User talk:Mareino/Archive 4

One Nation Under a Groove

Please click on the plus sign (+) tab to leave me a message
Archives: 3, 2, 1

"this user" boxes[edit]

just to let you know, you have 2 boxes that contridict each other on your user page. One states your interest in ignosticism, the other in: imagine there was no religion (an argument of the useful discussion of the existence of god.) Just thought it was weird. Somerset219 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessarily a contradiction. Both those who posit that the divinity of Jesus is an unnecessary construct blocking us from a more perfect Christian ethics, such as Thomas Jefferson, and those who posit that religious war is a necessary fact of organized religion and therefore religions must be reformed to achieve world peace, such as John Lennon, have much in common. --M @r ē ino 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dec 2005 Cover Interview Magazine.gif[edit]

You said: "You recently removed both instances of Image:Dec 2005 Cover Interview Magazine.gif (it was used on Interview (magazine) for several months; I added it to Reese Witherspoon today because someone else removed all the other images of her). You also tagged the image as "Orphaned fairuse.""

"When I uploaded the image back in December 2005, it was permissible to use magazine covers:

to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine (as was the case in the Interview article)
with the publication name either visible on the image itself (as was the case in both articles, as you can see from looking at the image)"

"What has changed in the interim that these images are no longer fair use? Thank you,"

The image was not being used in either case to depict the publication of that particular issue. In the article on Reese Witherspoon, it was being used solely to depict the person. In Interview (magazine), it was being used to illustrate the magazine generally, not the specific issue in question, though this point is a particularly subtle one. --Yamla 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your additional comments on my discussion page but have left the discussion there as it seems silly for me to continue copying-and-pasting back here. If you want me to do that anyway, please let me know. --Yamla 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people in Wilton[edit]

Was there a more specific doubt you had about the list of famous people in Wilton, Connecticut? I've known about several of them for some time (many from old news accounts), and most of the others have "Wilton" on their Wiki bio pages. If you have doubts about particular ones, I could try to keep an eye out for references in the press or other evidence.Noroton 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response

Not sure[edit]

I'm not sure if the oliver perez photo is copyrighted, but I figured it isnt because it is an ap photo on mlb.com. I understand if you have to take it off but i'm not sure if it is illegal- manfro 91

response

Cut & Paste Move[edit]

Mareino- On July 24, you moved the page High Holidays to High Holy Days by cutting and pasting the text of one article into the other. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Instead, use the "move" button (found at the top of the page). This will ensure that the edit history of the article in question remains intact. If Wikipedia will not allow you to move the page to its proposed new location, you should contact an administrator to take care of the move. --Eliyak T·C 01:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or bring it up on WP:RM. Tom e r ^talk 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that existed. --M @r ē ino 03:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikiality" in the elephant article[edit]

Hi there. I understand you are trying to help reach a compromise with the recent Colbert Report controversy (or is that too strong a word?) regarding the elephant article, and I appreciate the time you spent on it. I have reverted it, though, for the reasons I gave in the edit comment.
I've also opened up a section at the bottom of the article's talk page, where we can hopefully come to an amicable end on this whole situation. Please feel free to add comments there as you please.
Again, thanks for your great attempts to reach middle ground, and sorry if you feel I am being tyrannical in my reversions. Happy editing -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted it. I thought that this matter had already been discussed -- in fact, that the discussion had gone on far too long and was devolving into name-calling. That's why I made the edit. I also responded to the new section you added to the talk page devoted specifically to my edit. I'll give this a few hours to get some comments, though, since it's not like the article won't still be there in the morning. ;) --M @r ē ino 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Holy Days[edit]

Hi, Mareino. This is in regard to the High Holy Days article move. I moved the article, but in the future please follow the directions for placing a notice (put {{move|insert new name here}} at the top of the page) and creating a place for discussion on the talk page (you can copy and paste the text in the grey box at step 3). Thanks, Kjkolb 09:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Steel has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! -- Steel 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste[edit]

