User talk:MCB/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.

Cripes, I'll bet PA845 was interesting!

I got into this one because someone unwikified a redlink and I thought, well, why not write an article on it? Finding the NTSB report was a good start. I may have found a photograph of the aircraft, but not of the accident.

I've got some more work to do on this, but it seems like a fairly significant accident to me, in terms of 747 operations and evacuations, if nothing else.

I spent a couple of days in San Francisco in April. I had a round the world ticket to go to London and Fort Worth, and the travel agent said I had to make a third stop to get the fare, so I picked SF.

I loved the place! Two days wasn't near enough time. I had an hour or so to wait in the terminal before my flight to LAX and then back home over the Pacific, and it was really nice. There was WiFi in the terminal, my lounge was right on the end of the terminal so I had a great view, and there were some really interesting planes. Saw a few parallel landings, which was a bit of a thrill. I only took a few shots worth keeping with my little carryon camera.

We overflew SFO on the way down and I got a good shot from the air, albeit the lighting and the haze wasn't the best for photography. The flight down was good - a very wrinkled landscape, I've got to say - and then I had about five boring night hours waiting for my Qantas 747 in LAX Terminal 4. --Jumbo 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you have any more questions please don't hesitate to ask. --Canderson7 00:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I saw your name on the VfD Lenin's Hanging Order and came here. Although you are already a part of wiki-community, I welcome you on behalf of the wikipedians, and I am sure that you shall continue to be an active member of the wiki-community. --Bhadani 14:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the "copyedit" tag, as the work hasn't yet been done. I shall get to it (or someone else will), but until then the tag needs to be there (as a reminder). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recently you edited two AfD's, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with brackets in their titles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions to fix the formatting. However, removing the title of the AfD makes it impossible for someone reading the daily AfD log to determine what article people are voting on -- it looks like the votes are being cast for the previous AfD in the list. When you see that an AfD begins with the following: ==[[Article title]]==

which generates a gray line under the article title, please change it to the following instead:

===[[Article title]]===

which will eliminate the gray line. Thanks. --Metropolitan90 01:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

(Metropolitan 90, I responded on your talk page. MCB 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I am afraid you have jumped to conclusion on this one. Bala2252 has a user account and continues to add to the article so the stub designation could be removed. Please give him time to conclude his article. Thanks for taking time to read this note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.29.254 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 6 October 2005 (PDT)

Please check a page's history before marking a speedy deletion. Thank you. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting stuff from the English Wikipedia that English people can't even see with their browsers, and couldn't read even if they could see it, is neither vandalism nor gratuitous. An encyclopedia must be clear. There is a perfectly good Chinese version of this page for those who can read it. JohnSankey 18:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I (and the vast majority of Wikipedia users) have no problem seeing the Chinese characters in our browsers. Perhaps you just need a better browser (I use Firefox) or need to configure it to properly render Unicode characters. More importantly, the consensus among Wikipedians is squarely opposed to your point of view. (The characters for char siu, for example, would be very useful for English speakers to learn in order to recognize them on a Chinese menu that does not have English translations.) You appear to have some sort of agenda, and if you continue to remove pronunciation and non-Roman character information from articles, you will be warned and reported for vandalism. MCB 20:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCB,

I'm not sure if you caught my new comment in the now closed AfD, so I thought I'd drop a note. Although I admit a moment of confusion when I reread 17 US 304{b), one must remember that it does not apply for copyrights already lapsed at the time the law entered into force (1999). So, all work from 1922, renewed 1950, would have lapsed in 1998. This is why the article (and the numerous analyses supporting it (see links there)) rightly claims that anything published in the US before 1923 is PD.

This isn't my area of practice either (I handle civil rights claims), but one thing I like about WP is that it keeps me fresh. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill's verified age is 78 per the Associated Press. Gateman1997 23:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the voting for this complete? It seems to be about 5 days, and in favour of retaining the article, but I notice that User:Mirmo! (AKA User:211.245.243.189) has removed the AfD tags for a second time, regardless.

Was this justified?

Fourohfour 14:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's never justified. AfD tags should only be removed when the AfD is closed, and not by a proponent/opponent of the article, but by a neutral party (admin if the article is to be deleted). I will add a warning on User:Mirmo!'s talk page. MCB 17:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Ah, I see the removal was actually by User:211.245.243.189 and you have given a final warning. MCB 17:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Mirmo! and User:211.245.243.189 are the same person. You can look at the edits and contributions to confirm this. Same behaviour, same bad use of language, same articles. The final warning I placed was regarding a *previous* removal, and I wanted action taken this time. I asked you because I wasn't sure whether *this* removal was justified; I haven't added anything for this incident.

Obviously this time round a ban is in order, however I don't have the power to do this. And I'm linking the anon account with Mirmo via the talk page.

