User talk:The Mark of the Beast

Archive 1

Please post below this line:

---

I do not appreciate your edits on Curt Mega's page. The first was was correct. However stating he was NOT the lead is several productions when they are clearly marked on his official resume is incorrect. I am putting those items back on the page. Please refrain from making other changes as this page was proofed by Curt himselftalk

I apologize for early not understanding that a resume or IMDB were not considered reli+able sources. I have been sourcing news source instead. I pray you will be patient with me as I figure this out. I am not trying to be rude and annoying. Mozartchic01 (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)mozartchic01

---

I edited it to show the actual word to word quote that he posted to pastebin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan nV (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You recent revert in Comodo Group

Hello.

May I remind you that supplying an edit summary for every revert is mandatory? Yes, I believe your revert was a valid one but that would not be good pretext for not supplying an edit summary. Please be careful in the future. Thanks.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It was surely not vandalism. It was a bona fide attempt to contribute something, though the result was awful. Your edit summary should have read: "Low quality contribution that lacks coherence. Also has no [[WP:V|source]] and violates [[WP:DUE]]."

I must say I have personally seen very little instances in which someone added something to the article that was indeed vandalism, i.e an attempt to ruin the article. Yes, test edits, self-promotion, COI, fanaticism and much more, but none are vandalism. The only instances of vandalism that I have seen that was done by adding material was insertion of offensive words or random characters. You can read more in Wikipedia:Not everyone who disagrees with you is a vandal.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choker(film)

Good work in catching that blatant copvio from the two-edit author. I invite you back to the AFD and the article, as my google-foo is in high gear. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Snjflame/Ahna O'Reilly

Why are you prodding this? It is not in mainspace yet, it is a work in progress in a user space. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right that BLP applies to user pages, but that page is not in violation of BLP. WP:BLP requires that controversial BLP content is always referenced on user pages. Non-controversial stuff on a draft is okay. The main motivation of the BLP policy is to prevent Wikipedia from being sued for libel. --Surturz (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

War 2007 Film

Do you have time to watch War 2007 Film (Sean Archer123 (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)).

Damian Elwes

We are dealing with a new but persistent editor. I hope they start reading the talk page comments and the edit summaries. Thanks for your good work. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Face/Off 1997 Film

Have you seen the movie called Face/Off?(99.88.78.94 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)).

Message for The Mark of the Beast

Have you seen the 2007 movie called War? Do you remember watching the movie called War? YES OR NO.(Sean Archer123 (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)).

CSD A7 on Eskabo Daan

Hi, I Wanted to let you know that I challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Eskabo Daan. In my opinion the article makes a sufficient claim of notability to survive deletion under criteria A7. Both because of the media coverage it claims it has gotten, and a link in the external links section that I have now converted to a reference. It is not really clear to me whether the subject meets the notability guidelines, so if you would like to start an AfD I wont object. Monty₈₄₅ 15:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

El Generico

How hard is it to check the reference? ROH updated their site and, in the process, also his weight. It's not hard to verify, just click on the damn link.TheFBH (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Boyfriends (Filipino band)

Hello The Mark of the Beast. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Boyfriends (Filipino band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Signed to a label notable enough for it's own article is sufficient for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  10:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

re. ESL (investment company)

My edits were not vandalism. ESL is a fraud and not a legitimate company. A quick search on google will reveal this scam. This "company" is using Wikipedia to perpetuate this fraud. If you don't like the quality of my edit, can you at least delete this article as Wikipedia is being used in this scam.

Please have a look at this site http://www.qohel.com/2011/03/02/jbc-global-and-cfs-live-stock-share-trading-scams/ for reference (search for esl on the page).

Thank you.

Forebitter (band)

I just restored the legitimate reference to Journal of American Folklore that you inexplicably removed seconds after the Wikipedia article was created. Please go to a library and get access to a ProQuest account. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not all reference sources are online sources. A reference to a notable journal Journal of American Folklore is a good reference whether or not it is available online to you or to anyone. Hard copy books and journals are heavily used in Wikipedia, in the more scholarly areas beyond the popular zones of bands and sports. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ESL references not reliable

Ok, I agree I need to find reliable sources before I post my claims on the ESL article. However ALL of the current references on the article are not reliable either!

For example 'eShares Magazine' does not exist! It's not a real publication, it does not exist nor has it ever exited!!! It's the same story with all of the other references. You can verify this yourself. In such case I ask that this article be deleted since it has no reliable sources to back any of it's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.239.233 (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for clearing the nastiness from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of St thomas convent school

Hi Beast,

I've declined the speedy deletion tag you placed on St thomas convent school; according to the article it is a high school (as well as a primary school), and per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education, high schools tend to be accorded notability by default. There is, therefore, a claim of notability in the article, so WP:A7 doesn't apply. The page author has blanked the page (I'm not sure whether he intended to or not), so it's been re-tagged for speedy deletion under WP:G7. Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 07:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi The Mark of the Beast,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Jennifer Lopez songs

But of course, that's what Wikipedia requires, is it not? There are 196 more articles like this one. I'm just not done yet. xD It takes a lot of time. — Status {^talk_contribs 06:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Mark of the Beast WOULD be concerned with Jennifer Lopez songs.