a potential cause of tension between you and other editors, particularly new editors who you have welcomed, and could prevent them from becoming an active part of the Wikipedia community. I'm making no demands, just suggesting that you either remove or move the contentious userbox to another userpage in order to avoid inadvertently scaring off new users.--Mrmatiko (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That is their problem, not mine. I'm not going to move anything. If you attempt to remove it, it will be treated as an act of vandalism. I hope there will be no further discussion relating to this issue. Good day. Colofac (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Tastet

Probably not notable, but it is a real word (apparently) not just an ad for that restaurant. I've found a couple of mentions on spanish sites. I've shipped the advert out, but you can WP:PROD it if you like.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I probably should have just removed the original "nonsense" speedy deletion tag, rather than replacing it with spam. Looking at it again it is clear that I was wrong about it being unambiguous spam. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

JNA logo

Thanks for your reply. If a work such as a logo was defined and sketched in a publicly published piece of legislation by the Yugoslav government, which, upon its demise, transferred its rights to six different successor states, and one or more of these present-day states stipulate in their copyright law that publicly published state regulations are PD - does that mean that we could interpret this to mean that at least one of these states have put the logos in PD and that therefore we can use them? Timbouctou (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly well versed in copyright issues, however looking at WP:Public domain#When does copyright expire? suggests that if copyright expires in the originating country then this could be acceptable, though I notice that none of the former Yugoslavia countries are on the list given for the rule of the shorter term. I would be careful here because of the multi-country split. Again, I think it would be best to get the opinion of someone who knows more about the former Yugoslavia copyright situation. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Regilio Tuur

Eugeneshklyar (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC) I have reverted Regilio Tuur page again, my revision is not a"resume" format, I totally disagree with you. This is just a biography. I know this person very well, and this is why I put my revision the way it is now. Thank you.

First, you have a very clear conflict of interest, and should be very careful about making major, unsupported edits to the page.

Second, the version that Mr Tuur prefers (I'm guessing that you were involved in the IRC discussion yesterday) is overly promotional and as such, isn't suitable for a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

Finally, the last clean version had two references, it is now unreferenced. This isn't a good thing for biographies of living people.

While you are welcome to improve the article, please ensure that all changes are well sourced, encyclopedic and ensure that any personal bias that you may have in relation to Mr Tuur doesn't impact on the quality of the edits. --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Eugeneshklyar (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC) I have reverted Regilio Tuur page again, my revision is not a"resume" format, I totally disagree with you. This is just a biography. I know this person very well, and this is why I put my revision the way it is now. Thank you.

I've started a discussion on the talk page --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your idea to include other Wikipedians, rather than start an edit war with a difficult user, shows an intelligent and calm approach to managing articles. I, for one, salute you. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was hoping that it could be resolved without anyone being blocked, but apparently that just wasn't to be... --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AFC

Hi, I saw that you were reviewing some AFC submissions. there is a JavaScript tool at User talk:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js that helps to decline and accept submissions. It also add (after accepting) the page at the showcase and add the Template:WPAFC to the talkpage. Moreover it adds a comment of the requesters talkpage. If you need any help, we have also an IRC channel at freenode at #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect. Regards, mabdul 17:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't use tools that often (I like to know exactly what I'm meant to be doing first) but if I start doing WP:AFC a lot more then I'll take up your suggestion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I saw that you declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CBC Computers, the problem was (in this case) that the contributor added three reliable sources and such the decline source wasn't really helpful for the contributor to get article better. Although you are right, that the article shouldn't get into main-space, try to be careful before declining/accepting submissions - or if being unsure - leave it for somebody else. mabdul 21:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'll be more careful next time. --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

COI Journal articles

This chappie's creating huge numbers of stuff where the only reference is to (his?) company website (where one can buy the journals). Is it possible to block him for a while so people can check everything that he's done? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding - all he seems to have going there is a humungous spam campaign for Taylor & Francis publications ... one comapny can't serious be reponsible for dozens (hundreds?) of notable journals? This has to be mega COI stuff .... check his contribs. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a quick way to delete everything he's created in the category of Taylor & Francis publications? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Randi

Michelle Randi is not a real person.. at least not a member of the Kardashian & Jenner family like the article states. It is a spam article. Some user probably trying to make themselves famous or play a joke. Kris & Bruce Jenner do not have a child named Michelle Randi. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case, however when I looked at the page there wasn't a speedy deletion tag on it & so I removed the category. You are welcome to add {{db-hoax}} to the page if there is not any possibility that the article is true. --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5