User talk:Markeer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for User:Markeer. I've been an active wikipedian for close to a year now and always happy to hear feedback regarding articles I touch on.
In general I will respond to comments made here beneath that comment as I find it inconvenient following a conversation split between two different pages. If you would prefer to have responses made to your own talk page, please say so and I'll be happy to do so.
[edit] Thor (Marvel Comics)
Welcome to Wiki, and bravo! I just want to applaud your hardworking efforts on paring down the awfully lenghty Thor (Marvel Comics) page. Looking forward to your edits and to collaborating with you. -- Tenebrae 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not that it's a biggie, but it's kinda considered bad Wiki etiquette to change someone else's posting on a Talk page. I hope you don't mind, this being the case, that I've changed back the unsigned-poster template to the one that I edited in. Thanks, -- Tenebrae 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, not a prob, love that Bob (on your user page -- yeah, you can tell we're about the same age, with my recognizing Bob!). And please let me add, thank goodness for you and a couple of other well-versed Wikipedians on the Thor article, since that's one particularly frustrating repository for fans treating this encyclopedia like no-cost fan pages. Keep up the good work. -- Tenebrae 04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response from Steve block
I'm going to reply at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics), but basically, it can't be deleted until after seven days listed at copyright violations. Someone's going to contact someone at Marvel and find out what the score is, meaning whether we can use it. What you need to do is make any new edits to Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/Temp. Steve block Talk 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nae hassle, it's what I am here for. Steve block Talk 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removing items from WikiComics Notice Board
Hey, your constant removal of the suggestion for the Gim Allon move is, most likey a change in your mind. I suggest using a strike through instead and explaining why, so folks don't assume you're vandalizing yourself. Stranger things happen. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- May as well say it's done ... It looks like there was a rash of people deleting stuff recently, so either put in the edit summary that it's done, or give those who weren't helping *ahem* *guilty look* some indication ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:The Batman
Thank you for experimenting with the page Template:The Batman on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ThuranX 15:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Considered you request for removal of my 'characterization' of your edit as vandalism. I've decided I'm not comfortable with that, as you provided no explanation of your 'being bold', you just did it. You could have left comments on the talk page after, but didn't. Instead, you did your talking away from the relevant editors, and then got upset when a justifiably confused and irritated editor reverted your unexplained boldness as vandalism. If you look at the talk page for Template:The Batman, you'll see that not only did I address all of this, but I stand by my characterization because of the method in which you conducted your edit. Being Bold doesn't mean you don't have to explain your decision, it means 'try something new, and be willing to discuss it. I saw no such willingness. All I saw was an editor jumping in, removing the work of a number of editors, and when confronted, citing a discussion on another talk page. I welcome you to contribute more to the Template:The Batman, but I'd hope you understand that discussion is partof the editing process.ThuranX 16:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding Current Dispute With ThuranX: For Mediators
As of yesterday (August 6th) I appear to be in a dispute with a user ThuranX regarding an edit I made on Template:The Batman, who also appears to be in a dispute with a number of other users on that talk page. As of this morning (Aug. 7th) I've requested mediation here so I'm writing up this quick version of what I know of this dispute in case a mediator is looking for more info and I am unavailable/away from wikipedia for some time:
When I woke up August 6th I glanced at my wikipedia watchlist like I normally do, and also glanced at the notice board and talk page for Wikiproject: Comics, since there are sometimes 'to do's' there that I will try to help with. Aug. 6th I read the comment [here] by User:A Man In Black suggesting that two navboxes were "disruptively large...and full of whitespace" etc. I glanced at the navbox for Batman (at the time it looked like: [this] and I decided to see what I could do to shrink it up a bit. I made [this edit], which I'll freely admit is far from perfect, but which I felt at least shortened up the box to remove clutter on those articles it was attached to. I dropped [this comment] on the Wikiproject: Comic talk page under the original Navbox thread and went on with my day, making a couple of edits on another page.
At this point it seems things began to go bad. About 40 minutes after I made the edit above, I got a flag that I had a new message on my talk page. I clicked to this page and found [this note] from User: ThuranX, a standard warning that an incorrect edit of mine had been reverted, with the comment that any future "tests" of mine should be done in the sandbox. While I didn't particularly appreciate having an edit called an "experiment", I realize the language was a default template, so I clicked to the article to see what the problem was. I checked the [page history] and found that User: ThuranX had reverted my edit (and a couple edits done afterwards by User: A Man in Black) with the Edit Summary of "rv-vandalism".
While my guess was that this user was being somewhat overzealous in protecting a page he had worked on, I left [this message] on User: ThuranX's talk page, explaining that I was neither experimenting nor vandalizing, pointing to the Wikiproject: Comics talk page which prompted my edit, and asking the user to assume good faith. I also mentioned that I would not make any other changes until more discussion had happened (incorrectly suggesting that discussion should happen on the WC:COMIC Talk page rather than Template talk:The Batman, which is more appropriate). I then dropped [this follow up comment] on Wikiproject's talk page under my first one, saying my edit had been reverted and suggesting future editors discuss options to find a consensus.
