This is an archive of past discussions about User:MuZemike. 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.
No problem, take as long as you want- I'm in no rush. I look forward to seeing your critique! --PresN21:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hi MuZemike. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to a small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now …07:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. If you can rewrite the article in an encyclopedic tone and not in a promotional tone (which was why the article got deleted) and reliably source the article with reliable secondary sources, then you can. Remember when writing articles to always mind the "big three": neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Hope this helps. Finally, when you post messages on talk pages, new sections go on the bottom of the page (I have moved it). MuZemike14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Gainlad netlabel article
Hi MuZemike,
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Gainlad, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
The links work properly and you can verify the existence of the netlabel. Sorry If I'm missing the best place to post. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkvoid (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but just because the links work and the label exists doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion, let alone establish notability. That must be shown via reliable secondary sources (as I have stated in my reason to prod). MuZemike20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello MuZemike, thanks for your sincere work. As I readed your mark for deletion argumented that the link didn't conducted to any logical place. I checked all the links working, and the Netlabel also exist and is one very relevant to the chiptune and lo-bit music scenes.
The label es even aknowledged in discogs.com
Hopefully you can agree with me that there is no reason for deletion. Are there any other reason that wasnt expressed in the first mark for deletion?
Simple. Went down Special:NewPages and did a ctrl+F search for "game". Of course, you could still miss some if there is no edit summary or the word "game" in the title. MuZemike23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009, and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
MuZemike, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk | Sign20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Speedy deletion
When you mark an article for speedy deletion, please take a moment to place a message about the action on the User talk: page of the page author. This is especially important in cases of copyright violations; the violator must be given notice, as we do not want them to repeat the action. In general, if you don't notify the author, they may not understand why their article disappeared and will just try to do the same thing again, creating more work for all of us unnecessarily. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was assuming NPW would automatically do that, but it doesn't, and it didn't. I already left a message on the user's talk about it. Sorry, MuZemike20:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Per your RFA question: The formulae used to calculate password strength seems a bit novel. SomeAll of my passwords with 64 bits of information entropy only get a 0% "Very Weak" score. decltype (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are some other free online sites who calculate password strength in different ways. That's the one I usually refer to. Thanks for pointing that out, anyway. MuZemike15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
But whom? I cannot find who the user is a sock of. Otherwise, it would be nothing but a fishing trip. MuZemike13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Assume Good Faith
Please do try to follow this policy, and don't jump the gun in what you assume to be the intent of the contribution. There was advice given that if the user had a particular problem with a specific wiki content under the umbrella of the Foundation to seek the appropriate deletion process regarding a Foundation email. Civility is crucial, please try to remain objective when dealing with RfDs. Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing to you. Keegantalk07:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, the hentai picture is a dead giveaway of photoshopping. This was an attack by /b/, and the article has had a very unstable history riddled with vandalism attacks by /b/. Also, as I noted in the AFD, no user learns how to nominate an AFD by edit #10. The nom screams WP:DUCK but cannot figure out whom, if any. MuZemike13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thx
Yea I apresheate ur help! In making a few changes for me.
Previously, like 2 years ago, I was much better with the rules an did alot of projects but that account got banned when my step brother hacked into it -.- so Im still trying to re-learn the rules
I just wanted to express my gratitude for your "Keep" vote for the Celia Ammerman AFD. The article has not been deleted, which I believe was the right decision, and it's thanks in part to your support. I very much appreciate it! Let me know if I can ever be of any assistance. — HunterKahn(contribs)05:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Neverwinter Nights 2
Hey there,
Unfortunately, while I nominated the article, I haven't really had much input on fixing it as I'm not sure just what to do or how to do it. :) I believe Drilnoth made some comments on the GAN review page, as there seems to be some confusion on just what to do or what is necessary. BOZ (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe he just made the one comment acknowledging the GAN. I also pinged Vantine84 just in case. MuZemike17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh hey, yeah, it isn't. Nor was the section in the discussion for today's Featured Article. Try not to be so blind next time, unless what you meant to do was reply and correct me that "making Bowser become a skeleton." is grammatically correct or of good sounding prose. I mean, the two actions are so similar after all. Too bad there's no easy report this user link readily available. You sure assumed good faith alright. 199.227.86.10 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comment was in no way directed towards the improvement of the article, which is why I removed it. And next time, don't abbreviate Wikipedia as wiki. I will warn you again on not assuming good faith by trying to label me as a hypocrite. MuZemike17:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, explain to me how you deleting my comment on improving the tone of the article was an act of Good Faith and I will retract my comment. 199.227.86.10 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I felt that you were simply trying to give problems and not provide solutions to the writing style of the section, in particular, that phrase. That's not how it's done. A better way to say the same thing with more rapport would have seen something like this phrase doesn't fit in very well, how about rewording to something like... Also, naming the section as "LOLENGLISH" (like this section titled "LOLNOTFORUM") is generally not conducive to acting on good faith; that is, we use real words here and not IM jargon, typing in all caps, etc. Finally, since the article is Today's Featured Article, there have been other talk page comments (a couple which I have deleted already), which were blatantly against talk page guidelines, WP:NOTFORUM in particular. I treated the comment you made as the same, because, judging on the tone of the comment, that's how I interpreted it. If the intent was trying to improve the article, then I apologize for removing the comment. However, next time, I suggest that instead of sniping at users because of how the article is written, be more constructive and provide suggestions on improvement. No one here is trying to be hypocritical. Finally, there is always be bold – if you see something wrong or not written correctly, feel free to correct it yourself. I hope this helps and settles things a little. Thank you, MuZemike18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, I appreciate your courtesy. I started a GA review, and found a lot of statements that were not quite supported by the sources. The nominator pulled out and said he'd fail it himself & then renominate it. I have not looked at it since. So feel free to go ahead. --Philcha (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out with GA Sweeps. I see that you removed Air (visual novel), Final Fantasy (video game), and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time. I have updated your contributions here. If you perform any more reviews from the list or stumble across any prior delisted articles, make sure to update the respective section on the running total page so we can keep track of the progress. Thanks again for helping to improve the quality of GAs, and if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was reading your GAN guide, when I read something that I remember bothering me when you reviewed Music of Final Fantasy. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about mixing citation templates: the rule is either to use {{citation}} or {{cite xxx}}, and not to mix them - at least that's what I'm getting from Wikipedia:Citation templates. There's no rule about mixing the various types of {{cite xxx}}, like book and web. --PresN02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree - otherwise the {{cite xxx}} templates would be useless on any article that has more than one type of source. A couple of other things:
Under "Reference tags", you say XHTML requires that "a space be placed between the slash and the > symbol." That's inconsistent with your example and plain wrong - (X)HTML requires /> as the closer for a paired tag (and in principle all tags are paired in XHTML and XML). AFIK there's no needed for asp between the / and the preceding text; the space was a hack used to enable XHTML to render on NutscrapNetscape 4, which barfed if it saw a / in an unpaired HTML tag, did not understand XHTML but stopped parsing when it found a tag name it understood. THe commonest example was <br />.
WP:MOSIMAGE is not in WP:WIAGA. The "no resizing" item in WP:MOSIMAGE is controversial - I've seen enough debates at its Talk page and elsewhere - and, IMO, it's rubbish. To cut a long story short, most readers are unregistered and can't set prefs; so it's up to editors to set a size that's helpful for them, and that varies according to both the image and the way it is used in a particular place, e.g. can be small if eye-candy but larger if illustrating a specific point. Before you say there should be no eye-candy, what are lead images?
Some things I will change myself when I make my review, such as changing the mixing and matching of citation templates, which gets frequently frowned upon at WP:FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blue Dragon/archive1, which I had to basically revert the changes in the citation templates that I originally made in the GAN). In addition, WP:MOSIMAGE does fall under criterion 1b of WIAGA as you mentioned, so I am compelled to follow that as part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. That can be discussed from article to article, but I see no reason to not deviate from that feature, neither usability-wise nor display-wise. From what I gather, flagicons are not supposed to be used in articles but rather wikilinked country codes. MuZemike07:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Re Images, I guess you're referring to Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Images. IMO, since WP:WIAGA is meant to be light-weight and its wording implies that the whole of MOS is not required, I don't follow links in MOS pages WP:WIAGA cites - otherwise you wind up with pretty nearly the whole of MOS. Besides, MOS is a guideline, not a policy, so WP:COMMONSENSE takes priority :-) Philcha (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless, as far as the mixing of citation templates are concerned, that it's OK to do this when the article is not going for FA but is imperative when going for it, which I think would present some double-standard of sort. MuZemike07:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Redirects is also something I also do myself. I will not fail anyone on the basis of having bad redirects. I probably should clarify on what I should fail on and not fail on, which would help. The same applies to the forward-slash thing; I would certainly not fail on that. Hope this clears some things up. MuZemike08:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The point about forward-slash is that your text is / was wrong and your examples are right. Either way, a space is probably unnecessary in practice now, as Netscape 4 is now extinct (may it Rust In Pieces). --Philcha (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt,MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —talk
I warned them about COI and marked this name as non-blatant four days ago when you first reported it. I'm unsure as to why you relisted it at UAA?
Consider taking name to WP:RFCN, or if their editing is of concern to WP:COIN. Overall, there's no indication of direct affiliation. E.g. NikeBob could mean they like Nike's, but doesn't mean it's a blatant violation even if they edit the Nike article. That's why RFCN or possibly COIN if editing is at issue would be the best forums. UAA is for violations that demand immediate admin action, and as told four days ago and again today, this is an example of names better suited to other forums. Thank you. Nja24708:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I was unaware that I reported that username the first time (I've reported hundreds of names to UAA). It contains the initialism "SEO", which stands for search engine optimization this suggests that the account is being used to improve search engine coverage of something their pushing, which is in essence spamming. I was not meaning to cause any trouble or anything. MuZemike15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think you were, and I apologise if that's how it came off. I do think however given their contrib history and the nature of the user name that RFCN would be the most appropriate forum. It's not something requiring immediate action by an admin. I really do appreciate your efforts (I see your generally good reports at UAA often). Thanks, Nja24716:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Airing out old socks
I don't think the one you pointed to is our old friend, but I'd be willing to bet User:Varbas is... that account was created a few days after the socks were deleted and is following the same behavior of vast majority of edits be deprodding things and voting on AFDs with rationales to keep for "notability" that are completely divorced from reality. I'd be willing to bet he has others out there too, perhaps some longstanding ones like User:Esasus was. User:Colonel Warden also makes me suspicious, as he's jumped in to continue the aggressive tactics that Esasus / Wordssuch used and to go around voting the opposite of me on AFDs I create and elsewhere, making false accusations against me of violating rules, and etc.
