User talk:Muchness/2006-07

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

how to pronounce Zinedine Zidane?

Muchness-- Hi! I'd like to get the pronunciation of Zinedine Zidane correct in my external like. Is the problem with his first or last name? What is the correct pronunciation in your view? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjmt (talkcontribs) 03:50, 5 July 2006.

Hi, unfortunately the issue is not straightforward. The native French pronunciation, which you can hear in the video clips on Zidane's official website, is IPA: [ˌzineˈdin ziˈdan]. The issue is complicated by the fact that Zinedine Zidane is a Berber name – there is some discussion about the correct Berber pronunciation of the name on the Zinedine Zidane talk page (unfortunately without audio references). --Muchness 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Ronaldinho

Sorry, I don't read Norwegian. But thanks for the info about the AdWords and the fact that the video is not real. - CobaltBlueTony 15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You can get a somewhat garbled translation from Norwegian by using this online translator; the gist is fairly clear:
It is the certainly a bit synd to betray , but where he am hitting bar four multiplication , have we was playing a bit along with a few digital solutions , say Vita Clausen kommunikasjonsdirektør in North - Europe for Nike.
Getting aid
Of which it is a fotballspiller as able be doing something such , saw is it Ronaldinho. He am a fantastic and magical fotballspiller. But in actuality stand facts a man in at the line and dismisses dances return to Ronaldinho. But he hit actual bar dates back to multiplication at row under the intake , say Clausen at dr.dk.
Nike has in future punched away man , so that we only discern Ronaldinho as juggle.
--Muchness 16:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I also didn't know that this video was fake, looks too real. But not sure why you consider this site a link farm? What is your definition of a link farm? Videoawards 18:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The site has a lot of Google AdWord advertisements; this makes it borderline per WP:EL guidelines that recommend against sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. The site was also removed because it contains a CGI-enhanced Nike ad (i.e., no valuable encyclopedic content). --Muchness 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand now that the video was a fake so I will not repost but my question is regarding your definition of "a lot." There is a adsense bar on the right with threee links. Does this mean it's "a lot?" [[Videoawards 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)]]
When I load the page it displays a large bar with 5 ads, which I consider excessive. The site has no valuable encyclopedic content, and the only other content on the page is a list of advertisements. --Muchness 00:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The "encyclopedic content" you were in search of was not textual, it was in the video. And to say that 5 ads on a website constitutes an ad farm is just silly. I have seen plenty of sites which constitute as spam and I believe you need to recalibrate your expectations of the internet. Videoawards 01:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The video was the content to which I was referring; it is not encyclopedic because it is a cgi-enhanced advertisement. My expectations of the internet are not the issue here; what's at issue is Wikipedia's external links guideline. And I stand by my opinion that the link in question is inappropriate per the guideline's wording: it contains 5 advertisements and a video of another advertisement, none of which provide valuable supplementary encyclopedic content. --Muchness 01:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Gond symbol.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Gond symbol.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Michael Bauser 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I support deleting this image as a violation of the wizards.com TOS. --Muchness 00:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts for Hypocricy

Hey there. I noticed you asked for a citation regarding Hypocricy. I am just curious as to why you feel that this needs to be cited, yet the previous sentence which appears to be someone elses interpretation does not? I should be able to use the difference in any future edits.

Hi Enigmatical. I feel the entire article needs citations, which is why I added the {{unreferenced}} tag. I tagged two specific phrases for additional attention because they used vague attribution/weasel words: one sentence used "arguably" in lieu of citing a reference; the other sentence began with "Some people believe...", assigning an opinion to an anonymous source, and providing no reference to establish the validity of the statement. --Muchness 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What I found incorrect with the hypocricy page was that it alluded to the fact criticism of bad behaviour even though "most people do bad things" were somehow connected. It failed to actually state that hypocricy only comes about when the behaviour being critisized is something the person who is critisizing has done. Most people do bad things, that is true, but most people don't critisize others for the same bad things that they themselves do unless they are hypocrits. Can you see my point? The previous wording was misleading, I believe the new wording is more accurate and althought I know wikipedia often requires citations I don't think you will ever find a sitation of the previous text because it is simply incorrect. Enigmatical 06:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My {{fact}} tags were only aimed at the vague attribution issues, which predate your edit; they were not aimed specifically at your reword. Your wording was a definite improvement in my opinion, but it shares the previous wording's problem of vague attribution/lack of references. The aim of my edit was solely to encourage interested editors to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the article's content. Regards. --Muchness 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess that is where my confusion comes in as I dont see how anyone could find any verifiable sources on this other than just a dictionary definition. At what point does such a source become valid? If the local uni lecturer says something about the topic is it good enough? If it comes from someone who has a degree in psychology is it good enough? This kind of thing is usually very subjective being non-quantifiable and it isn't like there is any one true source that is beyond doubt. I think many people will see hypocricy as many different things for this reason and citations will be difficult to come by. Enigmatical 22:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dablinks