A [note] from ThuranX on that page (titled "response to vandal") asked that discussion take place at Template talk:The Batman and, again, called my one edit to that template "vandalism, and damn close to a flat out blanking" which I didn't (and still don't) understand.
However, I decided the user was quite correct that the conversation should take place at Template talk:The Batman so I moved there to discuss changes to the template. Rather than editing the template, I gave my argument for essentially what I had originally done [here] to get input. User:ThuranX replied to my argument [here] (titled 'reply to vandal') again describing "blanking vandalism" and now adding anger at a "discussion for consensus on a third party page" and asserting (incorrectly) that I was claiming consensus on that page and therefore could do what I liked (note: please re-read above that in both my note on User:ThuranX's page and the Wikipedia Talk page that I ask for editors to discuss this to ARRIVE at consensus, not that I thought I had any such). ThuranX also seems to believe that I had "pulled half WP:COMIC" in to back me up, and that "it seems you want to create a fight here".
At this point I felt I had been very inappropriately accused of vandalism several times, and now was being additionally accused of trying to dominate and bully an article when, to the best of my ability, I had stepped back and asked editors to discuss things. I agree that the best place for conversation regarding the template was on it's talk page, hence my making my argument there (without article edit). However, as I don't know the motivations of ThuranX, I simply replied [here] asking him again to assume good faith, and briefly reiterating my argument for a change to the template.
I'll have to admit the next [reply] shocked me a bit, again accusing me of vandalism, claiming consensus and lacking good faith, as well as asserting that I had made a revert (I hadn't) and was now "acting like a victim". I felt this was about 5 unfair accusations in one but didn't want to get into an argument on the template talk page, so I responded on User:ThuranX's talk page at length about this ([here]). I asked ThuranX to edit or remove his accusations, and at this time I saw that there was another comment on this subject from User:A Man In Black asking for Civility. Until this time, I had been unaware that User:ThuranX had been in dispute with anyone else but myself, although I had seen that User:A Man In Black had also had edits reverted on Template:The Batman.
ThuranX [replied] to my request with a negative, again asserting I had committed vandalism. In this reply ThuranX gives a clear argument for his upset, stating that my lack of explanation in my edit and on the template talk page was inappropriate (he refers several times to my 'being bold' in quotes, although I have not used that phrase in any of this) and suggests that my error was an unwillingness to discuss the edit (note: this is shortly after I had attempted to discuss editing on the template talk page, although I understand ThuranX was referring to the initial edit).
Cutting my story here short as this was more or less the last time I 'spoke' directly with User:ThuranX, limiting my conributions on Template talk:The Batman to discussions with other editors on ways to improve the template. During this time, ThuranX was engaged in a number of other discussions with other editors, making what I felt were extremely uncivil and sarcastic comments and edits. However, I had decided I should avoid making any edits to the template myself (except one [copyedit] of a typo) and tried to stay out of the angry exchanges.
Exception: later in the day I made one [attempt] at peace (or at least such was my intention), giving him credit for creating the template in the first place and asserting that my one edit that morning had been in good faith. His reply [here] confused me so much that I made no later attempt, as he asserts that he had attempted to talk to me that morning but that I had insulted him. I still have no idea where either of those things happened as the above are the totality of my exchanges with this user, although I understand in context he believes that I am strongly associated with other users that he had been in dispute with. For whatever it's worth, I don't recall ever talking with any of those users before yesterday (e.g. User:A Man In Black or User:Josiah Rowe).
In summary, I made one good faith edit yesterday to a navbox based on a conversation on Wikiproject: Comics and from what I can see, my reward has been a very unpleasant series of conversations with a user. After that one edit I made no other substantive changes but even as of [this morning] I note that User:ThuranX continues to accuse me of vandalism, claiming 'being bold' gave me free licence, and (I believe) colluding with other editors to victimize him, although to the best of my knowledge...I made one edit to a template once.
For mediator: I hope this is of some benefit as it took some time to look up links and such. Please freely look through my edit histories regarding any of the above, I don't mind at all. These constant accusations have been very upsetting to me, regardless of other angry exchanges between users on the subject talk page.
-Markeer 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jay and Silent Bob
I've been fooling around with a new version of the Jay and Silent Bob article. If you go here you can see what I've done. It mostly consists of rewording and removing uneccessary information. The begining up to and including Chasing Amy is what I've worked on, the rest I will get to in time (absent Clerks II, which I haven't yet seen). I also removed a few uneccessary sections (locations where they deal, etc.) Once I finish, I going to start what's in the article with my new revisions. Any comments you have would be appreciated. Sixtus LXVI 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I've gone and added my new intro and new synopses of Mallrats, Chasing Amy, and Dogma to the article. Furthermore, I cleaned up (somewhat) the Animals section, and Appearences section. I deleted the uneeded Etyomology section. I can at some point clean-up the Jay and Silent Bob Section, though, as I've previously said, I haven't seen Clerks II, so I won't touch it. I tried to go over my work looking for excess commas; I try to be grammatically correct, but I do have a habbit of throwing in uneccesary commas where they are not needed. With these revisions, the article is starting to look better. Cheers. Sixtus LXVI 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scythian European Kingdoms
Markeer, let me do some research on the topic.