I highly doubt Colonel Warden is in on it; he always does such tactics to everybody and well before any of these accounts were created. However, I kind of agree that User:Varbas is exhibiting some of the same actions as Esasus/Azviz, but I don't think it's substantative enough for action as of yet. For instance, we're missing stalking/incivility, so far. I would keep a watch, however. MuZemike22:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Warden might be a long shot as he's been around for a lot longer than typical socks, but then I originally didn't think Esasus was likely to be part of that sockpuppet group as he'd been active for much longer than the others, and he was of course ultimately confirmed as a sock. Warden makes some of the same edits and switched to the same kinds of hounding Esasus used to do after Esasus was blocked. Probably still not likely, but who knows.
Listen, I don't wanna disturb you during your wikibreak, but since you reviewed Good Articles than me, I need your opinion about Final Fantasy Adventure. I don't know if it meets the standards of a Good Article. Just take your time until your break's done. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Speedrun was recently delisted from GA. I want to improve the article, so I posted some requests for comments in the discussion. Since you were part of the discussion a few days ago, perhaps you'd like to comment? --msikma; user, talk14:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I won't be able to take another close look at it until Tuesday at the least. If it's okay with you, I am going to move the discussion after the GA delist into its own section and out of Talk:Speedrun/GA1. MuZemike19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Might THIS be removed since the investigation was closed and archived as no need to punish Varbas? I admire how this editor digs to find sources and am willing to give him guidence in proper cleanup of articles and in inter-wiki diplomacy, but the stigma of having that comment remain could act negatively in future interactions with editors against what future improvements he might achieve. And hopefully this latest will not get him blocked (for too long). I see potential for great improvement. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll AGF and assume, at least for now, that Varbas isn't a sock of Azviz/Esasus/et al. (However, I still have a feeling of deja vu as I did the exact same thing with Esasus; I still have some suspicion that the actions are very similar to the abovementioned sock, hence the SPI.) Otherwise, if the user wants to remove the sock tag, that's OK with me. I hope that I was wrong here, and that you can help him out. Thank you for letting me know, MuZemike04:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I will inform him. I have begun a dialog, that hopefully will let him know (much I was shown 16 months ago) that there are those willing to take the time to help newcomers learn the vageries. Funny too that you should mention ARS, as the squad (at least before the major distraction of the MfD) had been specifically discussing ways to help ease newcomers into the "fast lanes" without them being side-swiped, honked at, or invloved in a multi-car pile-up with other drivers whizzing by them at full speed. I know far too well what a daunting place this can be. And hopefully I will be able to get him too cool his jets a just a bit and so proceed down the road in safety. Thanks much, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.05:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, Mike. That was the IP's first comment and certainly is a cause for concern. I'm hoping someone comes out that they edited while accidentally logged out. MuZemike14:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't realize I may be close to crossing a line with that...I will make a point of being careful in the future...TreadingWater (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Sometimes, just take a step back and cool off a bit if you think you're going to type something you may regret later on. No problem. MuZemike21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that bozo has found some other articles to infect with his nonsense about the homeless. If you have not already done so, you might want to request page protection on those other two pages. How many freakin' pages does Pioneer Courthouse Square need, anyway? Three articles about one city block in Portland? Oy! Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots03:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Pioneer Place and also Pioneer Square, Seattle, the known subjects of his attacks tonight, are now protected. I had posted an RFPP and then rescinded it when I saw an admin had already done it. Short-term protection, though, is inappropriate. He's been at this since October 2006, and every time protection has been lifted or compromised, he's on it within a day. It's some sort of stupid ongoing game he's playing, and he's not going to stop. It's like that idiot that forced the Rick Reilly article into indefinite protection. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots05:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) That's why you never take chances with users who say stuff like you are hereby warned that this is your FINAL chance to do the right thing... In this case, the user followed through. Now no-one can edit one article, and only autoconfirmed users can edit the others. MuZemike05:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a serious flaw in wikipedia that no one seems to have an answer to - that one belligerent vandal can hold an article hostage, the "dog in the manger" kind of thing, and because he's using a computer at a business or a library, they can't do a sufficient rangeblock without instigating mass punishment. What they ought to do is post on the IP talk pages that this one guy is the reason they can't edit, and maybe they can find him and do something about it. There's nothing like peer pressure to get action. However, wikipedia doesn't have the guts to do something like that. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots05:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz
Thanks. What you have so far looks really good. A distinct improvement, in my opinion, over the way matters stand currently. You have my support. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate it. All I have to do is added some fair-use rationales to a couple of images, and I'll do the merge. MuZemike16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps June update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I Don't Think It's Similar
I don't think my editing is similar to that user, of whom you are making me a sockpuppet. See, I have added the respective titles of the professional wrestlers in the article of WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009, which are originally seen in the game and see, I didn't know that some other user had done this before. Many users could have done this before, so you will make me their sockpuppet. Don't ya?. Before removing my account, you should think once that isn't it injustice.--The Gamer of Games (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
First off, CheckUser showed that your account is unrelated. Second, I cannot "remove" or "block" acocunts. With that said, I still disagree, but technical evidence shows otherwise. Furthermore, consensus has already determined that the rosters should not be in the articles. If you continue to edit war by reinserting them without participating in any discussion, you and your friends will be blocked, and the articles may be protected from editing so that nobody will edit on them. MuZemike19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
hello, I'm gezegond, and you deleted my page some time a go. the reason that I'm writing this is that I'm a newcomer to wikipedia and I don't understand why you deleted my page, but from your User page I understood that you're someone that deletes a lot of pages. Before I began writing in wikipedia, I used it a lot to get info and after some time I felt that it's time to add some info my won. I read all the guidelines before I started writing in wikipedia. The page that you deleted "Cyclone Studios" took me 5 to 6 hours to complete, I gathered data about it and I carefully added to wikipedia. Of course it was not perfect. It didn't have any real good sourced material and It might not have enough notability, but It was some info about something that wikipedia had nothing to offer about it before. 3 or 4 pages were linked to the page and when people clicked the links they would face a "page does not exist" note. so I put some info I could find together and created the page to help other people. It lacked notability but it was not a stub, and it was sourced. Wikipedia guidelines say that if a page lacks notability you should improve it by adding some references, and if it lacks sources you should find sources on your own. It clearly says that deleting is the last resort if the page can't be anyhow improved. Yet you easily deleted my page. I was busy and I couldn't check my Wikipedia page and when I checked it I realized that my page is completely gone. no "add references" sign, no "lacks notability" sign. Just gone. and I'm not unhappy because you deleted my page but because you actually believe that you did the right thing! I think you are making improving wikipedia harder. deleting is not improving and bad data is better than no data. if you don't think it's not good enough, then make it good enough. deleting won't help. no page starts out being perfect. this act of yours makes professional wikipedia users the only ones who can add or edit a page because if someone can't make his page perfect, It gets deleted, which means that no info can't be added to wikipedia unless it's added by a professional wikipedia user and it's completely favorable to wikipedias structure, which is not very likely. So please answer me (on my talk page although i don't check it often) and correct me if I'm wrong. If wikipedia's content is "be perfect or not be there at all" I might stop adding info to wikipedia, But I've seen a lot of pages that lack both reference and notability and are not deleted.Gezegond (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
First off, I did not delete the page—an administrator did; I just tagged the page as such. Second, it is not YOUR article. No-one owns articles here. Once you hit that "save page" button, it becomes the community's page. Third, I tried to find reliable secondary sources as I do with all such articles; I could not find any, so do not accuse me of not doing so. I had the article tagged with the appropriate templates for a couple of weeks with no improvements, as well. No-one removed the PROD notice (which you could have done yourself if you opposed deletion). Fourth, other stuff exists—other articles will be dealt with in due time, as there are over 2 million articles out there and too few editors.
You may want to talk to User:Juliancolton, the admin who deleted the article, about restoring it if you feel that it makes the appropriate notability guidelines. However, keep in mind that I could still being the article to articles for deletion if there is no improvement. MuZemike16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't mean anything to be offensive so if you thought it was I'm sorry. The reason was that I thought wikipedia pages must be there for a while before you delete it, and I thought that "Cyclone Studios" was deleted too fast since it was just a starting article... and by "My Article" I meant "the Article I wrote" not "the Article I own", anyway thanks for answering me.Gezegond (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The big thing is reducing the PNG to 8-bit color (which I did with my photo-editing program); this is not always feasible, especially for more detailed images, as going down to 8-bit (as opposed to 32- or 24-bit colors) does normally result in some dithering, noise, and some slight color change. For images like the Q*bert one is not detailed at all, so you can get away with reducing the PNG to 8-bit color as there is little to no noticeable difference. However, I don't recommend doing this for more-detailed PNG images since they use more colors (you would see a much bigger difference in the color reduction).
I also use a program to compress PNG images called PNGGauntlet, which is a Windows version of the PNGOUT software. This helps reduce the filesize of PNGs without any loss of information or quality. Again, depending on the PNG, this can be hit or miss. In the Q*bert images, I was "hit" on both, so there you go.
I use Paint.net to edit images, which includes PNG/JPEG compression along with other useful features such as noise reduction. Hope that answers it. Cheers, MuZemike04:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the deletion of Barack Obama administration controversies
If you are going to delete Barack Obama administration controversies then why is there a whole category for George W. Bush administration controversies?
Danvers (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Danvers
If you disagree with the deletion, then bring it up to deletion review. Do not repost the page and make disparaging remarks on every user who participated in the discussion. It will not help your cause but instead harm it. MuZemike21:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
? No, I did not make a mistake typing the username, it is bamboo, as in the plant, NOT bambi, as in the deer in the disney movie. AndrewrpTally-ho!16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking of the Bambifan vandal when I made that comment, but now looking at the contribs, it doesn't look like it. MuZemike17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Shuffle!/GA1 re-assessment
Hi,
I hope you don't mind that i join this re-assessment. I'm more oriented on references & completeness issues and will defer to you for the rest. Thanks --KrebMarkt18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look. There seems to be a lot of that going around lately. Consider the one from earlier today posted by User:Johnnyturk888, and ended up buying himself a 30-day block with an indef waiting in the wings if he doesn't shape up then. A more serious version of the Plaxico situation is Haman (Bible) from the book of Esther, which is a long, drawn out story (hence the term megillah) which can be summarized by saying that Haman, who built a gallows to hang Mordecai, ended up being the one hanged instead. This is perhaps even a more fitting metaphor than the Plaxico story, but some users might not see the humor in it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretty good. I had thought only wikipedia used that phrase, but I guess several have come up with it independently. I had also thought someone had written a WP:Plaxico already, but either I've got the name wrong, or it was deleted. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks rather interesting. Not sure if I'm really the best partner to work with though. I love to collaborate, but I can work kind slow sometimes depending on how busy my real life is. Plus it's been a while since I worked on an FA (to be honest, I don't think I can write prose to the current level of desired quality), and I've never done a DYK before. I am interested and would be happy to work with you though. Tell you what, if you can't find anybody else, sign me up. (Guyinblack25talk19:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
I left 70.144.137.79 a message on their talk page, regarding their deleting your contribution to Prayer. You edit may or may not be correct, however they are not explaining their edits properly. And as for abusing you personally on their talk page? That's unwarranted. Sorry you had to be exposed to it. Maybe a little prayer for 70.144.137.79? ... smile. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The user removed sourced content and replaced it unverifiable content. That should have been clear in the warning; that is also made clear right below the edit summary: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. With that said, I'll keep him in my prayers and hope s/he changes his/her ways. BTW, you should see the recent activity on my user talk :) MuZemike22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Shuffle!/GA1 re-assessment: Week 2 check point
Give a look a it when you can. There is enough editing to give this article more time to meet the GA requirement.
