User talk:Mr Adequate/Archive

Welcome

Hello, 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:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice welcome. Mr Adequate 03:16, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From User:69.84.106.48

Thank you. I understand.

I have contributed in the past in varied niches and I am aware of Wikipedia policies. I also take them seriously and hope to one day become a permanent contributor in different areas.

Some of the links I have added belong to websites that took years to make, literally. Websites that have been built entirely by hand and edited by professional editors. I ,of course, respect your opinion greatly but feel offended that it took you no time to judge months of work. Perhaps, you would like to think at 'my dropping of links' as spam, whereas I like to think of this as 'giving something of value' to users who only get crap, for the most part.

Something of value in this niche means free quality pictures and true information obtained after research, no games and no scams. I doubt you took any time at all to look at the free sites, since this is what they were. As opposed to just commercial links. The line is not always that clear. I could have also added interesting and useful text information on many of those pages but this requires not days, but weeks of work.

Since you are probably more experienced than me I would be interested in more of your feedback.

P.S. I have been working as an adult webmaster for serious and large companies for over 5 years, therefore, there might be something of value I could contribute in this particular field... (We were born on same date: Feb. 16, 1962) Best regards.

*added* If IMDB is not a commercial site I may have misunderstood the definition of what a commercial site is... IMDB has links everywhere. Could you please share the philosophy by which links to their site are accepted? Perhaps, this will help me get on the right track. Thank you.

Village Pump

Ok, will visit VP. Thank you.

Complaint

Hey there Mr.Adequate, why dont you try looking at resources before classifiying them as spam, I am a regular contributor when I am logged in under my name, these sites are not even mine but thanks for the notice. READ STUFF BEFORE YOU CLASSIFY IT AS SPAM, THIS CONTENT IS VERY SPECIFIC TO THE TOPICS, AND INCLUDES NO COMMERICAL STUFF ON THE PAGES WHAT SO EVER.—preceding unsigned comment by 134.114.39.149 (talk • contribs)

Your claims that your edits were good would be more convincing if you did not immediately after posting on my talk page go and remove categorisation that I had put on an entirely unrelated page. If you think my edits are unjust, please raise the matter at the Requests for comment page.-Mr Adequate 08:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

United States

When was it up to you to decide whether content is valid to delete or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flackson (talk • contribs)

It's a consensus. I think your edits are vandalism, so I'm reverting them. If you are not a vandal or a troll, then I suggest you post to WP:VIP to complain.-Mr Adequate 02:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What consensus? If what you mean by consensus is a panel of AMERICAN judges, that's what we call dictatorship.

I mean the consensus of many editors on Wikipedia. I see a couple of other editors have agreed with me. For what it's worth, I'm not an American.

The editing pattern of 70.27.46.241 (talk · contribs) is very similar to yours. You have a very strong ally there.-Mr Adequate 03:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Cold war

Thanks. I will need to get further clarification and authorization from Jimbo to post the Museum URL on various Cold War event and related pages. I have sent him a few emails this evening asking for help, sine the UTL links were being removed. What would you recomend I do so that the links do not keep getting removed and I do not waste my time.

Thanks,

Gary

Reply to a "test" message

Hey dude --

I got your message. Thanks, I will try to edit from the Sandbox now. I had no idea that was even there. Thanks very much!

-- User:Radfox

Religious beliefs about the fate of the Universe

Ok here is the deal, I wrote down a whole paragraph of the religious belief about the fate of the universe. It took about 30 minutes to type it all and check spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. And 5 minutes later you go and delete it. You said it was irrelevant.. How could it be irrelevant to the matter when they are pertaining to the same subject?? dorJ 12/31/05 2:51 a.m.

Actually, you wrote about a Christian belief about the fate of the universe. You missed out every other religion, and you probably didn't cover the range of Christian opinion on the subject adequately.

When people look for an article entitled Universe in an encyclopedia, they expect to see the scientific article. Even Christians expect this. To see an article on religious beliefs, look under the various religion categories.-Mr Adequate 21:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello, Mr. Adequate. I just noticed an edit you made at Margo. You removed a link to here [1]. It was titled, "Margo and Eddie Albert Marriage Profile". I followed the link from the version previous to your edit, and there seems to be a great deal of information there that provides a citation for the material in the article. Indeed, the information from that link could be used to expand the material that exists in Margo in its current version. I feel the title of the link may have been unfortunate, but that the information it ultimately reveals is sound and comprehensive in terms of the dates and particulars of crucial events in the subjects life, but also of her progeny. Perhaps to retitle the link to " Some Particulars of Margo Alberts Private Life", or some other thing you may find more suitable. I feel it is a relitively important addition to the article, as it provides some citations for the material contained within it. I will restore it, with this explanation copied to Talk:Margo. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this explanation for doing so. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 12:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed several such links because I thought they were spam. Some were added in batches by anons (but now I see that some - including the one in Margo - were added by User:Pitchka, who is a user in good standing), the site is ad-supported, and while they do contain information on their subjects, that information is (I believe) just a hook to get visitors to the site. This is to say that my removal of the links was in good faith. Since you believe the links are of use, I will remove no more of them, and apologise for any trouble I have caused you.-Mr Adequate 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologise! I had no doubt that your edit was made in good faith. As I was trying to point out, the way thelink was titled made it sound somewhat "lightweight", at least to me, so when I restored it, I renamed it as well. Believe me, I appreciate fully an editor who is trying to remove spam! So I extend an apology to you, if in any way you felt my actions or comments implied that you were hindering rather than helping the project. Regards! Hamster Sandwich 12:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right.