This is an important topic and the article looks good and much better than an average new article sent to AfD but I am not sure if it is OR or not. I will try to give some responce today abakharev 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply and your attention to the page. I am not at all an expert on the article subject, but the nature of the (seeming) personal attack in the AfD nomination sent a red flag up for me. In other words, I'll leave it in your hands now, and thanks again for looking into it. -Markeer 02:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
that's perfectly alright -- you see, admins don't have any more rights. I cannot prematurely close the discussion simply because I want to. Admins can act on a closed discussion's result, but they cannot prejudice it. I do think the sumbission to AfD was a bit premature, since everything could have been fixed by a move and subsequent serious cleanup, but since it is on AfD now, we can as well let it sit it out. regards, dab (ᛏ) 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a few links you recently provided to articles associated with The L Word. Please refer to wikipedia's guidelines regarding self-promotion and advertising. Looking at the history of this wikipedia account, it seems to only exist to promote fansites so possibly you were unaware that this is generally not appropriate for wikipedia. -Markeer 15:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dispute About Links
MARKEER: I've removed a few links you recently provided to articles associated with The L Word. Please refer to wikipedia's guidelines regarding self-promotion and advertising. Looking at the history of this wikipedia account, it seems to only exist to promote fansites so possibly you were unaware that this is generally not appropriate for wikipedia. -Markeer 15:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
FANDOM ENTERTAINMENT REPLIES: I was unaware that being new to Wikipedia made one ineligible to post links. I have yet to come across that rule.
On virtually every page relating to the L word is an entry for: AfterEllen's L Word section Comprehensive news, reviews, interviews, recaps, and polls related to the series.
This entry *never* gets deleted, yet it is an "advertisement for a commercial web site." Either all links to commercial sites get deleted, or mine stays. I'd be happy to argue this to whatever authority at wikipedia you choose to take this up with.
The *reality* is both sites house two of the biggest fan collections for anything related to the L word.
Why are there links in wikipedia if not to provide users places for more information.
Both sites should stay.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FandomEntertainment"
- That's a fair argument, although my response would be that both sites should go, not stay. I've started a section on the L Word talk page to seek consensus on criteria for fansite links. Please feel free to add your voice there. If you have another comment to make to me personally, feel free to add it either here or on your talk page (I've added your talk page to my watchlist for the next couple weeks so I'll see it either place). -Markeer 16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:CylonPumpkin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CylonPumpkin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The X-Files
I want to thank you for your comments at the X-Files peer review. Your comments are very helpful indeed. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 06:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother I'd Like To Fuck
Speedy closed :) Glen 08:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spanish Gibraltarians
Hi Markeer: There is a huge mess going on with this article which was deleted, undeleted and deleted again without the adequate consensus. Could you please give your vote/opinion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_4 when you have the time.
Thanks alot
--Burgas00 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I've done so, although to be honest your request kind of feels like vote-stuffing. As it happens I agree that the deletion decision seems specious though, so I've given my opinion there. -Markeer 16:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:American way.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:American way.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr 09:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spanish Gibraltarians
Sorry about that. Actually i was not accusing Gibnews personally, whom i do not believe is using sockpuppets (i think he just made a mistake) and with whom i get on quite well despite our arguments. I just feel that its not normal that people are just signing up just to vote on this Afd and then never using their account again. I will erase my comment if it is percieved as a personal attack.--Burgas00 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not worried about this particularly the users in question are Gibraltarians I have encouraged to take an interest in wikipedia and who hopefully will continue to do so. Any mistakes of mine have been carefully coreckted.
The problem with 'Spanish Gibraltarians' is hard to convey, but arises from the different meanings of 'Spanish'. That there are Gibraltarians today with Spanish ethnicity is not at dispute, that there ever was a group identified with Spain is false and manufactured for political purposes.
user:vintagekits has an anti-british agenda and does not see the difference between Gibraltar and his perception of Irish politics. He is attracted to this dispute as a result of the Gibraltar solution to terrorist visits.
--Gibnews 09:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Confused - the sequence would be that Burgas00 left a message on your page and I left a comment after it, and corrected the title. Only cranes have 'gibs' :)
- I'm pleased to note we seem to have a consensus version, which is in line with recent trends of Spanish/Gibraltar co-operation. Merry Xmas the war is over. --feel free to remove this topic from your page. Gibnews
[edit] Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Good catch on that one - it's definitely a copyvio as seen from this version of the page from the Wayback Machine. I've therefore tagged it for speedy deletion - I'm not an admin but I think the case is clear-cut now. I found it by following the link from Evel Knievel. Graham87 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sarahshahi.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sarahshahi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LANDesk
Just wanted to suggest that you take a look again at the LANDesk article that was nominated for deletion. After a brief investigation, I think it is is notable enough to stay in, I'm hoping you will agree. Crypticfirefly 04:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