While it closing nicely to GA quality for verifiability & completeness. I need your opinion for the rest especially MOS & style issue. Probably the music should be moved to the adaptation section. Thanks --KrebMarkt20:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I won't be able to take another look at it for another couple of days as I am extremely busy for the remainder of the weekend. I will get it to it, however, early next week. From taking a quick glance at the GAR a couple of days ago, it looks like it's in the right direction. Thanks for letting me know. MuZemike02:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Two things (which I explained in detail on the GAR page): referencing in the Plot section, and expand the lead. Should be good once those two are addressed. I'll make a more thorough pass for smaller stuff tomorrow. MuZemike03:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Its not the edit or the article that I care about, its the principal...WP:NOT is revering to manuals or guides, walk through's, ect. What were discussing here is a summary, which in essence is the EXACT opposite of a step by step guideAspensti (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Like I told the other user, Luckily, I don't really care. but the reason your using to enforce a specific version of the article isn't very clear. If anything WP:NOT needs to be more clear when it comes to video gamesAspensti (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This essay [4] may be construed as a personal attack, yes, but it holds a lot of truth about RobJ1981's disruptive, deletionist editing style. I am collecting a list of articles where he conducts himself like that and am contemplating initiating an RfC on him. If you are interested in taking part, message me
I am going to refine the list into cases where he blatantly violated WP:ITSCRUFT in nominating an article, cases where he blatantly violated WP:ITSCRUFT for how he voted in various AfDs, and cases where he simply just followed a bandwagon (whether the bandwagon won the AfD or not) voting Delete/redirect per above. I have been going through his contribs and it appears he rarely actually adds content to Wikipedia, most of his edits (other than updating tags) are either deleting content from articles (though I must admit once in while his deletions are valid) or him nominating or voting for anything and everything to be deleted. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've been following it and the similar comments you have made on other talk pages. IMHO, you won't get far on an RFC. Deletionism is not in itself disruptive (as one can easily say the same thing about inclusionism on the other end of the spectrum) nor is it a crime, and using a group of shobby AFD nominations as justification for the community to take action to curb this is weak at the least. An RFC is only going to serve to "rally the troops" on both ends again, just as it has been done with similar situations such as the whole bilateral relations BS as well as other RFC/Us (e.g Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins).
With regards to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, more and more often I am seeing that reason for keeping used as an ad hominem attack against the nominator or whomever they are arguing against. That is something that needs to be avoided along with simply calling things "cruft" on the other end. RobJ1981 has already made this point in the last AFD, and there will be others that will back him on that.
Also, regarding AFDs: it's easy to follow the bandwagon (what's also called groupthink); I've probably been guilty of the same thing. It's one of the most common criticisms of Wikipedia as a whole. But then again, I try to be a lot more cautious when PRODding or sending articles to AFD because of the high levels of scrutiny that nominators receive when nominating such articles. And I've nominated about 45 articles for AFD with a little under 2/3 resulting in a deletion consensus; I've probably PRODded at least 100 articles but with an understandably lower success rate (as PRODs are easy to contest, and we have plenty of users, a lot of them socks, that engage in disruption by serially and systematically deprodding without giving much a reason at all).
Here's my advice to you. Back off it for a while and relax a little. You seem to be emotionally overreacting to and as a result of this entire Wii list situation. The desired result happened, with the list being kept. Several editors are now discussing a merge on the talk page, which will take a while since we're dealing with an >100KB list (size is the key). Let time and inertia run its course until things become more stable again.
That's what I think about the whole thing. I don't self-identify as either a deletionist or an inclusionist (see my userpage), but I am concerned as well as take a hard line on Wikiquette especially in AFDs because more often than not nowadays AFDs turn into "Butter-side-up vs Butter-side-down" fights or otherwise misplaced meta-discussions about what policy and guidelines should me. That's not what AFD is for. Thank you, MuZemike17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I will probably start this in early July at the earliest, and after reading your comment and a few other comments it is likely I might not go ahead with one; also, right now spending the summer finishing Super Mario Galaxy feels much more appealing than dealing with Wikipedia bureaucracy. Apparently, this user has launched a Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Thegreyanomaly against me. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. Hopefully, those over there can diffuse everything. If you need help on SMG, let me know or just pop by at WT:NIN. Cheers, MuZemike17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:Kevin Spacey
What are you talking about? Isn't it the responsibility of an encyclopedia to have the most up to date information? Kevin Spacey being lost at sea is all over the news, but Wikipedia wouldn't take the link I have for some reason. Yzak Jule (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No. It's vandalism related to Michael Jackson. This has been going on with many articles on celebrities today. If you persist on re-adding unverifiable information on biographies of living people, you will be blocked, plain and simple. Thank you, MuZemike01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
How is it unverifiable? If you google Kevin Spacey there is lots of news about his disappearance, but Wikipedia won't let me post the link for some reason. There is no need to be so rude and hostile. Yzak Jule (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This story was dynamically generated using a generic 'template' and is not factual. Any reference to specific individuals has been 100% fabricated by web site visitors who have created fake stories by entering a name into a blank 'non-specific' template for the purpose of entertainment.
My apologies if I came off that way. Lots of vandals have been inserting "died June 25, 2009" to many articles about celebrities today during the wake of Michael Jackson's death. We know not to do that again, at least :) MuZemike01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- your vandalism fix was only partial. Would you care to deal with this, or shall I take it to AIV? IPs are making a hash of it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey I just noticed that I'm no longer part of the Nintendo task force. Did you do a clean-up awhile back while I was inactive? -- Nomader(Talk)06:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, did some cleanup as well as updated who is currently active. Just re-add yourself back on the main WP:NIN page if you were left out. Thanks, MuZemike06:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
They weren't in order to begin with, especially when I started looking at articles that came from that bot. I would think that the more important thing would be to keep them in order by date of creation and then separate by type, but I'm just trying to get all the new pages covered if I can. MuZemike01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as grouping is concerned, I thought articles, templates, categories would be the most logical way of going through each day of pages. MuZemike01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
In the DRV for Arthur Kade, you recommended endorsing the closure (which was a "no consensus" keep). However, your comments indicate that you think the article ought to be deleted. Could you change your recommendation to an "overturn" if you want the article about Arthur Kade deleted? Thanks. --Metropolitan90(talk)08:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The only purpose of GameWatcher (talk·contribs) has been to insert material about this person into either its own article or into others. I have some suspicions here about possible spamming. What do you think? I will look into this more. MuZemike04:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I want thanks you for your input in that re-assessment and tell you that i appreciated our collaboration. It was fun. Let not forget we can have fun while editing on Wikipedia :) --KrebMarkt20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
are good reference, because they aren't sources "affiliated with the subject" but are independent. They are the official website of their country's rugby union federation and they existed before the rugbymania's site (like some of the other sources in the references).
thanks for your help and I'm so sorry for my English (it's not my mother tongue).--Cenzin (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. The fact that some of this info wasn't being cited properly was another concern of mine. Thanks again. --Jtalledo(talk)21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Posts at ANI
Hi. I'd like to request that you consider not making edits such as this and this. Those remarks do not help the situation at all, and they do make ANI a more poisonous, less civil environment.
Even better, those remarks don't work. The person doesn't say to himself, "oh gosh, I guess I'm whining, I'd better stop." You know that, right? Zero advantage attends such edits - zero. Things that confer zero advantage are things to avoid.
If you find that you have nothing better to say than "stop whining", then please pass by without saying anything. Remember also that ANI is a page for requesting administrative action, and if none is required, then the idea is to quickly archive the thread. Adding personal remarks slows that down. Please don't slow down and poison ANI just to get a jab in. Thanks for listening. -GTBacchus(talk)20:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I slightly overreacted there. However, FWIW, per this diff, the editing actions by this IP is clear and is not aimed at being constructive. As I mentioned before, the IP is not asking for administrator but instead is "engaging in other conversation". MuZemike20:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. The IP wasn't using the board appropriately. However, the ANI regulars have developed a knack for dealing with such posters. I understand how it can be tempting to say something to someone who "needs to hear it". I feel that way sometimes. In such cases, if I'm on my best behavior, I ask whether my remark is likely to bring about any positive effect. I'm ah... not always on my best behavior, but you know - live and learn. Take care. -GTBacchus(talk)21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a shoutout
Opened a discussion here on getting a quick review done of FFV since the GAR comments have been dealt with at this point. I would've posted this directly on your page, but didn't know if you were going to be on vacation a day early or not and wanted to nip it in the bud.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw that. I've already made a similar comment at ANI wrt Eusebeus requesting a block on the user. I have some other articles I need to work on today, but I'll get around to making a comment when I can. Thank you, MuZemike15:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frei Hans
Thanks for this. I'm having terrible problems with the Internet and also seem unable to figure out what to do with {{tlx|unblock|reason}} as nothing I did seemed to make it work. I reduced the block back to 24 hours - this user clearly has problems, and I wanted to show him a bit of GF and maybe how things should work. I don't expect him to be around long nor do I really expect him to understand, but I'm trying to show him he is being treated fairly. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I reverted that edit by accident. I tried to cancel it, but my program froze and seized up, and my reversion went through. Sorry for the trouble, MuZemike23:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well that's wonderful to hear, but I'm a bit confused. Did you somehow misinterpret my earlier comments as having been referring to you personally? I find that rather puzzling, but then, I guess the important thing is that you are willing to work with me after all. How great it is to have met such a friendly, cooperative soul as you. 71.198.56.105 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate your efforts in looking after my talk page. Sorry if it took you away from more important things. Tiderolls00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
On July 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rolando 2: Quest for the Golden Orchid, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Achron, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
FWIW, when I did a quick Google check, I did come up with something. I was trying to AGF and not assume vandalism, which was why I refrained from doing any reverting. MuZemike15:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi MuZemike. I've seen that you've reviewed Marco Polo. I've worked a while ago on an article about Operation Entebbe. I've listed the article for as a GA Nomination. I just wondered I you'd maybe review the article for me? Kind regards, LouriePieterse08:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I can take a look at it. Taking a quick glance at it right now, there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed, but I'll explain in more detail later. MuZemike17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You're being unfair to have reported me. You failed to respond to my comment on Mario Talk page which addressed that I would be adding the nickname on both pages. It's not my fault that you can't read.--Red Slayer 21:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
No, all of us have been trying to address your argument, but you either brushed them off or outright ignored them. The last comment on the talk page and ensuing re-add of information on Mario is a sign of ignoring the entire talk page discussion and what it appeared to be a rough consensus forming that it not be included in the article or in the very least in the first sentence of the article. You have been given many chances to be civil and collegial about this (I will ignore another personal attack that you just made at me in your comment at me just now.), but you have not taken any of them. If you read any of the numerous warnings placed on your talk page, then you should have realized that. If you cannot follow correct decorum and Wikiquette and continue to ignore others and continue to edit-war after multiple warnings given, then have not much else a choice but to make such a report. We don't edit-war to win content disputes—we discuss them and in a civil fashion. Regards, MuZemike22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping that you'd say that, cause now, with what you've said, I've reported you. I hope you enjoy being banned--Red Slayer 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
FYI, I've reported the above user for a pattern of disruptive behaviour at WP:ANI, as this final attack was launched after a level 4 warning. MLauba (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to introduce myself as I am a new user. I am Vis4Vendetta (named after the movie) and I am the brother of Valkyrie Red. I have viewed the accusations that you have made against him and I can say with certain that you were right to make these and report him.
