User talk:Mufka/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Who's Ya Daddy?

How does it lack notability? Does having a Guinness World Record not make it notable? SpecialK 15:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the article was deleted someone else evidently agreed with me but since I can no longer see it I cannot comment on specific aspects of its notability. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. SpecialK 09:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Date edits

That was the point of those edits. To show how stupid it is. I tried for a week to get comments and knowone say anything other that talk to Tony so I started editing. Personnally I disagree with the concept of it and I think that for anyone to say that it was supported by consensus with the amount of contention that it generated is laughable.--Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing I hate about most proposals is that they get long and drawn out and most editors have little interest in trying to wade through all of the BS to figure out what is actually being proposed. In the two minutes I looked at WP:DATES, I was reminded of the famous quote by Winston Churchill - "This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read." When I see things like that, I usually just go about my business and ignore it until it really gets in my way - or when I find that I'm doing something wrong. MOS:UNLINKYEARS doesn't make much sense to me especially since its main article is an essay and not a policy or guideline. If you can point me to a good point in the discussion where someone who has not been involved can get a good idea of what is going on, I'd like to see if I can contribute. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP Chronology

I see that you have changed your vote. I thought it likely to happen, and I am sure you know best. Thanks for your interest, --Jordan ^Contribs 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal. I just don't think there will be enough editor interest to make it viable. I think for the time being we should just redirect it to one of the related projects. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should either be assimilated into the body of one of the other projects, or turned into a task force. There are not enough editors interested in contributing to this field. Jordan ^Contribs 08:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Still Confused

I beg your pardon, but regarding names on the lists of births and/or deaths, the scope which I could use as a standard still remains unclear, though I have read the link you gave me before. What questions me more, I saw unfamiliar names of American on births/deaths weeks ago, and I wonder if USA becomes a standard regarding this cause. Pardon for disrupting you, and thanks I say for guiding me. Xaliber (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In the case of births and deaths, it is required that the person be the subject of a Wikipedia bio article. As you can see Gisella Anastasia is not the subject of an article (thus the red link). The simple rule of no red links is probably the easiest to follow. Can you point out the unfamiliar names that you've seen before, and where, and maybe I can give you an explanation. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see then. For the names, unfortunately my memory can't recall it precisely, though I remember seeing some sometimes ago. Maybe I would ask for your guidance more when I find the names again. Thanks again I say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaliber (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 September 2008

Some vandalism warnings you issued

I recently saw some vandalism warnings that you issued someone, but am rather confused as to why you considered the edits you reverted to be vandalism. I would have thought that [1], [2], [3] and [4] were all good-faith edits (or, rather, the edits directly preceding those linked here were)? It Is Me Here (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to the format of date articles must be discussed before they are made per WP:DAYS. Discussions about making the types of changes that this editor made have been had in that past. I attempted to engage the editor first but he would never discuss the edits. Since he kept making the same changes without discussion, I concluded that the edits were not in good faith. I found the behavior particularly troubling since the editor is an admin. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Something strange does seem to be going on here. I have left another comment at the user's talk page regarding date links; if they do not reply within several days (or make more contributions to Wikipedia without replying), the best course of action for us would probably be go to WP:RFCC, would you say? It Is Me Here (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good plan. I thought I would just wait to see if he violated a last warning, then put it to WP:AIV with some comments thinking it would get picked up by an admin and investigated. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go, another two additions of date links without answering my post on his talk page; shall we move this thing further, then? It Is Me Here (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is an odd situation. Not engaging in discussion is bad Wikipedia:Etiquette. Unfortunately, the edits violate policies with very vague guidelines. I think a good route is to post a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) with the diffs to see what the main contributors to the policy think is the best (and their intended) course of action in such cases. Even though you and I have both contacted the user, we have done so for different reasons. That isn't sufficient for WP:RFCC. Another good place to go with this would be WP:WQA. It would be informal, but I think some good suggestions would be made there. There you could focus on lack of communication rather than just policy violation. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, WP:WQA notice created. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

DOY page content guidelines

Please can you direct me to the policy or guideline regarding content of DOY pages? Many thanks --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DAYS and WP:DOY are the project pages that layout the practices for the date pages. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Flag" vandalism

