User talk:Mark Miller

This is Mark Miller's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

3RR

Since you've declined my request to have to block waived, I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating the 3RR. As I explained on my talk page, and as is explained on WP:3RR, a violation of the three revert rule consists of four or more reverts within a 24 hour period, not just a single calendar day. The edit I posted to the AN3 case was made at ~20:00 on Jan 10, and your other three reverts were all before ~20:00 on Jan 11. As for your other concerns, keep in mind that I did post a message to the aritcle's talk page informing both you and he of the incivility. However, his actions do not justify your 3RR violation. Okiefromokla ^questions? 14:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Costume coordination

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Costume coordination, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Attempts to find reliable sources has failed; not encyclopedic in its current form.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- smurdah^{[citation needed]} 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:800px-Superman Returns production1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:800px-Superman Returns production1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading free images to Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [1]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File talk:Marcus Antonius1.jpg

A tag has been placed on File talk:Marcus Antonius1.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

An edit of yours (I think) is being discussed here: [2]. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. YOU brought up a talk discussion on a proposed split. ( I may even have gone as far as actualy splitting the article...I can't remember at this point, that was just before I had to move back with my parents to care for my mother , who died in November ) in regards to another user and their copy and paste merges. I DO NOT COPY AND PASTE. --Amadscientist (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what is going on now.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Roman society

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at User talk:Dank55/Apr.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More info - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ancient Roman society

I have nominated Ancient Roman society, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Roman society. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere else to put your valuable contributions

Hello,

In case you were not aware of all other wikis, I'd like to let you know of the existence of Wikademia. It seems much more likely to welcome your valuable contributions, rather than simply delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikademia (talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Rostra Vetera.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rostra Vetera.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Favonius

I have just started an article on Marcus Favonius but am unable to find his dates anywhere. Would you be able to help in this regard? Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Canneryerazorback.jpg

File:Canneryerazorback.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Canneryerazorback (1).jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Canneryerazorback (1).jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic

What you did with "Damnit, Janet" is called a "cut-and-paste" move, and they aren't allowed, because it screws up the article history. I've requested that it be repaired, but that means they are going to have to delete the page for a bit. Please use the "move" tab to move things, and, if it won't let you, use WP:RM to request that an admin do it.—Kww(talk) 11:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at Kuyabribri's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek love

Thanks for your message. I think there is a difference between something being a hoax and its being used for propaganda or campaigning purposes. Having looked at the talk pages, I do now see that your position is more nuamced than the knee-jerk one I thought I saw from your insertion of all those tags. My view is still that the concept of Greek Love, (in the sense of how writers from the nineteenth century onwards have used their interpretation of ancient pederastic relationships as a model for possible contemporary relationships,) is an appropriate on for articles subject to there being suitable Reliable Sources that aren't propagandistic. Unfortunately it's a topic where google can rapidly bring one to more interesting pages tha might be desired. For example, when chasing up a mention of the International Journal of Greek Love I discovered an online copy only to notice after the visiting the page that it belonged to Vereniging MARTIJN. No doubt my IP address has been taken by the powers that be.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I like that you took toe time to write here but I didn't even know about the talk page until you mentioned it. I don't like that you accused me of vandalism when ignoring others when I was writing my response in the comment lines. That should be clear. You talk about bad faith but looks like you showed the bad faith even against the evidence. And the definition I was talking about is the Nr.2 you put up above. That's straight from Freud with the thing where the id's impulse needs to be sublimated into something society will accept. In this article that means the unwanted sexual impulses for boys is sublimated into platonic love. Before Freud this idea of sublimation didn't exist. So that's my problem. The article says that this is the original meaning of platonic love but in fact its a Freudian idea.--TheDecanome (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mad. You were right to bring this matter to general notice but you need to step back from the debate and let matters take their course. I think you should remove your last comments regarding 'pro-paedophile supporters' as there is no proof for this accusation, whether or not it's true, and because your views are over-represented in the debate. I'm convinced the article Greek Love reflects the attitudes of editors who see no difference between pederasty and homosexuality but I don't think we're dealing with a conspiratorial network. On the other hand, the misuse of sources could be evidence of propagandist activity, particularly if there are just one or two editors responsible for it. The same editor(s) could be responsible for misusing sources in other articles also. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Mad. You are obviously trying to be very constructive in the debate about Greek Love but you mustn't keep changing your position and you must stop trying to anticipate which way the debate is going. That approach simply undermines the case against Greek Love. The article is a shambles and it will always be a magnet for POV-pushing pederasts. The term Greek Love has no clearly established pedigree and it will always be a grab-bag of loosely defined ideas. It seems almost certain that the debate is lost but it will come around again because this is an article that will always be in trouble. Incidentally, your latest contribution to the article's Talk Page is spot on and you have argued clearly and conscientiously there for quite some time. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on this on my talk page. I have made a response there. Probably you would have seen it anyway, but I thought I would draw your attention to it to make sure. Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that I was a little confused by your use of the words "you" and "your" in your comment. At first I thought "you" referred to me, as the comment was on my talk page, but then it occurred to me that, as the comment was a response to one by Dominique Blanc, "you" was probably addressed to him. I am still not quite sure, though. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark Miller. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AFD withdrawal

Response to your message is on my talkpage. Thank you. --Dominique (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of AfD template at Greek love

FYI, even if you withdraw an AfD nomination, the AfD notice should remain on the article as long as the AfD discussion is open. I have replaced it. An uninvolved non-admin (myself, for instance) can close an AfD discussion if the nomination is withdrawn if there are no delete !votes; however, it appears there are still a couple of delete !votes. An admin should close the discussion tomorrow, if not sooner. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Love again

Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. My ommission of the signature was an oversight. Is there a bit of software that can A self-puplished book is normally problematic as a source Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources. However, I've found the dispute between the three of you (Haiduc and Dominique being the other two I think of as the main protagonists here) difficult to follow. The huge growth in the talk page (approx 40K in 72 hours) Doesn't help. Only those who have this article at the top of their priority list can keep up. I've just taken my watch list back down to three figures but its size and the degree of activity here means that I don't even know what self-published work you are talking about. More can sometimes mean less as far as getting your message across.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Carmel Photo

Greetings - nice shot - can you tell me it's specific location, as I don't recognize the background as being in Carmel, which is, for the most part,fronted by houses. Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War at Carmel-by-the-Sea

This is my formal notice to you that you will be reported for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you continue with simple reversions of the Forest Theater image at Carmel-by-the-Sea. Smatprt (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you report the situation so that admin may look at your actions. Go for it!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carmel-by-the-Sea. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --

The same back to you Smatprt.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that Smatprt is Stephen Moorer who created his own autobiographical promotional article. That's just creepy.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to out other Wikipedia editors. It is considered harassment. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't verified by OTRS, I would say that you are on an unsteady footing. However, since OTRS has verified it, it would appear that your assumption is correct. However, since this editor has not chosen to identify himself on his user page, I would be more cautious in broadcasting his identity, especially if it is not something of which you have firsthand knowledge. I apologize for accusing you of harassment, but I urge you to raise issues based on Wikipedia policy and not let the discussion devolve into personal attacks (see "creepy" above). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]