However, I must ask you to look at this, not from a Wikipedian Editor's view, but from a common IM person. If you were IMing someone and they said something like what he said, would you really find that offensive? If you look at it from that view, the words that he's said to you would only be offensive to a little kid (not saying that you are one, but that the comments that he made really weren't as offensive as you think). I understand that he has violated the Rules of Wikipedia, but you must see his frustration from the point that MuZemike can't.
In other words, you must look at his comments from his point-of-view. He said them out of frustration, out of anger. I know that this is wrong of him but even you have to admit that you would've most likely done the same thing. I know you've given him a ton of warnings (I read yours, Mlauba's, and his talk pages, as well as looked at the articles he's read), but you have to give him one more chance. I promise you i'll try and change him.
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
I suggest you go and have two big glasses of water. I know someone who has dyslexia and whenever they are not processing reading/writing clearly, they have two big glasses of water. They feel much better after that.--The LegendarySky Attacker21:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
In my most humble opinion and by my understanding, if an admin feels strongly that he disagrees with a consensus he can chose to !vote instead of closing. Obviously he can't do both, but the decision not to participate in the debate is a defacto acknowledgement even if a significantly weaker one than any of the !votes from the general public. Usrnme h8er (talk·contribs) 08:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
UAA and username policy update
Heya, I'm just letting you and other editors who do a lot of listings at UAA know that the username policy has underwent some changes as of yesterday. You may wish to look it over at your convenience. Cheers, Nja24709:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Operation Entebbe review
Hi MuZemike. Regarding the GAR for Operation Entebbe, could you maybe extend the deadline a few days? Currently I am very ill and I am a candidate in the election of Board of Trustees. I would really appreciate it. Kind regards, LouriePieterse09:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiThanks I see you already passed the article. I'll do the last few things in the week coming. Thank you very much for the review. LouriePieterse14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
hi there, just got your message on my talk page. what edit are you talking about? i have never edited wikipedia in my life. sorry if there is some confusion.--86.26.160.235 (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Fighter. Biting a newcomer??? Where am I doing any biting? Also, that user's first edit was much earlier than mine. And even if I was, how are they a newcomer in comparison with me when their contributions history dates back to not later than January and mine March? And what do you mean by leveling??? In case you didn't know already, all users on Wikipedia are treated like equals, there are no rankings as such. Lastly, the fact that they have made less than 20 edits (including deleted) is nothing but fact. I'm guessing that you were trying to say something that you thought was relevant, but after reading it over again I just can't make any sense of that response.--The LegendarySky Attacker09:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Mlh56880 → first edit on 21 January 2009 with the next one being 7 July. So, virtually only three weeks the user's been active. What I meant by "leveling" was "cutting someone down". You're right that everyone on WP should be treated the same, but it is also our job to be welcoming to our newer users so they have the best chance of staying with us and being productive users. Being on the offensive and saying stuff like "oh, this user only has 20 edits" suggests that others should look onto the character of the user to judge his or her reliability of the comments made (which is why some users despise the common practice of tagging single-purpose accounts in places like XFDs, but that's another argument).
This is not to say that your rebuttal of that user's !vote was completely wrong, as stating WP:PERNOM with nothing else is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, and it was perfectly valid to point that out. I thought it was unnecessary to cut a user down because of the number of total edits made, which seemed to contradict your statement made at me above. Anyways, I hope that clarifies things a bit better. Thank you, MuZemike 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not in the right mood before and you are right, I was out of the element. I will strike through that section of my the first comment and I will leave a message for that editor (although the damage has probably been done already). My only request to you is that my actions can be forgiven and that we can move on. If I can't be forgiven, fine. But I will do what is needed to set things right here. I don't want to discourage good editors.--The LegendarySky Attacker20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Sometimes I have to take a step back and gather myself before I hit that "save page" button. Even sometimes I do lose my cool as well, as I have just done recently. It happens. Don't worry or dwell on it too much. Just carry on and keep doing what you're doing in expanding and improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Just make sure that our newer editors are able to do that, as well. Thank you again, MuZemike21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ten case backlog "waiting clerk approval"
There are 10 cases that have been waiting for over a day to get clerk approval/denial for a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern. Unfortunately, my "trainee" status precludes me from approving or denying CheckUser requests as of now until I get more experience with how everything works around there. Regards, MuZemike20:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I pinged all the clerks. Looks like JamieS93 woke up. I'm surprised that that's considered such a sensitive area. It can be presumed that if you made a serious error in judgment that the checkuser would catch it.—Kww(talk) 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. Is this something I need be overly concerned with? I'm not really familiar with WP:AN/I. Did I do something wrong? I just encouraged one of the two parties to take the first action in following the dispute resolution process, since my past experience with the other suggested that it wouldn't happen otherwise... Yworo (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I just looked at what you said which is patently untrue in my case. "Slinging mud for days"? I made a single comment, this one, haven't edited the article, nor even registered an opinion on the actual dispute other than I thought it would be wise to start an RFC. What's the problem with that? Yworo (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
doubt regarding meat puppetry
I saw that you had commented on a report on meat puppetry that I made. I have a query- should reporting done only after other people indulge in meat puppetry or when they indulge in advertising? My doubt stems from the fact that the wp:meat says It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.
trakesht (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Remember, CU came back negative. It's possible that the socks could be operating in new locations, but surely CU would have spotted that. Perhaps if a couple more accounts come in along with IPs, they'll get a better picture. This was what happened twice before, where the first one wouldn't stick, but the following SPI nailed them. MuZemike02:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
We can just re-open the previous GAN. I was perhaps too hasty in closing it, because you said you were going to be busy and stuff. No problems. MuZemike15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Click on the "Google news" link right below the AFD heading. I was able to find a few there at least. MuZemike21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I did. All but maybe one hit was something that just happened to have that phrase in it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)21:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
First off, it was courtesy-blanked for privacy concerns. Checkuser was already run on the case, but very little came up since most of the accounts were stale. Then, another user filed a similar SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Levine2112, which is basically the same players but currently no issues that requires the page to be blanked and with a couple of new accounts. I marked the former as closed as there it's redundant to have two nearly-identical SPI cases open at the same time; the latter does have another IP address that can possibly be checked (which I endorsed for Checkuser attention). Hope that helps, MuZemike23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you back from your break? I noticed this page move, which seems to have been done by you without being asked and against the conclusion of this AfD discussion. Any reason to do this?
Bongomatic01:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.
I am extremely puzzled that you chose to restore this article. Please see [7], and the log of the article. I've looked at the new article and I cannot see that any of the objections were met. I have therefore deleted it again, as G4, assuming you have simply made a mistake. If you do disagree with me, I certainly do not want to quarrel about it, and I leave it to your option whether to restore and take it to AfD, or to go to deletion review. Or, if you really think it's OK, restore, and I will take it to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not recreate the article. I was doing a little bit of NewPage patrolling and moved what looked like a sandbox article into the mainspace to the proper title SOD/CAT. I was completely unaware of any AFD or anything deletion-wise (see above section). MuZemike01:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought you were responding to a request to do so--but checking, I dod not see such a request either. In any case, the author of it has now withdrawn the article entirely. So I think we're done with it. Sorry if I sounded annoyed. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You may want to read WP:BRD. You boldly removed a section from the article. The other users reverted your removal. Hence, the onus is on you to start discussion on the talk page rather than continue to revert-war. That means stop edit-warring and discuss on the page until both of you reach an agreement. dispute resolution can also help you two reach said agreement. Thank you, MuZemike21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. That's a question that's normally not asked on that page (remember that article talk pages are for discussion about improvements to the article and not for general questions). You may want to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, where you might get some people knowledgeable about Wi-Fi in general to be able to help you out. Hope this helps, MuZemike19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
User:EWN-America was blocked for having a promotional username and spamming. Once the new name was created, they went right back to work. That's why I filed a sock investigation, I thought I made that reasoning clear in the submission. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
But if an account is soft-blocked because it violates the username policy (I know this because I reported the username myself.), then the user can create another account that doesn't violate username policy – see Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames, which was just revised about a month ago. Now, if the new account continues spamming, then it can be blocked harder; that is, to prevent further account creation on both accounts. If a user is free to create another account, then it can't be construed as sockpuppetry, and hence the SPI was not needed. Hope that clarifies things, MuZemike15:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm clear on the username policy, I wouldn't waste people's time with a softblock case. Just to follow up quickly, while the block log says {Spamusername} as the reason for the block, the user's talk page has the {Uw-spamublock} template (the template for "spamming & username" violations), not the milder {Uw-softerblock} that would be appropriate for a username only softblock. The user was not encouraged to change their name, they were banned. Given the user's edits, I assumed it was simply an oversight that the spamming was not mentioned in the block log. Sorry if this looks like nitpicking. Okay, cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. It's also possible that the blocking admin (on the original account) was unaware of the changes in the policy, because I see that account creation was in fact disabled. It can be something I'll bring up at WT:UAA and WT:U whenever I can. Thank you, MuZemike17:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear...
