User talk:Maxamegalon2000/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is my page. I guess.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Maxamegalon2000/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Durin 18:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx! Maxamegalon2000 14:23:54, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Survivor Panama

Hi. I've reverted your edit about how the tribes are going to be split up because a source has not been cited regarding that information. Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If you have a reliable, preferrably official source that you got that infomation from, please add a reference to it. Otherwise, Thanks. Jtrost 15:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'd assumed that the link to survivorfever.net at the end of the article would suffice. My bad. --Maxamegalon2000 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that the user who kept screwing with the external links violated the 3RR policy. I reported him to the admins here, and if all goes well he'll be blocked for 24 hours. You may add any comments about the situation there. Jtrost 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 3RR

The 3RR rule only applies when the page is reverted more than three times. However, I think he'll revert it again before 24 hours is up. New cases can be reported here. I've already filled out the template for the first three times. So if he reverts the page again before 15:01 tomorrow (Feb 7), put in the difference link and the time where it says 4th revert, and post it on the admin's noticeboard.

User:67.80.3.198

Previous version reverted to: 12:35, February 5, 2006
1st revert: 15:01, February 6, 2006
2nd revert: 15:31, February 6, 2006
3rd revert: 15:50, February 6, 2006
4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: ~~~~

Comments:

User has been reported twice before, but never banned. Please ban him this time.

Jtrost 23:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McCarthy and metrics

Having taken a Wikivacation, largely to make predictions about, and then to watch, the Games of the XXth Winter Olympiad, I have just now found time to respond to your comments with respect, inter al., to the locution "yards gained metric" formerly found in the McCarthy article; such response is made on the relevant talk page. Cordially, Joe 04:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Doctor Who. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. - File:Ottawa flag.png nath a nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Terre Haute, Indiana, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABA Journal

Interesting source, but please tell me that Thompson and the station had a 1987 agreement, not a 1997 agreement. --Michael Snow 04:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: If Thompson was charged with lying over an accusation he made about Stuart Grossman, what did he accuse Grossman of? Also, in the context of bar disciplinary proceedings, it would be better not to say "pled guilty", that kind of terminology really should be limited to criminal cases. --Michael Snow 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games obsession

I see you started a deletion discussion over the article Games obsession; however, I cannot find the {{afd}} tag in the article's history. Would you mind going back and completing the three-step afd process listed at Template:AfD in 3 steps? Thanks. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 20:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

What did you do to get blocked in the first place. Or what did the reason for the block say? --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 00:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Curps for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "vandalism from this IP range, sorry. Complain to mailto:abuse@sbcglobal.net, 800-648-1626"

Your IP address is 75.12.132.167.

I can't find what edits this address is responsible for. Obviously, they're not mine. --Maxamegalon2000 01:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're IP range was blocked, sorry, but it will be over soon, i'll go check the block log for ya. Sasquatch t|c 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the block log that your ISP has been the source of some grief for Wikipedia. The block expires in 24 hours and there's not much we can do until then. Sorry! But I would suggest a change of ISPs if possible. Sasquatch t|c 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can sit on my hands for a while. In the meantime, could someone revert the latest edit at Marquette University for me? The content and username just scream bad faith. Thanx. --Maxamegalon2000 01:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer that you're paying the price for someone else's abuse here on Wikipedia. I've reverted that glaring example of inappropriate editing in the meantime. Take it easy. Netscott 04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Interesting angle, but I don't think it's something for Wikipedia to get into. First of all, email addresses are not necessarily owned by only one person, and the fact that an address was used to register for two things doesn't show that the same person used it both times. Second of all, saying that someone operates a particular website based on its registration, and simply linking to the site, is pretty elementary. Whereas saying that someone has a particular account on LiveJournal is either pointless, or it requires a whole lot more context to make clear what the point is. Providing that context, and synthesizing the material so that it's not disproportionate to the article, would get into massive problems of editorializing that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. And weren't most of the LiveJournal accounts in question suspended anyway, so most of the "evidence" is gone? Anyway, too much of this is well into original research territory, so it wouldn't be acceptable. --Michael Snow 00:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage by 65.138.69.102, you're fast! They've been blocked for 24 hours. :)

~Kylu (u|t) 02:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thanks for contacting me, I wouldnt have seen your reply for a few days. I replied to that and will continue to monitor the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinclair (talk • contribs)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Maxamegalon2000! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism of Dale Earnhardt

Please don't remove facts from the article. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it false. 24.177.115.191 02:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ambrose page discussion

Maxamegalon2000,

Thank you for your points and advise. I am a little burnt out on all the discussion over this article. All I want to do is make this right. I just happened to come upon all this because it was my day off and I was checking in. I'd like an article on wikipedia, but don't see the value in it if everyone is just into fighting over it. I will survive the loss, but still think it is a little un-fair to see all of the porno starlettes getting a pass for their "up standing" and "notable" work and someone as myself (with 25 years and 2 emmy awards) scoring a big "zero" in the eyes of the general community. I had been warn about all this, but it was only after today that I really have begun to believe these warnings.