Hi. I removed the dablinks from the 9 hells articles because they really don't seem to be needed. The guide states that "when a user searches for a particular term, she might expect a different article than what appears." Someone searching for "Dispater (Dungeons & Dragons)" is certainly not looking for a different result. Putting dablinks on every disambiguated article seems superflous, IMO.--Robbstrd 01:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Asmodeus (Dungeons & Dragons). --Muchness 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Leo Messi Edit

Hello, this is referring to your 1 july edit:rm speculation & POV; rm repeated links; add ref
i am not questioning the edit itself, but when you claim to take speculation or POV out of some information, remember to leave the objective facts in place. Another thing is to just see how the edit will affect continuity of neighbouring sections. I guess a football player picking up an injury and missing the rest of the season is important - atleast to the section describing how his season went, something you managed to ignore in mass delete. Another thing is that the very next section referred to this fact(injury), and that was not modified.

The objective result of a football match are the only the goals. There are some great defenders in the game who in that regard, total to only a handful. Do you draw a blank in their cases? Messi's best performance came at Stamford Bridge despite not scoring and he was widely applauded for being the best performer in a big match of many players of repute. If you choose to disregard it, you are missing an important piece of information in a player's career. So when you say you take out POV or speculation, please do that but try to leave the facts and continuity behind :) --Su30 14:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(The above message is in reference to this diff.) Hi, thanks for drawing my attention to this. I agree that in retrospect this edit was perhaps overly sweeping; in my defense I quote WP:V which states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." There was a lot of potentially valuable content in the removed paragraph, but no sources were provided for the opinions, and the language was laudatory and idiomatic rather than encyclopedic and neutral: "overshadowed the array of established stars", "merely to disorient the drawing boards of big name european opponents", etc. Regarding the continuity issue, I certainly should have retained a mention of his injury in the paragraph, and I've fixed that oversight now. --Muchness 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
hi, glad you added the injury news in. And i've again tried to add the performance content, to highlight the stand out performances/player characteristics, sans the laudatory language but with out artificial dilutions.. also added citations in support from places like FIFA and Goal.com --Su30 14:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, they definitely improve the article. Regards. --Muchness 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyrighting problems

As per my uploaded images for the related articles in question, what would be some specific or relavent appropriate copyright taggings and descriptions I can use for images representing Wendisch-Rambow (Coat of arms, castle and map), TV series promotional poster in less quallity (the Hotel Babylon one) and appearance at television awards? This seems to trouble me a lot and probably has misjudged you. --Redkane 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding, I probably should have left a personal note on your talk page explaining my edits. Regarding the TV promotional images, the problem is not the tagging or descriptions; the problem is that the source websites for both images state that the images cannot be used for fair use purposes:
  • the Sara Groen page states "This image is supplied to Yahoo! Australia & NZ for specific use on the au.yahoo.com website. Usage by any other entity is not permitted without written approval from Snapper Media."
  • the Natalie Mendoza image comes from http://www.news.com.au/ and their terms of service prohibit usage outside of "personal, non-commercial use".
The best way to avoid this problem is to check the source site's terms of service or copyright info before uploading the image to Wikipedia. --Muchness 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up those images. I've added a warning to your message to JarlaxleArtemis. He's on probation for doing just this kind of thing in the past. -Will Beback 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Valet Parking

Per your warning on this users page, please be informed that the user continues to make disruptive edits to the Valet parking page without any discussion, rhyme or reason. CuTop 23:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandering if you could assist

Hey there, Muchness. I'm afraid I made a mistake on archiving a discussion page and I was wandering if you could correct it for me or maybe give me a runthrough on how to propally archive talk pages for future reference. The talk page is at User_talk:203.14.53.15. Thanks a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redkane (talkcontribs) 07:13, 8 August 2006.