Fourohfour 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion -- I agree entirely. If you post to WP:VIP I will add my support. MCB 17:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there; Mirmo has subsequently messed the tags about *again*, but only received a warning. Personally, I'd have blocked him for 1 hour for the earlier offense, and longer this time, but I'm not an admin :(

Some people reckon Mirmo doesn't understand the warnings; but (a) he's been warned often enough that he should have got the message by now, and (b) If his/her English is so bad that they'll never understand this, they shouldn't be editing the English-language Wikipedia. The arrogant @#^@ even had the audacity to "correct" other people's correct English with his grammatical nonsense. End of rant.... (^_^) Fourohfour 13:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the plaintiffs counsel in a lawsuit, the results of which made Paul a Wikipedian, is relevant to the article about Paul A. Bonacci. Make your edit so that any "soap-box or Grandstanding" on the part of DeCamp, Bonacci's counsel as well as a former Senator, are removed. I only ask you leave the relevant facts in place.

Update, Thank you for allowing the name of counsel to be included. I agree that biased material does not belong in Wikiland, however is there a chance that other facts were also deleted in your edit?

Didn't mean to restore that page, sorry...

--Rage 06:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you accidentally (well, I think it was accidentally, though as a bystander in the ongoing farce that surrounds the article in question, I ain't taking nothing for granted anymore...) removed my comment when putting in your own. No big deal, I restored it easily enough, but please be a little more careful in the future... -- Captain Disdain 01:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MCB, I am new to Wikipedia editing. Thanks for noting the existence of the Millbrae Station article when correcting the SFO article. Since the Millbrae, California article mentioned the station, but didn't actually link to the station article, I assumed one didn't exist. Any tips on how I might have found the station article without knowing about it beforehand? Even the BART article failed to have the station link. Also, are there any exceptions to the "only link to an article once" rule? I can see how it would be tedious to have multiple links to the same article. Thanks for your help. 18:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message - replied on your talk page. Cheers, MCB 19:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MCB, thanks for the quick reply. I'm a San Mateo native and happy to hear from another Bay Area local. Later! Schmiteye 20:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comments on my own talk page and explained why I think the links I removed are not valid and I'm removing them again. If you feel the other links are equallly not valid or puff pieces please feel free to remove them, additionally please look at the editiong history of Mooks before reverting to his edits. Sean Bonner 05:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy MCB, I was looking at Category:San_Francisco_Bay_Area and noticed a subcategory Category:Milpitas. Any idea how the creation of that category was justified? What I was really looking for was Category:San_Francisco_Peninsula but the only thing I found was an article: San Francisco Peninsula. Do you think it is worth creating a sub-category for "The Peninsula"? Thanks! Schmiteye 19:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts on categories. Sounds like adding one more in this area is overkill. I'll let it go. Aloha! Schmiteye 02:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?

I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:

1. This list includes information which would be lost if categorized. Categories cannot list the date and manner of death in a organized manner as lists do. Categorizing would lose the info.
2. Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't apply as that rule is for people who do not deserve an article. These people played major roles in the American Civil War and therefore do not fall under the memorial clause of WP:NOT. They already have articles, and lists listing closely related people should not be deleted because they happen to be dead.

Thanks for your attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I responded on the AfD page. Cheers, MCB 22:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that -- I screwed up and clicked on the anon version instead of the correct one to revert. Good catch :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I combined the nominations for Dawn's Place, Union Jakks and Figanomics in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn's Place because all three are low-traffic websites.

Consensus is that entries for websites such as these ought to be removed, and from my experience the people that dump such articles in here will never come back to fix them up and no one else will either. So far I have been proved right – they haven't been touched up by anyone. Pilatus 17:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the Afd page for planes of existence, as it makes it a lot easier to read now. Care to vote on it? Or work on the article itself? There's also the one for lintilla (chat site) that I would appreciate more votes on. I want to make really super duper sure that they pass. Zordrac 23:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted it with the edit summary "rv apparent vandalism." The edit was made by an anon user who left no edit summary and removed a large amount of text I was going on a whim after just scanning through the deleted text. If I made a mistake you are more than welcome to revert at your discretion. Sorry for any mis-understanding this caused. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken you know how to help close AfD's? If this is the case I would appreciate it if you could explain to me how the process works. It is something I am intrested in doing. Thanks for your time. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 07:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not any better. You really should just leave references to templates on talk pages alone. "If it's not broken, don't fix it". Please do not use your bot to attempt to enforce your point of view about transclusion and subst: on talk pages. I just happened to catch this since MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.css is a page I watch, but using a bot to modify references to templates on talk pages seems to me to be violating the spirit, if not the letter, of your edit restrictions. MCB 21:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of what my restrictions are and where that page is located. Don't be a smart ass. I am working to improve Wikipedia and so are you. I've fixed the problem you reported, and done so in a way that avoids future problems. Now you can drop it. -- Netoholic @ 21:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see someone else is looking in on that page. OTOH, do you really expect the subject to be "Google Newsworthy"? AFAIK, he's never shown up there, in any capacity. Alai 13:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 15:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]