Again my sincere thanks,

Roger C. Ambrose: Production Designer (of questionable note)
Roger ambrose 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

writen by: Maxamegalon2000 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC) to R.Ambrose:

Userfy and rewrite by someone else per Sandstein. The changes certainly help, but I'm concerned that the article may be too flowery on the whole to salvage. I've always been a bit confused abot the amount of trust we're supposed to place on the information people who write their own articles add. At this point, Mr. Ambrose, I would recommend regardless of the outcome of this review that you collect as many independent sources as you can find for the article; an article based on reliable and verifiable sources will create a lot less of a fuss.

Maxamegalon2000, As I follow the discussion and arguements back and forth, I am confused by your advise to me here to collect as many independent sources as I can find for this article. If I am hearing several other editors on this, even if I did this I am not allowed to be involved in the article. This needs clarification. Additionally on the Bob Fink article/discussion I see that editors frown on even close "associates" from being involved. I want to play by the rules and get along here but as a newbie I am at a loss as to the "yes" and/or "no" of this all. Roger ambrose 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting development on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Ambrose. Ambrose is continuing to add POV material to his article through an IP, even after he seemed to agree to let a "third party" [his quotations] edit it. --JChap 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ambrose

I'm not really all that sure that the subject's involvement in an article should affect its AfD. I don't understand why your opinion on Ambrose's notability is affected by his actions at the article. I mean, when Jack Thompson (attorney) tried to add to his article, we didn't delete it, we considered his addition and decided it was vandalism. (Of course, then he threatened to sue.) If the problem is that Roger wrote the article himself, then the solution is a rewrite, not to delete. I don't think anyone is arguing against a rewrite. --Maxamegalon2000 00:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. I didn't participate in the Thompson discussion, so I cannot comment knowledgeably on it. My problem with his actions is this. He created his own page. It was deleted. He created it again several days later. I put this into AfD. He claimed not to know that you cannot recreate a deleted article so soon and that writing your own article was frowned upon. There was extensive discussion about this with him. As a result of this discussion, he promised to let a "third party" create the article. (No one commented at the time that he put the words third party in quotation marks.) Batman2005 indicated his willingness to try to work on the article. After that, Ambrose goes back (a short while ago) and makes blatant POV edits to his article. Now he claims (on the AfD page) that he did this because we did not give him a definite "NO." I know we are supposed to assume good faith here, but his actions tell me he is going to POV push this thing. I think the AfD page speaks for itself. --JChap 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't. You're right. I originally nominated the article for deletion and was only pursuaded to tentative keep by Batman2005. I agree that there are a lot of non-notable people on Wikipedia, but do not think that this is an argument for adding more. He is at best a borderline case. The benefit of having this information in the article is not worth the danger that it will turn into a vanity article (we miss too many already) and make Wikipedia look silly (since he'll be linked from a disambig, there will probably be hits on this page, at least by people misclicking). This was a bit of a pity keep for me (and that's not commendable on my part either). I'm going to take 24 hours and cool down before I make any final decisions on this one, but would welcome any further thoughts you might have in the meantime. --JChap 00:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, thank you. Roger ambrose 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.J. Averell

You seem to have been exceedingly cordial and cooperative with the anon editor (who, as you say, has himself been willing to comport his editing with our policies), for which you are to be commended (were I not so tired, I'd give you a barnstar; perhaps I'll find one tomorrow). I dropped a note at Talk:B.J. Averell and at Hexa's talk page offering my thoughts on the matter, and I'll try to watch the page in order that I might offer guidance to him as well. For now, though, you seem to have the situation well in hand, and it is to your credit that, through your civility, you've recruited an ostensibly intelligent individual to the project (it's possible, I think, that he/she will stay after having dealt with the Averell article; in any event, you've surely ensured that at least one prospective public relations problem will be avoided). :) Joe 06:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for linking me back. You seem to have things under control, great work on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinclair (talk • contribs)

