User talk:Nar Matteru/Archives/2008

Please Note: If you ask a question here, I will go to your talk page to respond, unless you request otherwise.

Calley Page

Hey Nar. If you go for arbitration on the Calley article, please give me a heads up. Thanks. Equinox137 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2

Oops. Posted in the wrong section. I moved this to your user page.

This is my first warning genius

My heart bleeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.51.95 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First warning my ass, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:97.106.51.95&action=history

ellens page

i know of several instances on wikipedia where scanned images are used as references, and have never been challenged by other editors. i'm not saying you are wrong, but i would like you to point me to (link me to) the documentation which says that such practise is invalid. 142.68.83.23 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources

Pretty sure a scanned image (that could have been very easily altered) on a German fansite isn't 'reliable'. Didn't mean to jump on you, but someone could easily photoshop an image like that to be libelous and make it look authentic enough to be believed by people visiting it. Having the actual magazine as a source is much much safer in that regard. Nar Matteru (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars! :-)

Don't worry about it, mate! We all make mistakes. And of course, I'm glad that there are still good-hearted users around here at Wikipedia. :-) Neil the Cellist (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mancow Muller

I'm sorry about the undocumented edit I made to the Mancow Muller page. I've added sources this time including the actual audio from the Fox TV News interview Mancow gave on June 2, 2008. I hope those are acceptable.MMISANUT (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Zophar's Domain: New ZD Management Failings

I simply am trying to figure out this "bias" statement that you have made about my perspective. Who am I being biased towards in that section?

That new section to that article clearly stated only facts and lacked "bias". I was not defending anyone in that section. It is not my fault that some users appeared under negative light in that section, but then I did not put my own statements/words of bias in that section. If I had other resources to somehow defend them I would have, but then it actually happend that way.

Now maybe my comments seemed bias, but then I don't see anyone actually challengeing that by putting some action into it. Unless this immediate reaction of undo is supposedly a sign of that, in which case that sure doesn't solve anything. Since facts are not being challenged, instead bias is somehow being challenged. EMU-LMAO (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I require an actual reason for this supposed bias, my entry clearly only states facts based on available resources related to the time period. Unless this comment is being made purely based on my comments. In which case, I wish to challenge those comments as well, since those seem mighty accurate as well. EMU-LMAO (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A. Explaining the obvious, while information showing certain users in a negative light is not bias in itself, when half the page already consists of that (including another instance of selective quoting by yourself already above it) the page is not NPOV.

B. When your stated Goal in the edit summary is to present a certain POV, I can no longer Assume Good Faith and must question your edits.

C. Your source was supposedly an archive of their website hosted on your website, which definitely, definitely, is not a Reliable Source and automatically implies bias simply because of your ownership of it.

You are definitely free to request mediation or attempt to establish consensus for these edits on the talk page, but if you readd them without consensus, I will redelete them and seek mediation myself if it heads towards 3RR and edit warring. Nar Matteru (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Neil the Cellist

YES! That's me. I'm so glad you liked my news posting. It has generated over a quarter million views and has spawned almost half a million (~500,000) hits on Google.

I even made it to The Register, which is one of the mainstream news sources in Britain. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/18/ubisoft_pirates_fix_from_pirates/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilthecellist (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WHOA sorry for not signing my previous post. I see a bot has done it for me. Neil the Cellist (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Email me when you get a chance. neilthecellist@gmail.com . Thanks. Neil the Cellist (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Coy article

Why did you remove my contribution? What do you mean it was too long? I've read longer sections on different pages. I'm kind of confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countacolor (talk • contribs) 09:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The length should also reflect the notability of the person in question. Theres a lot more notable people than this no name rapper who only passes notability for eating out a nine year old, and most of their articles are much much smaller.

Secondly, the article should be about the person as a whole, when there's more information about a single court case (after your edits 80% of the article was devoted to it) than the rest of the person, it is no longer a biographical article.

I hope I'm not discouraging you from further editing, your contributions are certainly welcome, just not 20k worth on only one aspect of his life. Nar Matteru (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If the information is informative and interesting, then why does it matter? Not only that, but I always thought encyclopedias were suppose to contain a lot of information about someone. Countacolor (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I mean, for Micheal Jackson, theres aSeperate Article for his incidents. However, Micheal Jackson is much much more notable than Carlos Coy. His music has mostly local popular support, and like you stated, the attention given to his case is also pretty local (though it did make it to the news here in Louisiana) Nar Matteru (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I posted it because there is a lot of controversy surrounding the case. It was a high profile case in Texas. Many people believe he was wrongfully convicted and vice versa. I thought I could put things in perspective. It also took a lot of time to write all that up, and the information does pertain to him. Would it be better if I made a whole new page for it? Countacolor (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try condensing it down a bit and weeding out any opinion by other people (the state psychologist was an expert witness in the trial, so she can stay, but the sample of the trial transcript is a bit much, would work better as an external link) Actual evidence against his conviction is definitely welcome, just try and keep it smaller. Nar Matteru (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Coy Redux

SPM Regards

Look im just stating the facts the nine year old girl said in court that "it may have been a dream" fuck im just stating the facts