Lol! I think the situation has got confused. No seriously, on the amiga cd32 section[8] the article for Microcosm was in red, so I created a article for it, don't ask me, but it was a simple mistake that I was miss-in-formed with. Sorry for any inconvenience. mcjakeqcool 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. That should have been changed. Thanks for letting me know. However, please mind the lists next time. Regards, MuZemike16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Bob's Game
On August 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bob's Game, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Orphaned non-free image (File:Adventure Island- The Beginning.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Adventure Island- The Beginning.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Paul Raymond TV--Scorpio95 12:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it Paul Raymond TV, or is it Top Shelf TV? Whichever it is, it's a valid stub and probably could be kept. MuZemike17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Top Shelf TV is the new name of the channel so the Paul Raymond TV article needs to be deleted as its the old name for the channel--Scorpio95 21:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)
OK. What we'll do is undo the redirect on Top Shelf TV and redirect Paul Raymond TV to Top Shelf TV as, since it's the old name, it is a plausible search term.
Oh, and next time, when you finish typing a message on a talk page, just simply place four tildes (~~~~) after the end of your message; don't type anything else after that. Thank you, MuZemike21:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I use the sign button on the tool bar should I not use that from now on?Scorpio95 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)
Huh. That's odd. If you're doing it right, then that bot shouldn't be coming and signing for you. Did you try typing the four tildes first and then hitting the "Save page" button? When you do that, the software automatically detects your username and adds the timestamp (which I see it's doing). MuZemike22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I left a space after the "ok" then put "Scorpio95 23:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)" and is still doing it. Scorpio95 23:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)
Click "My preferences" on top of the page. Under the "Signature" section (which should be under the currently-selected "User Profile" tab), make sure your username (Scorpio95) is displayed in the "Signature" box and uncheck where it says Sign my name exactly as shown. Let's see if that works. MuZemike23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (File:Guardic Gaiden artwork by Naoyuki Kato.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Guardic Gaiden artwork by Naoyuki Kato.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Kid Icarus Sky World.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sec4dr Socks
Thanks for catching those new socks today. I've been offline all day and didn't see them until I logged in tonight. Being (relatively) new, is there any way to determine the IP of Sec4dr and block that IP? I know it isn't possible if it is a dynamic address, but is it possible if it is a fixed address? Might save us a whole lot of hassle! Much appreciated! Frmatt (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello MuZemike, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Los Tomsons TV has been removed. It was removed by Rodipumas47 with the following edit summary '(Channel of TV)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Rodipumas47 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
DYK for Ballblazer Champions
On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ballblazer Champions, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have concluded that filing SPI's is a complete, utter waste of time. They're a royal pain to construct, and the checkuser says, "Yep, they're socks of each other. Close." or worse yet, "Duck test. Not bothering to do checkuser. Close." If a specific user is vandalizing, I post him at AIV and get him blocked. Otherwise, forget it. Too many checkusers don't seem to care one iota about this subject, so why should we? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Checkusers can't just wave a magic wand and POOF - sock-b-gone. Most of the onus in determining whether sock puppetry is going on rests on your normal admins who are supposed to be patrolling around SPI and determining whether or not something fishy (or ducky) is going on. The problem is that nobody does. That's why you see a big huge list of cases not requiring CU sitting there, because there are few admins, if any, who go through those cases and make the calls; I contend that the only admins right now who regularly do that are SPI clerks. Look at WP:AN3 – it's the same thing.
Hopefully, working more in-depth now at SPI, I'm trying to change that restrictive environment and make things easier on other users. I already overhauled the SPI header page so that it's more informative for users and clearer on what we as clerks, admins, and checkusers look for. We have some other admins trying to come up with a more universal set of guidelines for patrolling admins to help deal with cases (kind of like what there already is for the deletion process). We also have two new Checkusers – User:J.delanoy, User:Brandon, and User:Hersfold – who have already contributed greatly and have otherwise done a great job so far with the current loads SPI we've had, a few times during bot outages.
I wish I can say that things will start to look better for SPI, but, just like with the Cubbies, perhaps I'm a bit premature in saying that. MuZemike00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey MuZemike, perhaps you can look into this article and the contributions of its creator: they reverted an edit you made at Nintendo Network Service Development (which I reverted again), but this is quickly going beyond my expertise and pay grade: I have a suspicion that a non-notable article is being forked here, but you are more of an expert than I am. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Tyciol is indefinitely blocked; should he be removed from the list? (He could easily get unblocked in the future, and just seems to have lost interest in appealing the block for the time being.) -- SoapTalk/Contributions18:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
On September 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article DUST 514, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have relisted some templates you voted on here. Due to the nature of the discussion, the relist was split into three different discussions, and hence, it was not possible to simply move your comments up to the new discussion. It would be great if you could voice your opinion again. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate you for adminship. Protonk's comment over at AN got me wondering and asking about, and what I'm seeing looks pretty good. Would you be willing to accept? Hersfold(t/a/c)04:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I see that I've finally given in :) Anyways, I won't formally accept or anything until I come back on Monday. At that time I'll be able to answer the questions. MuZemike08:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome! We had the extended family over for chili and I at least got to play Guitar Hero 5 with my brother and cousin's boyfriend and G-Force with my cousins. By the way, please note my neutral in your RfA, I am totally persuadable here. I mean, as this exchange suggests that negative stuff between us feels like the past and all, and I have not seen anything from you lately to give me pause, so I just am a little confused on how to go here, i.e. is the past the past and stuff like the above is what I should look forward to from you from here on out, am I right to be hesitant, or what? I hate being wishy washy, as you know, I usually try to be more decisive. Anyway, I hope your holiday was good too. Best, --A NobodyMy talk01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it was the daiquiris :) In all seriousness, I'll try and say something tomorrow, as I'm pretty bonked as-is right now with getting back from vacation and starting that RFA, patrolling SPI, doing some DRV work, and working on building up another article. (I'll probably do the same tomorrow but with a little more time and coffee available.) Obviously, I'll all official responses on the RFA. Thanks, MuZemike01:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike! I am posting here concerning one of my questions rather than in your RfA as in it is probably best that the example I am going to use does not become some kind of battleground example from those closely following the questions. Anyway, please consider, for example the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manon Batiste:
I am the only participant in the discussion to make a major effort to find sources and to improve the article under discussion: [9]. As a result of my efforts, the article now has out of universe information on development and reception.
This information also seems relevant to two other articles, which I added per [10] and [11].
Thus, as a result of my actions, the article under discussion now contains sourced out of universe context, but perhaps more importantly, two articles concerning a real life heroine of World War II and a notable video game have been established and improved accordingly. Again, no one else in the discussion made such efforts. And yet, see User_talk:A_Nobody#Mergers_of_current_AfDs_again. Consider me baffled! It seems some are so bent on either arguing with me because they dislike me and are willing to lie if it sees my efforts frustrated or despise fictional character articles so much that they would rather the article on the real person and the actual game be deminished as well (i.e. unmerged) if it means they can be rid of the character article. Now, the character is a main character with multiple game appearances as confirmed in published books even. The edit history is as far as I can tell not containing libelous statements or copy vios. So, I suppose, I am just curious what you think here? Is the work on the article enough to as I believe justify further improvement or alternately is the merger work and the veracity of the character enough to at worst still justify a redirect with edit history intact?
Relatedly, please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson. Again, note what I did for his article and for some others: [12] (addition of sourced content to the article for the main character of the 30th best selling game series of all time); [13] (added development section to one of most important games of all time as noted by IGN); [14] (added development and reception and most important references to a previously unreferenced game article that was almost all plot); and [15] (verified content in another hitherto insufficiently sourced article concerning an award winning game - Best PSP First-Person Shooter of 2006 accoridng to IGN). Yet, look at the AfD where I get sweared at and labelled disruptive. WTF?! Previously insufficiently referenced and plot focused articles concerning award winning games are improved by my actions in addition the article concerning the main character of the notable series that again, why would anyone not want it at least redirected to Medal of Honor (series) to be considerate to our readers and editors who are curious about this main character for which we actually have out of universe development and reception information? (sorry if that sounds too ranty...)
I strongly believe there is NO legitimate case for redlinking in either instance and therefore am greatly curious as to your opinion. Thanks. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk19:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the first one (which was the one oversighted) was actually the one I had some frustration with. The one you linked to I believe I changed my !vote to keep (The first one I !voted to delete.) since someone else came through and found stuff that I couldn't find. MuZemike23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I use it for German myself and does an OK job. But then again I do know some German. I'll think about that next time I translate something in Spanish via Translate. MuZemike07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete the article from main space completely and move it to a subpage of the creators.
The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework this article and maybe wikipedia will get a long term dedicated editor
Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thank you :) I don't know if I can contact the creator in time, before someone !votes. Please give me some possible suggestions. thanks for your time. Ikip (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(2x edit conflict) Also, when I get the bit tomorrow, I will be willing to provide userfied copies of deleted pages upon request. So if you need an admin to do that, I'd be willing to help out. MuZemike19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your time sir. Have a wonderful weekend. I will float the idea with the new editor. Sorry you have had problems with anons. I hate that. Ikip (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. Let me know if he agrees. If he does, I can always speedy close the AFD, provided nobody else has a fit over it. MuZemike19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been occupied this past week, essentially missing your RfA. It is largely irrelevant now, but for what it's worth I would have wholeheartedly supported you almost immediately, and am glad (although not at all surprised) at the impending outcome. ~ Amory(user • talk • contribs)16:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it will matter with your !vote, unless you want to increase the support tally even more than it is now. But thank you, hopefully I can do a satisfactory job as an admin. MuZemike17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.
Congratulations
Ok, here's the official note to let you know that I have closed your request and granted you the additional rights. Use them well, and spend some additional time reading the administrator's reading list, particularly when you are unsure or if you are working on something new. Be conservative with the tools, as it is better to learn to diffuse a situation than to inflame it. Also take into account any of the advice or comments in your RfA that you can use to help you become a better asset to the project. Keep up the good work and again, congrats. - TaxmanTalk19:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess checking the unblocked accounts is pretty obvious, but sometimes the obvious is overlooked. That was the only reason I opened the CU request.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, as NuclearWarfare said, this is still a rather sensitive situation that is unfolding as ArbCom releases more information. If you see any other socks, my recommendation would be just to directly email ArbCom. Don't worry about it, though; we're all eager to catch that biggest fish sometimes :) MuZemike03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw a minimal amount was indicated on a couple of Danish searches as well as their entry on the Danish Wikipedia. However, as noted, it's likely not notable, which was why I chose to go the prod route on this one. MuZemike20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
But we are talking about this article on En Wikipedia, not Dk or Danish searches. I guess we will have to agree to differ as to the meaning of "indicating importance or significance". – ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Why did you lock this page? I'm trying to put together a counter to the WebAssign puff piece that is its wikipedia page. The software is outrageous and there needs to be some record of that on here. If you're going to lock everyone out at least give them some instructions on how to coordinate this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhoye (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, please mind our policy of neutral point of view. We can't just have outright displayed on pages that such-and-such is "outrageous". Instead, we use more neutral wording such as "this software has received criticism from such-and-such for outages, etc." Hope that helps more, MuZemike17:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion
Just a little suggestion: when you are declining a speedy deletion, would you please say "declining speedy" in your edit summary rather than "contesting speedy" - I believe this is the usual form of words in such cases. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you at your personal page but I was hoping to have this looked at in a timely manner as opposed to filing a new sockpuppet case.