Yes, you are quite correct about cut and paste moves. As an administrator, I don't need to file a request to move pages and their history, since I have the ability to do it myself. However, the Academy Award category is a very unusual case, that does not have any policy to cover it that I know of, so I was bold and tried to improvise the best solution I could think of. It makes sense to move the category to a list, and when that happens we would want to keep the history of the category page when it gets moved. If we were to keep the duplicate page that you created until the move it would be possible that edits woud be made to both locations. Merging histories from two pages is quite difficult, and it was this potential problem that I was trying to avoid. The only edits that happend to the list were your initial copy (and my removal of the CfD notice). Since it was your initial cut and paste creation of the page that was in error, and no substantial edits of the page were made, I decided to delete the history and make a redirect. After the CfD is closed, the category page can be moved with its history. -- Samuel Wantman 19:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense. Carry on! :) --M @r ē ino 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian categories[edit]

I noticed your comment in the CfD for Category:Penguin users. I'm actually thinking of writing a proposal for Wikipedian categories, although it will probably be a couple of weeks before that happens. I noticed that you've voted on quite a few Wikipedian CfDs, so if you wanted to review it for me when I'm done, I would certainly appreciate your input! --Cswrye 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. Just leave a message here whenever your draft is ready. --M @r ē ino 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the proposal done earlier than I expected. As promised, I'm giving you first dibs at ripping it apart for me! It's at Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories. Feel free to make any edits to it or make comments on its talk page. I know that I can be a little too detailed at times, so I probably have more guidelines than are really necessary. --Cswrye 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania[edit]

I saw your comment about adding articles. If you're talking about adding artivles to the assessment, add this {{WikiProject Pennsylvania}} like it says on the assesment page. The PA wikiproject is very new and the page could use some organization. --evrik 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Monkey[edit]

Hello

Just to let you know that I took off the importance tag from this one because I belive that every album by a notable artist is notable. I should probably have put something on the talk page to that effect though, so sorry about that (I will go do so now). If you disagree with me, feel free to add that tag back on :) -Ladybirdintheuk 18:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW Project[edit]

You voted for Lee Smith (baseball), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Davodd 05:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Billionaires[edit]

Let's try to sort this out on the discussion page WilyD 02:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Asian[edit]

Why in the hell do you care?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.196.2 (talk • contribs)

Maybe because I'm a black asian -- more likely because every article should be verifiable, neutral, and well written. --M @r ē ino 14:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING[edit]

Stay off of my page. Do not, I repeat DO NOT message me again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Max1975 (talk • contribs)

What? Are you threatening me? Why? --M @r ē ino 17:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black people[edit]

Talk:Black people is large, but there are on-going discussions and unresolved disputes going on there. Black people is protected pending the resolution of those disputes, so lets not archive the talk page yet. --Ezeu 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Leibovitz[edit]

My pleasure, thanks for noticing! I made a "best guess" as to birthyear based on his university bio... If you know his exact birthdate, feel free to change the category to match. :) --Elonka 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MetsBot request[edit]

Would MetsBot be available to add {{WikiProject Pennsylvania}} to every page that has the word Pennsylvania in its title? Thanks, --M @r ē ino 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a category(s) to work from instead? It's much simpler and more reliable. —Mets501 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subcats of Category:Pennsylvania (except for Category:WikiProject Pennsylvania, which would get the bot stuck in a loop) would be the appropriate categories. Thanks! --M @r ē ino 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]

Theta Beta Potata[edit]

This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MetsBot[edit]

Also posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania

OK, MetsBot has (basically) finished tagging the talk pages of all articles in Category:Pennsylvania and the first-level subcategories thereof, except for Category:People from Pennsylvania. I will not be doing that category, as most people have no relationship to Pennsylvania except being born there. Also, second-level subcategories, third-level subcategories, etc. will not be done as it starts to get more unrelated to Pennsylvania. If there is a specific sub-subcategory that you would like me to do, let me know. —Mets501 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! That gives us plenty of articles to work on now. --M @r ē ino 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lee-Chin Article[edit]

