User talk:MuZemike

Dancing House in Prague
Credit: Diego Delso

Subpages: Articles worked on · Good article reviews · GA standards · common.css · common.js

Archives as of the dates listed (250KB or more to load; threads more than 3 days to be archived by bot or earlier upon personal discretion; displayed in order of date of last thread):

2009-04-29 · 2009-10-17 · 2010-01-09 · 2010-04-27 · 2010-08-12 · 2010-11-21 · 2010-03-10 · 2011-08-07 · 2012-01-28 · 2012-09-17 · present

---

Restored article

• 2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I've restored this article because the deletion was an obvious and unequivocal error. There were many edits by good faith editors, so the article was not a G5 speedy candidate. G5 says "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. " (emphasis added) As the risk of harm from restoring the article seems very remote, I've done so expediently because this is a hot news story and a lot of people will want to work on the article this weekend. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is still deleted. I just thought I would let you know.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning that. I restored it too. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I will request an unban/unblock of User:Ryan kirkpatrick, then. --MuZemike 22:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

While you are at it, can you also bring back the picture of Frank Reid when you deleted the Frank H. Reid article? Thanks. Jeff Smith (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that blocks and bans are virutally meaningless now here. That is, it doesn't matter if a block is made – once that user gets around it, we have lost that battle. --MuZemike 03:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If a ban/block evading user makes a good edit, destroying that edit only means that you're continuing to allow that editor to harm the encyclopedia. Salvidrim! 03:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The article in question was edited by others. Their contributions should not be destroyed for the sake of blocking one bad editor. G5 simply does not apply when others have edited. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not significantly enough, though, in my view; there has to be other significant edits aside from filling in a couple of references or some minor copyedits. But I suppose the community will continue to pretend that Ryan kirkpatrick is still banned when, in actuality, he is not, basically another example of saying one thing and then doing another. This is what happens when you place the encyclopedia over the integrity of the community – the hard-working editors who do build and maintain the encyclopedia in good faith get trampled on. --MuZemike 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a tendency to place the encyclopedia before the community; I thought this was the intention behind the entire project? To build an encyclopedia, not an editing community. The encyclopedia's priorities should take precendence over those of the community. Penalizing the encyclopedia to benefit the community is probably not something desirable. Salvidrim! 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What penalty? This particular article clearly met G5. Despite Jehochman's protests, the addition of one reference to an article does not constitute a substantial addition by other editors. It's important to ensure that the work of banned editors does not get included, as to do anything else simply rewards them for ban evasion.—Kww(talk) 02:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm speaking in broader terms; I would not say I am intimately familiar with this particular article. Allowing good edits to stay despite the fact that the editor behind them is banned may be perceived as a "reward" for ban evasion; however it needs to be carefully weighted, as the removal of these good edits ultimately harms the encyclopedia. To be perfectly fair, I know MuZeMike is not only right and doing this but it is also his duty; I've even defended his actions on my own talk page not an hour ago. I'm mostly voicing concern about the underlying principle, and I know this talk page is not the best venue for such a discussion; I'm still trying to form a more concrete idea before I form any kind of real proposal. Sorry for the bother. :) Salvidrim! 03:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is not for arguable cases. There were edits by other editors, so G5 did not apply. A plausible case could be made that the topic was notable, and this is now under discussion as it should be. Nothing in the article was defamatory or mis-informative, so there was no urgency to delete it. We should not reward banned editors by giving them attention. Going around deleting potentially useful articles to spite a banned editor who created them, while discouraging good faith editors who've tried to improve those artices, is a terrible idea. Far better to ignore who created an article, and focus on the question of whether the article is encyclopedic, or not, and whether good faith editors are working on it, or not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Please be more careful with deleting. Thank you!! Montell 74 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you're thinking of the immature moron(s) trying to impersonate me at WP:AIV (see [1] and [2]) those weren't me. --MuZemike 22:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Sorry for that. I was automatically redirect to your talk page. So I thought is was you.Montell 74 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize, that's fine. It's not your fault. --MuZemike 01:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A note to this impostor: People are seeing right through your edits. If you have a beef with me, tell me directly instead of acting like a childish coward. --MuZemike 19:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See WP:ANI#User:MuZomikx -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

a Barnstar

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		For clearing again the CU backlog in the ACC tool. mabdul 19:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know one such barnstar existed :) --MuZemike 19:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Closure to an SPI

Hey, is there any way we can bring closure to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx? I mean, the user doesn't know how to take a hint and even takes joy in disruption and incivility. I don't know, is there something we can do so that the guy can never create an account again? It beats users having to create SPIs every now and then. Lynch7 14:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tnxman307 blocked an IP to prevent new users from registering accounts, but that is really all that can be done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Something like a rangeblock maybe? (Please forgive me if I'm sounding foolish , I'm not the best at computers/networking etc). Lynch7 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I forgot to uncheck the "notify creator if possible" box when doing that. I really wish TW wouldn't make that redirection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Shame on you, Jasper. ;) Calabe1992 22:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mataan cabdule and User:Mataan30

Hi MuZemike! On the most recent SPI case for this account, you indicated you were going to block Mataan30 as a block-evading sock. However, I don't think you did, and the sock is continuing to post gibberish. Singularity42 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Now it is. --MuZemike 22:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA

You may want to have a look at this. Mtking ^(edits) 23:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

You're being attacked by 64.107.219.140 on User talk:64.107.219.139. Smells like a sock of someone you blocked. I warned .140. Meters (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tailsman67

Currently de facto community banned, under two rangeblocks applied by you, AniMate asked me to notify you, back on 98.71.48.246 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). See User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67 for more info. Salvidrim! 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)