Done indefinitely blocked. I've been collaborating with CheckUsers, and there's not much else there. Let me know if any other suspicious socks come up. Thank you, MuZemike07:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
A vandalism-only account, which was indefinitely-blocked beforehand, was using that IP to do the exact same vandalism. Hence, the longer block length. MuZemike22:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
However you can't even tell if the account was using the same IP address when it was blocked. IP block lengths should be based on how long the same user is going to use the same IP address. Most IP blocks of non-obviously-static IPs are usually around a day, and the reason for that is that IPs really do get switched that frequently. I see no evidence that this assignment is going to stretch to two weeks. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Of course if the vandal comes back on the same IP feel free to block for a bit longer. In most cases the autoblock will suffice, and where that doesn't work then it usually means it's a dynamic IP address anyway. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
IP vandalism
Hi there! I was wondering if you might have time to answer a question for me. If certain IP vandalism occurs, and their contributions link to particular sockpuppet inquiries, is there an appropriate forum for notification? It seems like posting to an archived page, might be counter-productive, as far as editing time goes.
This goes specifically to User talk:172.130.137.152. Anyways, if you can shed any light on this, please respond on my talk page so I don't have to watch yours. I'm getting pretty jammed over there.
My wikipedia motto might become "IP range blocks encourage people to create accounts," or something along those lines. A user name is every bit as annonymous as an IP if the editor has any imagination at all. Checkusers should be able to continue to weed out banned users, just as they are now, and hopefully ever moreso in the future. You are doing alot for the project! Keep up the good work! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I think J.delanoy already took care of that IP. I think he knows who this vandal is (who likes to harass him a bit) and probably already did a check on him.
Also, if an IP range is hardblocked, then creating an account wouldn't be enough (you still wouldn't be able to edit because the underlying IP you would be editing under would still be blocked. You would need to request an IP block exemption to be able to edit. Hope that clarifies things a little, MuZemike21:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I posted the stadium flowers page and it shows it was deleted because of advertising. If you could give me pointers or a heads up on what to change so that it will no longer fit in this section?
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.223.144 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
First off (and I just noticed this), most the page you created was copypasted from http://www.stadiumflowers.com/company.cfm , which is a copyright infringement. For legal and licensing reasons, we cannot accept such copyrighted content. Unfortunately, because of that, I cannot restore or userfy the article for that reason. As a result, you would have to start over and rewrite the page so that it doesn't infringe on copyright. You also need to change the tone of the article so that it's more encyclopedic in nature. The best advice I can give you is to look at other encyclopedic articles on this site to get a feel on what is considered to be proper tone. If you have any other questions, let me know. Hope this helps, MuZemike21:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought i had referenced that. In making this page I have e-mailed the company and if I have there permission is there a way to use it? or should I just put it in my own words and reference it?
What to have in the email (click "show" to expand this box, showing its contents)
I hereby affirm that I am [OR: COPYRIGHT HOLDER'S NAME is ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK, [ EITHER included in this email OR located online at LINK ].
I agree to publish that work under the free license TYPE OF LICENSE [ SEE BELOW ].
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity) SENDER'S AUTHORITY (copyright-holder, director, appointed representative, etc)
[ On behalf of COPYRIGHT HOLDER'S NAME AND DETAILS ] DATE
LEGEND
Type of license
For images, choose at least one type of license from here. All licenses we use have similar intentions. The most common type are "Creative Commons" licenses such as CC-BY-SA version 3.0 and you may state this if unsure.
For text, the license is always CC-BY-SA version 3.0. If you are the contributor of the text to Wikipedia and the sole copyright holder, you must also co-license the text under the GNU Free Documentation License.
IMPORTANT: YOU MUST STATE A TYPE OF LICENSE WE CAN USE, OTHERWISE THIS DECLARATION IS NOT VALID.
Other fields
The other fields shown in bold and upper-case need to be filled out if applicable. This also helps clarify to the owner what they are agreeing to. If they are not filled out, the declaration and license will NOT be accepted. Details that you might need to include are:
Name of the work
Link to identify the work, if not included in the email
Your name and your authority to sign the declaration (ie that you are the copyright holder, a director, their appointed representative, etc).
Name and details of copyright holder, if different or you are acting on someone else's behalf
Date of signing
Identification of material
Make sure to include the URL of the image or text if not included in your email.
Email address
E-Mail the permission e-mails to our email response team ("OTRS") at permissions-enwikimedia.org (for articles or English Wikipedia uploads) or permissions-commonswikimedia.org (for Commons or if unsure). Please send a copy to the person (if any) you were previously in touch with so they know about it.
After that email is sent, let me know, so I can recreate the page. What will happen then is that I will place {{OTRS pending}} on the discussion/talk page of the article, letting others know that the article contains copyrighted material that is in the process of being released from copyright under one of the two licenses I have mentioned above.
For additional guidance on everything I said above, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials which may (or may not) explain better than me how releasing copyrighted material works.
Finally, try and find some coverage of the company in some reliable secondary sources, because in order for the article to stay on Wikipedia, it has to have at least a couple of such sources to demonstrate why it's notable. Otherwise, somebody else may come around, wanting the article to be deleted again for another reason (in this case, lack of established notability). Let me know if you need any clarification or have any other questions. MuZemike18:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and also, remember that after you're done typing a talk page message on Wikipedia, always type four tildes (~~~~) at the end (what we here call "signing"). The four tildes will automatically generate your IP address and place the time in which you made the message. MuZemike18:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the creation logs, where it says Irvine22 was created [19] before JonnieIrvine [20], but Irvine22 didn't start contributing until December 2008. Now that I'm looking at it more closely, do you think that JonnieIrvine was intended to be the main account, with Irvine22 being the sleeper? MuZemike21:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
If you look at User talk:Irvine22, there has been recent talk page activity there after the block as opposed to User talk:JonnieIrvine, which has had no activity after I've made the block. I'm going to assume right now that Irvine22 is the account being used, so I'm going to leave the blocks as-is. MuZemike17:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer! Yes, that would be good if you would semi-protect my user page, but leave my talk page unprotected because I think anyone should be able to leave me a message. Thanks. Vancouver Outlaw(Speak)01:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of it; I may be an involved admin. But your block reason was not quite accurate; he wasn't stalking me precisely; I was just the last one to revert the multiple additions of a reference to loosely related articles. — Arthur Rubin(talk)22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, taking a quick glance at the contribs, that's what it looked like on the surface. But a block is a block, anyways, hopefully the person behind the IP understands the block—we don't blindly revert in rapid-fire fashion like that.
I don't quite understand your conclusion in this regard. OK, most of the IPs I listed are inactive. However, User:71.141.231.74 has been very much active in the last 24 hours, and abusive in the same ways as User:71.141.225.166. So why is only the latter IP blocked? Also, while User:Axiomatica is a stale account, it still could be used to get around an IP block. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Aw, crud, you're right. I completely missed the master IP. Now blocked also for 24h. If any other IPs come around, let me know, and I'll either block again or consider a rangeblock. I wanted to stay away from rangeblock because nearly all of them were stale and also that one of them is extremely busy and would likely cause lots of collateral damage. MuZemike00:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I totally understand why you don't want to do a rangeblock, and I'm guessing with dynamic IPs like this, the ones used last year might be reassigned by now. You might consider blocking the Axiomatica account, however, unless that would require a more complicated checkuser search, etc. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I will block it for security/abuse reasons, but keep in mind that CheckUser wouldn't be able to bring up anything because it's been almost a year and a half since that account edited. MuZemike00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Rd232 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
You know, you've been pretty active for a while. If it's getting a bit much, maybe it's time for a wikibreak? Have a cookie and think on it. :) all the best, Rd232talk11:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I have corrected all the issues...
They were unfinished... But on the other hand...
Do you think anyone can consider being my own work, the fact of publishing works from other people already published in encyclopediae or research books 5, 30 or 80 years ago? (80 years ago I wasn't even born)
The only thing I shouldn't do is to draw my own conclusions, but this is not the case, for I just publish assertions from other people's works already published in other books or encyclopediae
I've copied the references from worldcat.org
Catalan gunpowder
^ Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europeo Americana., Madrid 1934-96- VOL.46 - Page 122- ISBN 8423945006
^ NASA CONFERENCE PUBLICATION #2014, VOL.1, Page 73 - R. Cargill Hall - OCLC Number: 5354560
^ a b La historia del muy alto e invencible Rey Don Iayme de Aragon, primero deste nombre llamado el Conquistador - Bernardino Gómez Miedes - Valencia (viuda de Pedro de Huete, 1584)
^ NASA CONFERENCE PUBLICATION #2014, VOL.1, Page 78 - R. Cargill Hall - OCLC Number: 5354560
^ NASA:The Use of Rockets as Military Weapons at the Siege of Kai Fung Foo in 1232 A.D
^ H.S.T.I.: A Gap in the history of gunpowder and cannon
Catalan Celestina
? La agudeza y arte de ingenio. Oraculo manual y arte de prudencia. El comulgatorio de varias meditaciones de la sagrada comunion. - Baltasar Gracián - Amberes - Verdussen, 1669.
? Joannis Lodovici Vivis Valentini de disciplinis libri XX. : Excvdebat Antverpiae Michael Hillenivs in Rapo, 1531; [T.I] de corruptis artibus liber primus [ -septimus]. [T. II] de tradendis disciplina sev de institvtione Christiana liber primvs. [T. III] De prima philosophia siue de intimo naturae opificio liber primus [ -octavus]( Juan Luis Vives : Amberes : Michael Hillenius, 1531)
? Juan Luis Vives Obras completas : primera translación castellana íntegra y directa : Juan Luis Vives - Lorenzo Riber : Madrid : M. Aguilar, 1947. OCLC: 234096159
Thanks. You need to do some other thing as well to make it look like an encyclopedia article:
Ditch that "introduction" section and replace with a lead section. Normally, leads start with something like "Catalan gunpowder is...", and the most basic description follows. The remainder of the lead section documents a brief overview of the subject. Follow the bolded link to learn about how a lead section is properly constructed and works.
From what it looks like, you're describing a history of Catalan gunpowder (correct me if I'm not right), so you should organize it as such. After the lead section, you should have a heading called "History", and then describe, in prose, a chronological history of Catalan gunpowder. We normally don't organize sections by reference as it confuses readers greatly; I think those were also big concerns brought up by User:DragonflySixtyseven when he deleted them.
