User talk:MarcGarver/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Replying with comment at Tide rolls user talk page

So now I am being told off just for "complaining" about User:Acps110?.....So it is wrong for me to talk to an administration about issues I'm having? Isn't that one of the rules here at Wikipedia? Especially knowing that the fact from [1]. Acps insulted me so I did the same. He also accused me of "making things up" on the New York City Subway articles. Psssh, it's like nowdays whenever people like me make an edit, they can just be designed as a vandalizer by other users' remarks on them and yet they still get scolded for bringing up the argument with an administrator. Alright fine, I should have not gone into stooping down to other people but if you leave me or the other user a message saying that I just brought this "issue" with an administrator, I'll ask you then to mind your business. I don't accept your message as an advice but an insult. Why should I anyway? So it's wrong for me to work out things with someone else rather than the person who is describing me as a vandalizer and you're just saying I'm just "complaining"? If you could help me out, okay. But if not, then please DON'T help me at all. When you have a time to reply, explain yourself about me just "complaining" and make sure you be more clearer with me next time. I'm in a bad mood right now so I don't have to accept your scolding message. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My explanation was clear. You complained about another editor, without the courtesy of telling them so, and that they had insulted you. I simply pointed out that if you go round insulting people then you can hardly expect them to be nice to you. This is my business as a member of the Wikipedia community. Your comment here summarises your problem - "so I did the same" says it all. If you can't be civil, don't expect other people to be. I will continue to comment on your behaviour if I see you insulting or harassing other editors; as I will comment on their behaviour if I see them harassing you. I'm not trying to help you, I'm trying to help the project by calling out uncivil behaviour, as is my right. QU TalkQu 10:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You ARE suppose to help out one another (THAT is what's also Wikipedia is about), not just sit on your asses on the computer accusing people of vandalizing and trying to harm Wikipedia! Acps insulted me first and don't even try to deny that! I'm trying to create a good project for the New York City Subway articles while Acps is just there thinking I'm just nowhere close to that and that I'm below that goal and ability! 68.194.58.106 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. As I said above I simply pointed out that if you expect people to be civil to you then you have to be civil to them; which I believe to be helpful. Indeed my comment on Tide rolls's talk page says you both need to calm down. I know nothing about your dispute and your dispute doesn't matter - if you become uncivil you'll get blocked regardless of whether you were right or wrong on the content issues. QU TalkQu 20:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is the goddamn truth! I'm am angry with Acps and I think he's the one that needs a good beat down from Wikipedia! 68.194.58.106 (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It may well be true, I'm not in a position to judge. But can't you see that you aren't helping yourself by being rude? If you are in conflict with someone then you stand a much better chance of getting a fair hearing if you remain civil regardless of what they do. QU TalkQu 12:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wendy Chamberlin

The redirect is to the wrong spelling then? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources give her name as Wendy Chamberlin (e.g., see the UNHCR which is certainly authoritative. The new article that was created, Wendy Chamberlain, was a one line stub using the wrong name; so I redirected it. QU TalkQu 20:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I was about to start expanding it and I searched for Wendy Chamberlain, a lot of sources use that spelling as well. I suppose it does not matter as it redirects. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
We'd only want one article not two on the same person so yes you should expand the one with the right name I guess. QU TalkQu 12:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting that nasty user's edits from my own talk pages. Anyway I could get them deleted so I can start afresh? I don't like editing pages that have been tampered with. And other users stole from my talk page! MusicFreak7676 TALK! 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, no problem. Yes, you can get a user page deleted by adding {{db-user}} to the page and an admin will delete them for you. QU TalkQu 22:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Good. Since several users are A) Stealing my pages and B) Vandalism them and I want to start fresh. Anyway to get my pages locked? I'm being targeted. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 22:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It is possible to have pages semi-protected to prevent modification by new users and users who aren't logged in. You'd need to make a request at WP:RFPP. It may not be granted however as generally there is a desire to allow anyone to edit - but it is worth asking. You can't prevent someone copying your work unfortunately because even if the page is protected the source can still be seen. The only way to stop that happening would be to work off-wiki somewhere. QU TalkQu 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
They didn't copy the page, they totally stole it and redirected it from my sandbox without permission from me, plus, the page was in no way allowed to be a complete page. I am taking actions against said user/IP. I'm done being harassed by people on here who continually break rules, etc. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


hey hey what up? did u miss me???? I still have those coupons. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The boss1342 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I am updating Priory School and notice that you have undone what I wrote. The school's pages need to be totally updated. Is there any way to keep what I have written as I have shown the links verifying what I have written? I would be most grateful to you for your help. Thank you very much, Best wishes NewWhippingham