Hi

Please can you discuss any further amends to the article on the talk page before making them - especially as regards either his own or his parents' or his grandparents' or his cat's or his dog's ancestry. I am trying to get this article to at least A status, and could do with some constructive help, please. Blowski 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am. --M@rēino 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, sorry I didn't see that you had made a note on the page. However, the point about 'discussing' means coming to an agreement with other users before making the change. If it is just a cosmetic change (such as adding a link to already existing text, or moving a comma) then OK go ahead. But if you are going to start playing around with the wording on his ancestry, then it's best to do it on the talk page so I don't have to go in and revert it straight away. I don't think anything has been libellous (as per comment on my talk page) from either of you, so I think you are both breaking the 3RR. Blowski 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatdoyou, the editor who I'm policing, is the one who came up with the idea of linking to Chinese Jamaican in the first place. All the other editors who have reviewed the article were fine with it. Are you saying that you have a problem with it? If so, just explain why and we can have a deeper discussion. --M@rēino 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've continued the discussion on the talk page. Thanks. Blowski 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Articles[edit]

You have tagged several articles relating to the zodiac as needing to be cleaned up due to a lack of distinction between fact and fiction. The articles are Mutable Sign,Fixed Sign,Cardinal Sign,Earth Sign,Air Sign,Fire Sign, and Water Sign. Your request seems to go against WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions, as all articles specifically state at the beginning that the terms are related to the zodiac or astrology. All references to "qualities" supposedly possessed by individuals under these signs are already couched in terms such as "are believed to be" and "are thought to." Changing every sentence to "are believed by astrologers to be" would just make all of the articles ugly, so I'm a bit confused as to what changes you are hoping for? --Todd 04:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response --M @r ē ino 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larrys Creek[edit]

Thanks for your support of Larrys Creek's FAC. I appreciate it very much. Ruhrfisch 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What are "pin-citations"? (My ignorance is showing). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might be guilty of legal jargon. A pin-citation is one that is "pinned" at one end to a particular spot in the article, and at the other end to a particular source. In the legal world, it particularly refers to a Case citation that gives the proper page number, since without page numbers legal citations are extremely tedious to confirm. In the case of Wikipedia, though, I use the term to refer to the way you've done up the references section with ref tags -- just click on the footnote and you have instant verification of the assertion. --M @r ē ino 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation In Chemistry there has been a switch in my lifetime to inclusive pagination in refs, so if you have an old ref, you have to go look it up again to get the last page number as well as the first (which you should do anyway, but it is tedious). Ruhrfisch 22:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Thanks again for your support and comments - Larrys Creek made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch 03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StatusExtinctW[edit]

Hi, I removed {{StatusExtinctW}} from your user page because that template also adds your page to Category:Species extinct in the wild. bogdan 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olmec[edit]

Hi, I ask an arbitration about French School. Can you give me your opinion. Thanks again. Olmeque 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

The categorization system is having growing pains. There seem to be several different view about what our category system should be; a way to browse, an index of articles, a classification system, and/or a database search tool. Each of these views leads editors to different conclusions about how categories should be populated, and many conflicts result. To deal with these problems, Rick Block and I have been working on a proposal to add the ability to create category intersections. We think our proposal will address these problems and add some very useful new features. We are asking editors and developers concerned with categorizaton problems to take a look. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet categories at DRV[edit]

My apologies for the impersonal nature of this message, but since you participated in the recent Sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin discussion, I thought you might like to know that the categories are now at Deletion Review. This is not a solicitation of a specific response, as all participating users were notified, but your input would be appreciated. Thanks! - EurekaLott 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pennsylvania[edit]

There are four articles being threatened by a merge proposal. The details are listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pennsylvania#Announcements. Would you mind weighing in (hopefully in support) of keeping the articles. --evrik 01:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]