I've tidied up the talk page and archive and left a note on your talk page about how to archive pages. Regards. --Muchness 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


AfD Nomination: List of songs about being on fire

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of songs about being on fire, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about being on fire. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Look I know you worked on this page but this is useless information. Aussie King Pin 10:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Tiamat image

You wrote: Hello. An image you uploaded, Image:Tiamat p93.jpg, has been listed at WP:CP as a possible copyright violation. Discussion and precedent on July 6, 2006 established that images sourced from the wizards.com website do not fall under the fair use provisions of promotional material. If you believe that this media may be used by Wikipedia under the fair use doctrine, please join the discussion at WP:CP. Thank you. --Muchness 10:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the link you listed and I did NOT find Tiamat listed there. Wik fair use policy states that such images may (as in this instance) be used "for commentary on the character in question." What's the problem? --Jason Palpatine 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The image is listed near the bottom of the page – see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#2006-08-25 and scroll down to the images section, or alternately view the listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 August 25/Images. Please review the July 6 discussion regarding images sourced from the wizards.com website (July 6, 2006) for an explanation of why the use of wizards.com images under the fair use provision is problematic, and also note that the wizards.com TOS expressly prohibits reproduction of the site's contents unless it is for personal, noncommercial use. Feel free to make a case for the image's use at WP:CP. Regards. --Muchness 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You Go To Richwoods?

You included the fight song in the article, how do you know it? Do you go there, because I do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.23.91.16 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC).

Hi, no I didn't go to Richwood. My only edits to the Richwood High School article were vandalism reversions. An anonymous editor 12.203.13.224 (talkcontribs) added the fight song to the article. --Muchness 18:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Henry image

Could you please tell me where the copyright violation is on the Thierry Henry image Image:60089.jpg? -- Mattythewhite 9/9/06

Hi, there are two issues with this image. Firstly, the image is tagged as promotional but it wasn't released for promotional purposes – it's used to decorate a website. Secondly, the source website's terms of service page expressly prohibits recreation of the website's content unless it's for personal use. --Muchness 17:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: An additional problem is that it's a fair use image of a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created. --Muchness 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hey Muchness, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck! --Muchness 12:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ernham

Hi. Just thought you'd like to know that this user is questioning your motives for filing a 3RR violation. He seems to be accusing you, me or both of us of something underhand. [1]. I have also challenged his accusation that I violated the 3RR. Regards Mark83 14:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The issue appears to have been resolved[2]. --Muchness 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:MOSDAB revert

I saw Centrx's revert of my revert, and I was hopeful another editor would undo it, so it wouldn't look like mine was a lone opinion. Thanks for doing that. -- JHunterJ 13:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. In general I think Centrx is an excellent admin, I just feel this particular edit needs some prior talk page discussion before we consider adding it to the guideline. --Muchness 16:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Excess" links on D&D article

You've just removed most of the links I added to various other D&D items, for things like the group Dead Alewives and so on. Why do you deem these links "excessive"? I'd thought that they were highly appropriate, but I'm always glad to learn new things.--Orange Mike 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is a disambiguation page, so in general it should be formatted according to the MoS:DAB guidelines. See the section on individual entries for the relevant guideline: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link." For further discussion, see the related talk page discussion. Regards. --Muchness 16:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

MoS:DAB

I wanna thank you for the revert in Dourado disambigation page. I didnt know about one navigable link per entry "rule" for disambigs, and this is extremely correct since disambigs are made to choose one and not to distract with other info. Now its time to review all the disambigs I've been editing!!! Tks, Gcoliveira 08:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Muchness 08:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied Discussion

You beat me to that by just seconds! I just recently created the {{PUIresolved}} template, as I thought it didn't much sense that it would be difficult to find the PUI discussion once it passes. Thus, I was fooling around with the template before attempting to copy the discussion to the image talk page. -- tariqabjotu 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh :) By the way, that template's an excellent idea. --Muchness 04:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Thanks for the notice. I will look into this project, but it's not really my area of expertise. --Muchness 14:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. Garfield The Third (game) AFD

Yep, apparently I forgot the other one. Done now. Thanks for telling me. Regards.--Húsönd 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Muchness 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)