I replied to your note on the talk page; in short, I agree with you that Hexa, though surely acting in good faith and abiding by our policies and guidelines on the whole, removed some information that is appropriate and consistent with our principles. You're more familiar than I with the subject – at the very least, you've been involved with the article longer than I–so I'll let you handle the relevant revisions (namely, returning the "late for flight" factoid and the lawyer quote and crafting a brief entry about Averell's campus candidacy, one without trivial details but also one that's not sanitized simply for Averell's benefit), but I'll certainly back up any action you take consistent with your talk page post and the general principles on which we agree. Cordially, Joe 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Roger C. Ambrose

FYI: I have posted a comment: [1]
Roger ambrose 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Talk Page

Hi. I made a new post on the Wii talk, wanted to let you know. I put it on the current Wii Talk Page.aido2002 21:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagi AFD

I posted a message like this on the Tagi AFD page. It was for you and three other editors. You wanted to make it a redirect. I said that if Tagi becomes a redirect why not every tribe in Survivor history? What makes it special?TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Wii Links

Thanks for notifying me of the link "screening process". I never would have known otherwise. I have brought it up on the Wii talk page as you suggested. huntersquid 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

You did four non-vandalism reverts in the Dwyane Wade article in less than 24 hours, and using pop-ups as well. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Man. thanks for the heads up. I can't figure out why people were attacking the Sci Fi listing, it seems like it got railroaded even when the final consensus was to keep them. rxdxt 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii

Hi, keeping those links is against Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Please read my comment at Talk:Wii. Mushroom (Talk) 15:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aphilia

Actually we use this term in university and I know some other universities use it. Zyprexa is assciated. Thank you for your patience.Tommymyers 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNA iMPACT! ratings

Hi. The tag that was removed by User:70.134.108.151 was a proposed deletion tag, not a speedy one; it's removal was the proper procedure. I'm sure your edit was just a mistake. --Maxamegalon2000 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Mistake noted. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 20:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson

Care to explain your reverts? Under WP:RS a primary source such as the one used, is perfectly fine at Wiki. If you have a problem with it, state your reasons so that I can know what they are or if you are violating WP:DICK. Ramsquire 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I see what you are saying. I'll check the AP to see if they have anything on it. That should be sufficient. I apologize if I came across as angry, but without the explanation, I'm sure you can see why I'd be wary that I might simply be dealing with a vandal. It's all good now, though.Ramsquire 22:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can you vandal lock the Thompson article again. GP did another story on him, and the vandals came out of the woodwork.--Tollwutig 15:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Storyline

I will not revert your edit, but please note that an article having survived an AFD has no bearing whatsoever on that article being edited, including being turned into a redirect, or, even, it being deleted again. Wikipedia:No binding decisions. Also note the result of the AFD was "keep and cleanup", so I might suggest that you perform said cleanup, and perhaps my concerns about the article will be resolved.-SB | T 04:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Salman Khan Article

Hello! Maxamegalon,

Absolutely great job done in reverting the vandalism, on Salman Khan's article. My best wishes and warm regards.

-LuckyS

Canadian Idiot

Here, since you're so damn sure that "Canadian Idiot" isn't a real Weird Al song, then you can download it yourself.

I have removed the provided link, though I will gladly attest to the accuracy of the above description. --Maxamegalon2000 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to have lyrics. Can you post them on this talk page please-User:Yoda's Yoda's Can you please put it as a directlink on my talk page-User:Yoda's Yoda's

Dwayne Wade

Hi -- I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwyane_Wade&diff=prev&oldid=75355614

I just thought that was strange. Browser bug? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I did get your message and have sent a reply. It supposedly was sent successfully, but my email program did appear to hang during the process, so maybe it didn't go through properly. If you haven't received it yet, let me know and I'll resend it. --Michael Snow 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Providence, Weird Al, Et. Al.

Why are fan websites and other interviews not considered spam but our interviews are? You say WP is not a vehicle for advertising, but I fail to see how it's any different than a fan website, which is a personal website. By that rationale it seems logical to me to delete all fan websites; that distinguishing between leaders and non-leader websites can be a subjective line to cross. I guess I can understand reviews but not interviews since it's content, which you (and the FAQ) mentioned before. If you notice, we have no advertisements on our site and we're not commercial. Is it because we have opinion? You allow an Onion article on the Weird Al page and they're obviously a commercial site. I would appreciate clarification.