NewWhippingham (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your edits was that you had copied material from the school's website - that's a copyright violation and not permitted. In addition you had taken the article away from the correct manual of style used at Wikipedia. If you can try and incorporate the new information without just pasting it into the article and without "damaging" the existing structure then there's no reason not to add it. For example, don't add headings that are all capital letters that say things like "HEADMASTER...". That's not really a title for a section. A section title would be more like "School staff". Hopefully this makes sense, have fun editing. The links I've added to your talk page may help QU TalkQu 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Quiteunusual, I have altered the page. I would be grateful for your skilled eye over it. With many thanks. NewWhippingham — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewWhippingham (talk • contribs) 16:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear QuiteUnusual - thank you very much - could you please remove anything wrong, then, and redo my information in an acceptable manner as I am a newbie when it comes to technical stuff and am disabled. Many thanks indeed I certainly do not want to violate any copyright - a person at the school gave me the information so I thought I was all right. Thank you NewWhippingham — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewWhippingham (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again!

Thank you again for fixing the vandalism to my page. I'm clearly being attacked by several members. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why has my page been requested for deletion?

I am new to Wiki and do not know the correct procedure and everything is becoming very confusing can you please explain why you have requested my new page for deletion? Can you also tell me how to go through the proper process/protocol for setting pages up that are legitimate please. Thanks

Andrew Dickie (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 6/4/2012

I may be thick, but...

You nominated Baron Sloet Van Toutenburg for deletion as an attack page. I deleted it under WP:CSD#a7, no assertion of notability, but how did you make this rather incoherent entry out to be an attack page? Just interested… Tonywalton Talk 00:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you look at the last sentence or two where it says the portrait has a likeness to a real individual who is now the subject of derision at their place of work... I suspect the page was designed entirely to attack that individual. Cheers QU TalkQu 08:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
See what you mean. To be honest I couldn't make enough sense out of it to read it as an attack page or anything else; I wasn't sure whether to delete it as "no notability asserted", "no context" or "patent nonsense". Either way, it's gone now! Tonywalton Talk 07:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Albert Herrmann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to German
Arshaluys P. Tarverdyan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Armenian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

US Postal Service

Why. Academic honesty and ethics is premised on truth in this quest. Not everyone that can read or reason is fit to answer the quest.

I posted an edit to Money Orders suggesting they are no longer reliable or even desirable forms of payment, and cited within the single paragraph edit a webpage maintained by the US Postal Service that is about as fraudulent as it is possible to be.

I'm not certain why you'd perpetuate a real world fraud, or engage in an academic one - but people should know the ins and outs of presentment of US Money Orders. Currently they appear to violate NAFTA/WTO treaties and they certainly are not even attempting reciprocity with Canada, which makes US money orders international dangerous instruments.

Now, perhaps my contribution can be polished and better placed to be noticed, but I reject the notion that any academic research would suppose these instruments "safe." The USPS is NOT willing to say exactly how much money it receives but does not pay out each year for domestic money orders. In addition, the idea that a DRAFT issued by the US Government is valid ONLY in the US and the website I referenced is also truthful is not compatible with any academic ethic.

I would appreciate very much if you want to change something and you have not done the research, you might wish to be enlightened or at least better informed before striking submissions without reason.

The fraud I wrote about has been known by the USPS OIG's for weeks, ditto Commerce and Treasury. If this is a problem in the US it is very likely more corrupt in other nations. If your research is different, please cite it when you commit a revision, or discuss the revision so you might be corrected before you act. I do not intend to offend, but find Wikipedia's participation in the fraud that US Money Orders can be trusted unsound and reprehensible. Volley36 (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a things are wrong with your edit. I've explained them below. Please take time to read the links to the policies:
  • "An official concern has been raised regarding the website at https://www.usps.com/shop/money-orders.htm which is maintained by the US Postal Service and appears facially intentionally fraudulent" who is this official raising the concern and where is it documented? Without a reference this could just be made up by you. Stating it is "official" without the reference makes it seem dubious that it is true. See WP:RS.
  • It is unknown to what extent the US Postal Service is enriched through this fraud." What fraud? You claim the US Postal Service is engaged in a fraud but your view cannot be presented here. You must provide a reference to back up this controversial statement. See WP:V
  • "Generally, it is safer to transfer money electronically than using antiquated and no longer reliable instruments such as money orders." This is your opinion. It is therefore not permitted in an article. See WP:OR.
Finally Wikipedia is not participating in anything. It is summarising and presenting verifiable facts based on reliable sources. If you can provide those then the changes you have made are fine. If you can't then they aren't. QU TalkQu 06:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)