76.218.76.143 (talk) 23:44, December 29, 2008

It is not a "fact" unless you can provide a source, which you did not. And frankly, there has been way too much of this whole "FREE SPM" bullshit and "he didnt do it" nonsense lately, that I have no option but to call it vandalism. Repetitive, Organized anon vandalism. And don't delete other people's comments from my talk pages. Nar Matteru (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a picture of Bob Guccione

The picture you keep posting of Bob Guccione is not him. It may be a picture of another Bob Guccione, but certainly not the one referenced in this Wikipedia biography. Here is a picture of Bob Guccione from a reputable source, New York Magazine, in 2004 and as you can see there is no resemblance: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/n_9815/ Here are more pics: http://www.planetvictoria.com/guccionegirls.jpg, http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.observer.com/files/imagecache/article/files/Deeds-BobGuccione1V.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.observer.com/2007/bob-guccione-never-heard-him-you-re-milbank-mansion&h=374&w=250&sz=21&hl=en&start=1&sig2=fMtyc2lw29y4BwrOabmhnw&um=1&usg=__FbVRW18t7YKImI38pexIbLGtRqI=&tbnid=5NngudIZcAincM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=82&ei=rx63SNDwK6KSee_KsZwD&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbob%2Bguccione%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artista32 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC) --Artista32 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Free software edits

Hi,

You might want to read the ongoing discussion of this issue before making reverts like this on the grounds that there is a "proper name" for the OS. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Shield Season 7

Thank you for the kindness. Someone seems to have deleted my Shield contribution however. I've put it back up. I'm new at this, so when ever you get a chance, would you please look it over and make sure everything is in order. Thank you. Exilo (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nisour Square Massacre - LTC. Mike Tarsa Investigation

[1]

I don't have time to do so, but I hope you could attend to this item:

Investigations

I hope someone will update the article to include information found by the US Army Investigation shortly after the event. US soldiers: Blackwater attacked fleeing Iraqi civilians 'American troops investigating the deadly Sept. 16 incident in Baghdad found no evidence that security contractors were fired upon.' By Arthur Bright [1] Blackwater Guards Fired at Fleeing Cars, Soldiers Say 'First U.S. Troops on Scene Found No Evidence of Shooting by Iraqis; Incident Called Criminal' By Sudarsan Raghavan and Josh White [2] Blackwater: From the Nisour Square Massacre to the Future of the Mercenary Industry [3] stephen 12.156.61.100 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Maria Ozawa

Hi, Nar Matteru. I restored that blanking last night because it was unexplained, and I couldn't see any obvious reason for it. The anon left a note at my talk page expressing concern for Ms. Ozawa's privacy. I think this is a valid concern, and have left a note here with an admin who has experience in this sort of thing. In the meantime it might be a good gesture to "***" out the name at the talkpage, but I'll leave that up to your judgment. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Nar Matteru. The admin has responded at his talk page a bit indecisively, but implies that the current state (asterisks) is best... What I've gathered in situations like this is that if the person's real name is known through reliable secondary sources, it is fair game. How a school yearbook falls under reliability, I don't know. But as I assume it doesn't say, "so&so is the the famous porn star Maria Ozawa", I would guess it is not a reliable source for this information... But again, this name is not used in the article, only at the article's talk page... Another odd thing about this case is that here the anon uses Ozawa's alleged real name at the talk page of the editor who posted the comment. Strange that s/he objects to the name at one talk page, but uses it him/herself at the other... Anyway, the present state seems to be equally (un)acceptable to all parties involved, so I suggest we leave it how it is for now. Dekkappai (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear, I was asking for proof that this yearbook exists, not because I am some sort of psychopath. The reason I used the alleged name was so as to not draw attention to my request. 92.10.66.187 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, 92.10.66.187-- I don't question your motives, only think it's odd to write the name at the other talkpage while removing it from the other... Perhaps that one needs asterisking too? Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea92.10.66.187 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nar Matteru. I'm sure I'm as anti-censorship as you, but I don't think that has a bearing on this case. We just don't have a source for her real name-- Even though it may be the truth (I really don't doubt that it is), a school yearbook is not going to say what she later took as a stage name. So, I'm anti-censorship, but pro-getting-our-facts-straight-and-backing-them-up-with-sources. So, if you find a good source that does give her real name, I'll be right there with you saying we should not hesitate to print it-- properly sourced. Until then, happy editing, happy holidays, and cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

regarding homosexuality/bisexuality in the angelina jolie article

I wasn't aware that it was considered heresy to suggest that homosexuality occurs in nature (it does, this is just plain fact - it has been observed in animals). Also, I don't see why gender identity disorders should be grouped with homosexuality: GID is a disorder, homosexuality is not. Homosexuality hasn't been considered a disorder for several decades, the two are about as different as can be. Msuvula (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Noone argued against homosexuality occurring in nature. If you'd actually READ my warning, you'd see that wasnt even a point of discussion. If you don't like the fact that the category LGBT includes transgendered people, take it up on the catergorys talk page, the fact is, it IS a category, and can be used as such, a person doesnt have to fit every single letter in the abbreviation to use it (and would actually be impossible with the first 2 letters) Nar Matteru (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)