It bugs me when people jump right in and make big edits without learning any of the policies and guidelines (like no original research), but you're right. I was a bit too rude and User:Mindbodyfitness should still be given time to learn about Wikipedia. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, if someone makes an edit which is not just a test i.e. inserting offensive words into articles it is best to use {{subst:bv}} , Thanks Arniep 23:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. I like to assume good faith; if someone is just testing to see if they really can edit an article, does it make a difference if they insert "Johnny was here", or "Penis"? What if that article was Sex? I don't like to use {{bv}} as a first warning because it's a level three warning, but the predecessor to it is {{vw}}, which is actually more mild than {{test}}. I have tried to find more occasions to use {{bv}} since your note, but usually I think I will reserve it for the vandals who put offensive images into inappropriate pages.-Mr Adequate 08:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Arnie is on a campaign to get people to use bv, a position no one I know supports. Generally, it is considered best to use test1-n through test4-n, and not violate WP:BITE. bv is not something you try to use, it is what you use when you feel the situation is extreme and test1-test4 are inadequate. bv is a recent template, and there was much controversy over even having it, because of the fear it would be over-used. It seems the fears were well-founded. Not only is it being overused, someone is campaigning to attempt to get others to over-use it as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am just trying to cut down on the amount of vandalism. I'm certain that the system at the moment is not working efficiently so I'm trying to do something about that. I realise now that the best way is to create a new proposed policy or guideline which is something I am going to do shortly. Regards Arniep 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, except that you do not have support for a new policy or guideline yet, one isn't even in the works, and you are going against current guidelines, and posting your opinion as though it were already policy. Please rephrase your post so that rather than "You should..." it more accurately states "In my opinion...". KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Adequate

I appreciate you efforts at keeping Wikipedia neat and tidy; however, this evening you removed several external (and relevant) links that I added to many articles. I am a librarian, and not a spammer. I sometimes neglect to sign in, but that does not mean that links I have added are not relevant and pertinent to the topic. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports are the public policy research arm of the US Congress. This legislative branch agency works exclusively for Members of Congress, their committees and their staffs. For more information, visit the CRS Web site at http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/. The academic library I work at is a Federal Depository Library, and we provide PDFs of these reports free for public use. The site is considered a great public service, and we get a half million hits for this research every month. Thanks for your diligence, but I just wanted you to know that I am not spamming and these are not links to a commercial site, but to an educational site. Shangrilaista

You contributed to the Science Collaboration of the Month that has just ended its run. Thanks, and let's keep improving it so it may become a Featured Article!

- Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Celebrities (categorization) on South Park

I mainly added celebrities who played a pivotal part in the episodes in question (i.e. Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson, Jennifer Lopez, Tom Cruise, Christopher Reeve, etc.) If a celebrity was the main focus of (the context of) the episode (or played an intergial part in the storyline), then I feel that they should be added. User:TMC1982

You must be joking right ?

This is equaly POV: [2] Zeq 09:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you even read the talk page?-Mr Adequate 09:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing relevant external links

Dear Mr Adequate,

I am also writing to question the removal of several relevant external links that we have recently added to country entries. They are neither commercial nor spam. Our organisation is an inter-governmental research institute with the charter to promote democracy, electoral and political issues. We have spent many man-hours and donour resources on compiling information relevant to political scientists, policy makers and students and wanted to make that information available to a wider audience. I wonder whether you even examined the links before you removed them. I do not see how the removal of these external links improves Wikipedia. It seems to only restrict access to valuable information.

We would appreciate it if you would either undo your changes or leave them in place in future.

Nicholas Cottrell, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm, Sweden

Wikipedia:External links recommends that you do not link to your own web site. My rejection of the links that you placed on every country article (from Afghanistan to Costa Rica, and presumably you would have placed them on the rest had I not intervened) is not a criticism of the quality of your website, but a reflection of the policy that Wikipedia is not a web directoy. There must be at least hundreds of websites which contain valuable material about each country in the world, and if we placed a link to each of them in our articles, it would undermine Wikipedia's value as a source of information, not enhance it. You placed not one link to your website on each country page, but four.

If you disagree with my interpretation of Wikipedia policy, you are welcome to raise the matter at a more public page. I suggest that Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) might be a suitable place.-Mr Adequate 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You might also like to consider that your links would be more relevant to the [[Elections in <country]] articles. See Category:Elections by country for a list of these. I would still urge you to request permission to post your links first, and to post no more than one link to your site in each article.-Mr Adequate 09:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)