User talk:MarkGallagher: Difference between revisions

Archives

1. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive1 — July–September 2005
2. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive2 — October–December 2005
3. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive3 — January 2006

Pghbridges.com

Saw you closed the AfD on that, and was quite pleased with the outcome, thanks! Then saw that the article got moved even though you closed it as keep rather than move without redirect. Thoughts? (I watch talk pages I start convos on, you can reply here) ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My reading of the AfD was that keeping was a better outcome than moving to Project space. However, there's no reason why radical editing decisions can't be made after an AfD is finished, and User:Radiant! was quite entitled to move it to its current location, even though the AfD result was keep. You and I might wish he hadn't, but provided he wasn't motivated by simple vote-counting urges, there's nothing wrong with doing so. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree he's entitled, heck I'm entitled to move Encyclopedia Britannia somewhere, and then be evaluated on whether it was a good idea or not, it's a wiki, after all. I just am not too keen on it being "stuck" there, which it is because the talk page redirect has history, it can't be moved back by anyone. But that's water under the dam. In accordance with the process of WP:RM I listed it there and listed my reasons why a move back would be a good thing on the talk page of where it is now., you're invited to participate if you like... Thanks for confirming that my read of your read was what you actually intended. Probably no need for further discussion here, was just asking a question... ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure the RM people will take care of it, assuming there's some people that agree with Lar. >Radiant< 11:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aliens From Hell

Thanks for the note about speedy deletions. I did read the page and I thought I had it right. I suppose it doesn't fit the Wikipedia definition of 'nonsense' but it is a load of tripe. I listed it on the Afd page and most of the editors concur with my opinion. Bombycil 03:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! —Nightstallion (?) 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

doppelgangers

It's OK. I was too slow applying the doppelganger tag :) It could have been a vandal though, so thanks for defending. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 11:56Z

Summaries

Fair enough. I tend to be a bit lazy when doing afd's, as the summaries are about to get trashed. I *do* tend to use 'em for articles themselves though :-) See here -> [1] Will try to be a good citizen and use 'em more though. Regards. --Oscarthecat 13:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination), you seem to have voted both support and neutral. You may want to have a look. --Gurubrahma 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Dear Mark,

At the article 'Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy' the cartoons about Propher Mohammed is posted. 1.3 billion Muslims are considering this as an insult. I know that an insult cannot find place in a wiki article. I would like to ask you please do something for it. We can discuss the issue without pictures too. That is totally unresponsible to put those cartoons to the article. It is very dangerous and a step towards clush of civilizations. Resid Gulerdem 19:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

Hello Mark, I'd like to query a couple of the changes you made recently to the Jewish Defence League article. The main query I have is over the changing of the location of Hebron, which is in one of the areas occupied by Israel in 1967, from the West Bank back to Israel. Clearly, that change is going to be objectionable to many people, particularly since there are UN resolutions in force calling from Israel to dismantle its settlements and withdraw its forces from the area. I'd also like to ask why you removed the reference to the fact that those killed by Baruch Goldstein were worshippers at a mosque (and according to some eyewitnesses, Goldstein did wait until they were bent in prayer before opening fire). I think that the fact that the attack was at the mosque at the Cave of the Patriarchs and that the attack is one of those referred to by the term 'Hebron massacre' are important details which help to distinguish which particular attack is being discussed. Also, those terms serve as links to other major articles. ZScarpia 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Old comment

Salutations fuddlemark. I don't believe we've met before, so I apologize for somewhat stepping out of the blue. May I inquire you sate my curiousity by telling me the point of this diff and this diff..? Nice to have meet you BTW. -Zero^Talk 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talkpage. -Zero^Talk 11:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

lol

Heh why did you unprotect that discussion? I knew they hadn't agreed to leave it alone and would come back to change it. =D --Syrthiss 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Zapatero

If you think the article is not a copyvio revert the copyvio notice. As the author of the piece Zapatancas has no authority to revert the copyvio. Why are you letting him continue? I did not put the copyvio on the article myself, please be clear about that as well, SqueakBox 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I only had Zapatancas' word for it, which is not enough as I assumed he could have been lying (if we don't assume people can lie about copyvios we will quickly gertn infected). Zapatancas made no attemopt top prove it wasn't a copyvio and I asked him to get someone else to check it ouit. According to him that is beijng disruptibve but his poor explanation was not. Do you want copyvio's on wikipedia? If so I hope you are the first in line to be sued. If you had bothered to check in the beginning you would have realised it was not me who put the copyvio on the article but from your Incidents page comment it is obvious you jumped in before investigating the situation, SqueakBox 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning template names in edit summaries

Hi, I understand the reasoning for not doing that, but I believe there's more positives than negatives gained by doing that (it's easier for me to check later what people who got the bigger warnings have been up to afterwards). I'm assuming that people who vandalize are either new users testing, and they wouldn't look much at the page histories or edit summaries anyway, or they'd be more experienced vandals, in which case they'd know we're using templates anyway and it wouldn't matter. If you really do feel strongly about this, I'm open to being convinced though :). - Bobet 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Whackjob"

I'd already checked their other contribution (as it was at the time), which was a complete nonsense article which they were removing the nonsense tag from, so I think it was fairly well-founded. --Kiand 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)