My apologies. I found the process confusing. When one clicks the button "Start an SPI case WITHOUT a CheckUser request," it takes you to an archive page. Where might I find current directions? Again, my apologies for doing it incorrectly. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I am at the "Start an SPI case WITHOUT a CheckUser request page. It says "You can view and copy the source of this page." I read that, I guess erroneously, to mean copy the boxed text and place it somewhere; I assumed at "Open cases: not awaiting CheckUser" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Is this where I went wrong? Where should I copy that information?
The most recent name making the identical edits, and with a contributions list of this same on article, is User:Blammersky, so I believe that would be the sock puppetmaster.
Thank you for your help. Sorry if I seem slow. I haven't requested an investigation in a very long time, and the process appears to have changed. With thanks, -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you placed my investigation request in the proper place. Thank you for doing so, and I apologize for the putting you to the trouble. I think in the end, it will help make these single-purpose accounts more responsible. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I will watch closely. The user just received a {{uw-3rr}} warning by somebody else, so a block would not be unreasonable the next time he keep reverting like this. MuZemike19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, User:Rjanag full-protected West Germany shortly thereafter. I can warn Jacurek for general edit-warring, but I can tell you right now that he's not going to break 3RR since the full-protection is up for three days. Also, this is the second page User:Flroian River has revert-warred on, so I don't think it should have been ignored because of WP:BITE, respecially regarding that all the other edits by that user seem to be narrow in focus. I was unaware that the user is currently under investigation by ArbCom. Perhaps someone else should have told me, or someone watching that ArbCom case should have been aware. If I looked one-sided, then I apologize for that oversight.
Matthead himself has also made two reverts (one with no edit summary whatsoever) on West Germany. I saw at least 4 editors involved, that's why I protected it rather than blocking anyone. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, I will respect that. Just to let you know since there is a lot more to it, the user User_talk:Matthead is currently under editing restrictions[[22]] due to his controversial edits and reverts in the past. He cannot revert more than once etc. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised at your closing this as keep, since almost all the keep votes (when you discount the one made by a blocked sockpuppeteer) were, as far as a remember, a recourse to a non-notable award they were nominated for and didn't win (and the article on that award has since been blanked and redirected), and did not get featured on television or anywhere on the MTV video music awards website. I am considering putting it up for DRV, but I wanted to check with you first. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see either argument on either side come up on top as I stated in the AFD closure (hence the "no consensus" close). I did read through it, and I don't think it would have made much a difference with the sock !vote in there or not, as the registered users on the "keep" side made their point clear. MuZemike00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing a good job here. Just for the record, I was not a sock (as determined by the investigation, which is why the block was summarily lifted). Furthermore, the purported sock (Holtzman) was cleared as being unrelated to me in the check. As to the substance here, I of course agree with the view expressed by many editors that an MTV VMA (which is what the band was nominated for) is a notable award, despite Rjanag's bald protestations to the contrary. I also note that the standard is not that the band win the award -- nomination is sufficient under WP:BAND. And then of course there were the other two criteria I believe they met.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The "purported sock" was not Holtzman, it was User:VMAsNYC, who commented extensively at the AfD and is now indefinitely blocked.
Thank you for taking the time to delete my user page. I don't think editors get enough thanks for these humdrum tasks. But I really appreciate it, as do other editors! Ikip (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You declined my request for speedy deletion of Kristine Rispi saying "(Declining speedy G3; not vandalism.). Well I agree it is not traditional vandalism it does still meet the G3 requirements as misinformation/hoax(emphasis added):
G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes.
This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism.
This page has already been deleted once and recreated.
This page is copied directly from the Create A Wrestler Wikia entry for Melissa. That entry is for a game character, not a real person. The editor is is attempting to pass off a fictional wrestler as a real person. Of course, that wikia page was created originally from Lisa Marie Varon which is why AnomieBOT keeps making the same corrections.
22:18, 28 September 2009 Willking1979 (talk | contribs) deleted "Danny Jackpot" (Speedy deleted per CSD A3, had no content whatsoever except possibly links elsewhere, a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond. using TW)
03:37, 29 September 2009 Someguy1221 (talk | contribs) deleted "Eisenhower High School (Rialto, Massachette)" (G2: Test page)
Since you have declined the deletion request, I am not sure if I can again request speedy deletion or what. Perhaps you will consider your decision. Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you're right; I didn't look close enough. A couple of those sources indicated a deliberate attempt at a hoax. Hence, I've deleted the article per G3. I will also give the user a final warning on creating hoaxes, upon threat of a block. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. MuZemike06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetmaster you banned is apparently evading ban
I hate to bother you with this, but I might not have opened an investigation correctly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SOCKMASTER, and I again ask your help. Blammersky, whom you blocked, is apparently at work again as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet Paulstern. If I opened the case so incorrectly as to be unsalvageable, please let me know and I will try again. With thanks and appreciation, -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You almost had it this time, but you forgot to replace "SOCKMASTER" with "Blammersky" (we do need to find a way to prevent users from accidentally doing that in the future, by the way). Then all you have to do is list the suspected socks (as you mostly did) with the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates; if there's not enough room, copypaste some more {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. It may help if you look at some other cases and see how they're done, as well (at least that's how I seem to learn some of the stuff around here). Hopefully someone looks at it. Thanks, again, MuZemike06:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll comb through whatever else he created. Note that I did harden Adnimistrator05's block (which was previously only softblocked) to prevent further account creation in light of this. MuZemike16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I just created a Portal (Portal:Gang) I need your help. If you have time, Can you help add some content to my portal. I would appreciate it, Thanks.--Zink Dawg -- 06:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey ..
I followed up on what you said on JohnHistory and Calton pages because I was asked to on my talk page. You have my support. — Ched : ? 04:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(back from a day mostly off-line, w00t!) I don't object to giving that IP a hole in the range-block. OTOH, if there is IP hopping, not sure that would necessarily give this user a permanent hole or prevent vandals from getting this IP. Cleaner for this user to have a login and therefore avoid the anon-block that is successfully preventing vandalism. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Mathemagician57721
Mathemagician57721 has another named sock CombinationPermutation (talk·contribs) which is currently being a royal pain in the butt. I filed an AIV, but no one seems to be active right now, and he's filing false 3RR reports and continuing to attack me, similar to what he did with Farix, and is even editing my AIV report. If you're around, can you take a look? -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you clarify where this user made a legal threat? I can't seem to find it in his recent edits. I don't doubt your action, but I've cited his block in response to a comment he made, and judging from recent events, I can guarantee some impropriety will be alleged, mine or otherwise. --KingÖomie06:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure how I missed that. Seems he's asking for an unblock of the basis of understanding NLT, without actually withdrawing the offer. --KingÖomie14:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, as the reviewing admins have already said, he must retract his legal threat in order to resume editing. MuZemike14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... seems like odd behavior. Obviously he read the policy page, so I'm not sure how he thought he had a case for unblocking without that particular puzzle piece. --KingÖomie15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I recently reported this user as I suspected User:ChristianGirl2) was a sockpuppet of it. User:71.68.211.187 has been blocked and they have User:ChristianGirl2) set up as a second account which I thought was against Wikipedia's rules if you're blocked? Am just not understanding from the notes why this was declined.
I want to make it clear I'm not questioning your decision, it's just I've never reported a sock puppet before so I want to understand your decision so I don't make the same error again --5 albert square (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
All I did so far was decline the CheckUser request. CheckUser is not necessary here, because the IP is clearly that user. Another admin should come around and make a determination if needed. Being one, I could act on it, I'm sitting on it right now because ChristianGirl12 has not made a single edit, yet. If the block expires, and the registered account still hasn't made an edit, then there would have been no purpose behind such a block. MuZemike00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I will keep an eye on both accounts now that I know for sure that they're sock puppets of each other and will report them again if still having trouble :) --5 albert square (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep all?
The result of the Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain mass nomination was keep all? You figure? The majority, including the creator, seemed to realise that the articles should be listified. Also, if you had looked at the "keeps" in question, you would have realised that most of these were invalid, since they seemed to express the view that article length is sufficient reason to keep, even if the content is simply unsourced material unrelated to the subject. Strange decision. Lampman (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Then go ahead and listify. There is nothing stopping you, besides consensus saying otherwise, from doing so. I made that clear in my closing rationale. MuZemike03:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for U.S. Steel Yard
On October 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Steel Yard, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On my Userpage, every time I click "Show" on the template, the other boxes disappear. Any way to fix this problem or direct me to a solution please--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like all the userbox groups worked all right when I clicked on them. Anyways, I went through and cleaned up a little bit of code, including an extra {{boxboxbottom}} that was borking up the formatting of your sidebar (you may or may not have seen an |} right above your introduction – that was why). Cheers, MuZemike23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but the words (including the "Show" button) still disappears when I click a "show" botton on another box. Don't know why though, any ideas?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Re your message: Poison Kill is an obvious sock of Poison Death following the duck test. Who Poison Death is, I have no idea. He apparently knows me, but I don't recognize him. If you look at his deleted contributions, he has run into Bongwarrior before. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who campfire trailer
I went ahead and did the merge (crudely) for you. I also removed the GA template since merging automatically means it's no longer GA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)03:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw a CSD request saying that NTIC was now NPA, and I appropriately merged NTIC into NPA, as there were articles on both simultaneously. Did I miss something here? MuZemike03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, both groups still exist. They are related entities, as I said above. Something like the American Civil Liberties Union -- 501(c)(4) -- and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation --501(c)(3), Or the Sierra Club -- (c)(4) -- and the Sierra Club Foundation -- (c)(3). The related groups have different responsibilities, in order to benefit from U.S. tax law allowing charitable deductions for contributions to 501(c)(3)s. Only in the case of NPA/NTIC the organizations have names that appear unrelated. Language should be added to the NPA article describing the role of NTIC as a related entity. I'll try to get around to this, but I can't promise immediate action. The whole NPA article needs reworking. Dwalls (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It was because of the consensus for deletion drawn from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The arrivals series, which, as an administrator, I am obligated to judge. I saw that the reasons for deletion outweighed the reasons for retention in this case. If you wish to still work on the page in hopes that it can be included one day, I would be happy to provide you a deleted copy of the page, in which you can work on the page in the meantime. MuZemike07:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Consensus for deletion was not based on any rule by any of deletion suggester, if you dont believe me ask them have any of them checked the contents of the videos ? How can they make any claim without even checking the contents ??? This is the very question i've been asking them which no one answered now i am putting it to you Sir Mr. Administrator. Deletion suggester suggested the article to be deleted as it as listed in the See Also of Illuminata (film) citing the fact that movie contents does not adhere to the titles meaning. And suggested that the article is spam and irrelevant, Now for the same reason shouldnt his suggestion be also considered as spam and irrelevant as he himself made his claims without watching the videos ??