Mhudson3

Thank you for your greeting

I already log in with name user:Saeng Sayam. This is last time for editing page in wikipedia with IP address. ````

New Question

Ok, so I have a question regarding all of this commercial website stuff because my editor is asking me why we can't add stuff and maybe he has a good point, I don't know.

Let's take Jericho for an example. There are external links to TV Squad reviews and TV.com listings, both of which are commercial websites and have ads (whereas we don't). You could debate the whole TV.com thing as legit, given it's just listing, but these are hardly single-topic websites like Fallout @ Kryptonsite. They both go to the Jericho category for those sites, which we have done with other similar shows like Studio 60, etc, that you've removed.

Even BalthCat says in the discussion pages when asked about adding links, "Anyone can review a show and put it online." and he/she is absolutely right. And yet the link is still there.

I've read the FAQ and maybe I'm missing a nuance here and if I am, please explain. I'd like to know what the difference between us and TVSquad.com is as far as what makes them legit and not us. Maybe they add trivia and stuff about the show, I don't know, and that's what makes the difference in the wiki world. But on the surface, it appears to be the same situation.

Thanks for the help.

--Mhudson3 22:04, 04 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question

My artical has been marked for speedy deletaion. I posted my reason why it should NOT be delated. I don't get any replys.

Thank you for your response

Hi, Maxamegalon2000. I am Meno25. Thank you for your response on my question here.

--84.36.143.135 17:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson Part Two

Hey, just a requests. I can understand, with the scrutiny on the Jack Thompson articles (like the WP:OFFICE issue earlier this year), how you hold references in that article to a higher WP:RS then other articles, and I've tried to update that on the article's talk page, but just a request.

Even if you don't feel that the reference belongs in the article, don't revert the other changes I made (with regards to paragraphs) blindly. It's not really a big deal, but it makes the article more readable etcetera, and should be kept in the article even if the WP:RS doesn't meet the (at least to my mind) absurdly high standards. Yes, you don't want every two bit gaming site jumbling up the article, however, higher quality gaming sites SHOULD be used as WP:RS in the article.

Thompson even admits it's true [in this article] However, that has not stopped the attorney from attacking Take-Two in a flurry of e-mails sent out to media outlets. "The motion to show cause filed by defendant Take-Two is a transparent, panicked attempt to cover up the misconduct, including the fraudulent misrepresentations to the public and to this Court, by its employees and its counsel, Blank Rome," Thompson said in an e-mail.

"If this court in any fashion proceeds toward issuing a show cause order, given its utter baselessness and the bad faith goo in which it slithers, then Thompson will add whatever judge should do so as a defendant in the aforementioned federal civil rights action," he said, referring to the case he brought to halt Bully's sale. (Emphasis in the original.) "Plaintiff has seen arbitrariness from judges before in his thirty years of practicing law, but nothing close to this. If the federal judiciary must restrain this Court and punish it, then so be it."

I will also post this to the talk page.

Sorry for the extra long post. Thanks! SirFozzie 05:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rational discussion, it may be an "agree to disagree" situation, I guess :) Oh well, if we agreed all the time, life would be boring, huh? Anyway, as I said on the talk page, I restored the paragraphs but NOT the disputed info. SirFozzie 05:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tuck Profit

You have marked my page on The Tuck Profit for deletion, citing it as a Non-notable student newspaper. Although it is not the official student newspaper of the Tuck School of Business (that would be the Tuck Times), I assure you that this is a legitimate online publication that is enjoyed by the students at Tuck. Please let me know exactly what your objection to this page is so that I may address your concerns.

Weird Al links

Thanks for catching that. I removed those sites in error. Cheers. L0b0t 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

You're right. I should not have removed the speedy deletion tag. I apologize for that. My concern with tagging this article for deletion is that "notability" is a subjective term that has never been adequately explained as far as Wikipedia's policy is concerned. It seems to me that several criteria apply to "notability" - those who rise to the pinnacle of their careers and those articles which are connected to others within this database. I believe this article meets both of those criteria.

Reply to Message

I was not trying to get the article deleted. I was just trying to type an article for the Pokémon and screwed up. I am sorry if I gave you a false impression.--Linkmasta 04:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I did add {{hangon}} to notorious ali. Lebo Thug 06:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nbajunkie.com

what the hell are you talking about? do you have the right to block me? and do you have the right to remove links that i enjoy watching? i would say no to all of the account. i watch your history and you seem like trolling around editing tons of pages. why dont you stick with subjects that you love instead of threatening other wikipedians. thanks. --User 76.185.122.79