What you're not understanding is that only one person suggested that it might have been spam, while the others on the deletion side suggested lack of notability because of the absence of reliable secondary sources. The subject itself, blogs, or Internet forum postings do not count as reliable secondary sources. None were provided, nor could the ones who sided for deletion because they weren't able to find any. MuZemike16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems like you don't understand what's obviously going on. Please, spare me the simplistic both-sides-are-equally-bad equivalency: telling someone strongly -- AGAIN -- to stop repeated harassment is an attack? Hint: giving moral support to trolling is generally considered a Bad Thing, while understanding context -- especially Gaming the System -- is a Good Thing. --Calton | Talk14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If I'm going to make any comment, I will do so at ANI (which is why I think you chose to vent at me about it). MuZemike16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Doctor Who campfire trailer
Suggest you reconsider that close. That was not a "merge" consensus. The "not notable" argument was refuted, at length. Sceptre(talk)17:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
However, it can be argued that YeshuaDavid's (the nom's) refuting of your refutation I think carries weight, as well, assuming that's what we're talking about here. MuZemike17:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And I refuted that refutation of the refutation. His argument was that the sources given did not constitute "significant coverage", which N defines as:
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Also, have you looked at the other arguments presented, particularly the last couple of arguments in support of a merge? They don't mention notability per se. In fact, they don't argue non-notability at all, and being notable is not necessarily the sole reason to have its own article; it depends on what fits into what. I also reiterate that being a GA does not disqualify any significant editorial actions from being discussed or done. MuZemike17:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and those concerns were actually previously addressed. Cedders has a good argument, but it's really the same as those presented in the merge discussion. I also disagree with his "precedent" argument; length of the piece doesn't matter (noitulovE, although that won a record and this didn't), and we don't delete Simpsons episode articles even though they created the precedent for crappy episode articles. And, as a ATA-invoking aside, I'm flabbergasted at the result being a merge for a properly sourced GA while unsourced, non-notable, NOT-violating articles about fiction are kept daily at AFD even though no work will ever be done on them to fix the concerns. Sceptre(talk)18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it bad to talk to another admin when I think a deletion of an article wasn't justified/want to know what you think about it? I don't want to fall into the deleting admin's back, but I'd like to hear another opinion on it (deletion already happened though). Yarcanox (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
FC Prefab Modelu
Hi, thanks for reviewing for speedy deletion FC Prefab 05 Modelu. I thought that since it was dissolved in two years, without any notable results in the mean time, it might fail WP:N. I'm still not sure how it meets WP:N. Could you please clarify me on this?
To make things easier. I don't argue that it was established, as I looked it up and it seems legitimate. However out of the total of 27000 hits, very few actually contain something about this team. One such example that contains information is the Romanian sportpedia.
You're welcome. Keep in mind that importance is a little different from notability in Wikipedia terms, and hence A7 is a much lower criteria for inclusion than notability. MuZemike19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Edit-warring/content dispute has apparently erupted there. Also per a request by another uninvolved user at requests for page protection. I advise both of you to discuss all of your changes on the article's talk page during this time, and pursue disupte resolution or third opinions. That is, unless I missed something here (which is possible). MuZemike19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the discussions have been ongoing, and the edits have generally be progressive and reasonable. Aprock (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi MuZemike! Thank you for blocking these two editors. Their edits were showing up all over Huggle and other than giving them each 3RR warnings, there wasn’t much an outside editor could do. Whose version to choose? In an event, they chose to ignore the warning, brought their argument to my talk page, and continued reverting each other. The time-out you gave them will hopefully throw cold water on their edit war. I have to be honest, the reason I brought it to WP:AIV is that WP:ANEW requires way too much info to file what should be a simple report. Instead of report filing at WP:ANEW being as painless as at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, it is as painful and detailed as filing a report at WP:ANI. (Or, so it seems to me.) Again, thank you for taking action on this. — SpikeToronto05:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I read your sock puppet report. Wow! I thought from the way their edits looked and the way they forgot the ~~~~ to sign their messages on my talk page that they were newbies. Shows how little I know. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto06:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Who did I personally attack? If you can tell me, I'll apologize. Otherwise, I think you owe me an apology, for insulting and overzealous use of one of those "warning templates" (are they ever used for anything worthwhile?) 69.159.84.182 (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. 69.159.84.182, you better explain yourself over there. You personally attack a group of editors by calling them "idiots" and having "asperger's". It is threatening, uncivil, and clearly not within our proper decorum to do so. MuZemike08:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You unblocked this user a few days ago "provided you always provide a source with every image you upload as well as add the appropriate license". However, the user is still uploading images with incomplete information. They're just uploaded with a URL as the source; no license or fair use rationale. The user means well, but isn't paying attention to copyright. Could you try to talk to the user or reblock? Shubinator (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll talk to him. He's providing the sources as he was told to do, but he's not utilizing any fair-use rationales. MuZemike06:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A situation in which we are both familiar seems to be escalating once again. See talkpage history for both User:Calton and User:JohnHistory. I suggest that we propose a talkpage ban for both editors equally. Nothing more at this point, no blocks .. just propose at ANI the talkpage ban to diffuse the disruption. Your thought? — Ched : ? 06:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked, User:Phil Sandifer was not in the UK, and he has not been particularly active lately. I am inclined to guess that that IP just pulled a name from the hat. They seem to have stopped in any case, so no worries however that goes. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello MuZemike. There is a 3RR case open about this article at WP:AN3#User:Captain Occam reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: ). It was filed at 15:29 on 11 October, about two days after your last protection expired. Since the dispute is confusing, and there may be more than one culprit, I was thinking that full protection might be the best way to close the case. But it seems that you *reduced* the last protection to 12 hours, probably in the opinion that things were moving in the right direction. Do you have any advice on how the 3RR case might be closed?
If blocks have to be issued, some of the people who have reverted more than they should are among those who are trying the hardest to ensure a neutral article, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the full-protection did not do its job, and I don't think full-protecting again is going to do any different. Hence, I think some blocks may be in order since they clearly don't understand that they're edit-warring. I already see one for sure and possibly two violations of 3RR after the full-protection expired, not even looking at the editing before the full-protection. MuZemike02:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that I explained my understanding of this issue here. Fixcentrics, a relatively uninvolved editor, has expressed a similar sentiment here. There's more to this issue than just edit warring, although edit warring is certainly part of it; there's also tag-teaming (as I mentioned) and Wikilawyering and POV-pushing edits (as Fixcentrics mentioned).
One good indication of this article's problems is that an uninvolved editor has asked here why the article still contains the "worldwide" tag, when there is no worldwide data that it fails to cite. It's been around 24 hours since he asked that and nobody has responded, but whenever anyone actually tries to remove this tag, it's immediately put back by editors who seem to simply want it there, even though they don't provide any justification for its inclusion. The same issue has been raised for some of the other tags, and certain editors have even stated that they simply want the tags to remain there, even though they aren't interested in actually trying to improve the aspects of the article that the tag is supposed to represent.
If I've violated 3RR, I'm willing to accept a temporary block for that, as long as it's part of a larger effort to actually fix the problems with this article. What I really care about is that this article's problems are fixed. It's been having problems like this for years, so the one good thing about this might be that these problems are finally receiving attention from administrators. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I edit from a Sprint card. IP changes automatically and quite often. I went back to the VP(P) and saw an edit I reverted was back again...Long story short: a couple of User Contrib. searches and I see that I set off a hornets nest...bottom line is that I have no idea what the firestorm was, but I see that you blocked one of the IP's I was on, and I have no idea why. I only know of 2 edits I have made that relate to any of the users in the firestorm, both at VP(P), but I could be wrong. Both of those edits were correcting a format issue, that I shouldn't have gotten involved in, but seemed to be bullied a little strongly from 1 side. In the interest of following the rules, I will not edit for 24 hours (other than to leave you this message). I will check back here before I start to edit again tomorrow. 70.4.54.253 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Question
Hi. I have a quick question as to process. 15 days after you closed out the AfD on The Shells, the same nom has again nominated it for AfD (on the same basis). Do I and the other editors really have to go through the same process all over again to reach the same result? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the user can renominate for AFD. Especially for a no consensus close, different and/or stronger arguments may be brought forward. Another difference (this is just my personal rule) will be that I won't be closing this one; another admin will be. MuZemike17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Tx. Are you free to clarify the reason you closed the original AfD at the current AfD? As you will see, the nom asserts that you closed it as no consensus "due mainly to the disruption".--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand. He and another editor are now at the second AfD, however, saying that your reason for closing the first AfD was "due mainly to ... disruption." That doesn't seem correct, but if you might clarify that at the current AfD that would be helpful, as otherwise editors in the second AfD may be misled.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but I'm curious. This was actually a vandalism-only account; I'm not entirely sure why Vegadark blocked 24 hours instead of indef; (probably Vagadark has more faith in mankind than me). But if they're evading blocks to vandalize some more, is there a reason not to block indef, instead of another 24 hours? Like I said, it probably doesn't matter, since they've discovered the joys of socking anyway, but it just struck me as a weird reaction to their vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, if he vandalizes again or create socks again. It's safe to say indef would be the way to go the next time around. MuZemike22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi MuZemike; Some of Jayebook's edits included the deletion of sourced negative content from school articles, which were then replaced with unsourced content referring to the schools' 'colored' and 'negro' beginnings. I found both the deletions and the subsequent terminology problematic, reverted some of the edits, and left a note, which I thought was appropriate, on the user's page, which you deleted. The intentions of the editor may have been positive, but the actions included vandalism, and persistent in ignoring warnings and not engaging in conversation or explanation. JNW (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
If it was in good faith, then let's treat it as such instead of punishing the editor for what may not be vandalism. A couple of them have been taken to AFD; take care of it from there. He certainly cannot remove AFD tags, as that certainly is blockable. Remember, his edits that were reverted were explaining the history of those schools, which if the time frame was right, could have very well started in African-American roots. Besides, those schools are named after African-Americans, are they not? MuZemike06:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. But even if it's agreed to give a pass to a well-intentioned editor who's not providing sources, the simultaneous deletion of unsympathetic sourced material [23], [24] is vandalism. I'm not arguing for a block, but I don't think my comment to the user, nor warnings for the recent deletions, were inappropriate. That's it for me right now....tired and can't keep my syntax in order. Thanks, JNW (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
If I deleted too much there, then restore whichever warning was appropriate. I think I was more looking at what User:Atif.t2 reverted, which I knew wasn't vandalism. MuZemike06:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:MuZemike. 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.
Done –Juliancolton | Talk 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Previous issue | Next issue 
Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OMGILOVEPEAS/Archive has been merged into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Channel 6/Archive#Report date August 8 2009, 02:54 (UTC). Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OMGILOVEPEAS now has a notice directing all future socks of that user be sent to the Channel 6 SPI page. MuZemike 04:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