Are you serious?!? I think my IP may have been hacked because I did no such edits. I know you are probably doubting me right now and there is no Wikipolygraph, but even if they were by me, I have a real user who is always signed in unless the sign in was timed out. I have not been on for a while. My real username is User:FrogTape. Even so, how did it take so long to notice an act of vandalism that is over a year old. I am serious about this. If I am wrongly accused of vandalism one more time, I'm leaving the wiki for good. I don't know if someone got onto my computer that time, or if my IP was hacked, but I am the only one who gets on Wikipedia at this house, but I think it was the first option. I've never even been on that page except to see how I was wrongly accused. I don't know how this happened but if someone else did happen to post this on this IP, not me, then I'm sorry for letting that happen. Whoever might have done that doesn't use this IP anymore, I can assure you. I undersatand that you're justtrying to stop wiki-vandalism, that's great, but you shouldn't accuse someone of vandalism just because their IP posted it. Maybe someone logged onto it and posted it earlier, but the people who use the computer now shouldn't have to pay the price. I love the Wiki. Maybe replace the warnings with suspicion notices or accusations, and if it happens again, then you can safely assume that it's them. I realize I'm probably getting nowhere and you're saying "Yeah, right!!!". but I just want to clear my good name. The real FrogTape- 4.244.213.138 (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, seeing as the warning you posted was posted on 4/17/07 and I just got the message (seriously), you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. It's on this IP's talk. 4.244.213.138 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems likely that in the 18 months since the vandalism occurred, you've received a new IP address and it just happens that a former holder of the IP was responsible for the vandalism. Since IP addresses change, that is why it is recommended that editors create a login so they don't have to deal with the remnants of a previous user of the IP. Vandalism was committed from the IP address that you currently have and the user was warned appropriately. If it will make you feel better, I will remove the warnings, but it really doesn't matter. Don't worry about your good name, the IP is not connected to your username. Just log in and you won't have to deal with it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem I simply won't add items to the date pages while you are treating them in a proprietary manner and reverting items will no discussion. Clearly my qualifications in that area are not required. lemlin

Why do you want to delete this girl's page?

I don't understand your reasoning for trying to delete Alissa Musto's page. Althought not a naional superstar, she is known very well through out New england. Its a New Englander thing( you'd have to be from New England to know who she is). she was on National television when she was only 9. NATIONAL TELEVISION!!!! She has won many regional talent and piano competitions through out new england as well as northeast divisions. Please don't delete this page. Before you think about it please watch her performance. Thank you for your time and patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.153.52 (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear that this person meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC. It will go to discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alissa Musto where others can weigh in. If you can provide more information and references, it would help to establish notability. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why delete 25 June 1997?

Why in the world are people deleting days in history?

What happened to the Wikipedia I actually can USE?

--Petercorless (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In the particular case that you are referring to, the article had very little context to explain why it was worth keeping. The date itself is not notable because someone died on that date. There is rarely enough significant information to justify the creation of a particular date article since most of the information would already be included in, for example, the June 25 or the 1997 articles. If you'd like to see a broader discussion on the topic, have a look at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

McGill Street deletion

Formerly there was a McGill Street in Vancouver, see Revision history and in Montreal, see Pointe-à-Callière Museum#Expansion project. Great potential for confusion. Peter Horn 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply is here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sixer sources

Hello Mufka. The sources are in the first edit in the edit summary, so the tag unreferenced with the text This article does not cite any references or sources. is simply wrong. --Ilion2 (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources need to be in the article, but I'll go in and try to fix it for you. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the allmusic ref, but the second link isn't a valid ref from what I can see (and since it is an unsigned artist page, it undermines the notability of the band) and the link to the other article is not a valid ref either. You can't use another article as a ref. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not ref'ed to another article (with no tags), I just used it as a source for a few words. I understand that critical content or conflicting content needs valid sources. Thanks. --Ilion2 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Coaching

Howdy, I see your comments at RFA. And I do think you have potential to be an admin. I do some admin coaching from time to time and was wondering if you would be interested some coaching to try again at RFA. We are a team here of 10,000 fellow editors and should never feel we need to go it alone on an issue. I think your frustration with Hemanshu was alright, but if you had brought in another user sooner, like It Is Me Here, earlier, it probably would have gone smoother. MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the offer. I hope you'll let me think on it for a while. I'd like to get through this one, process all of the criticism, and decide how I should proceed. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, take as long as you need, I'll be here. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Lee

Hello. I don't know why you ''deleted'' this page with this edit. I spent a lot of time on it.--Mathematiquizard 18:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Mufka here, while you spent a lot of time on it, from the content it appears he was not a notable person and there were no references showing external notability. A redirect was the appropriate edit. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Lexington School

Are you able to provide me with a copy of the deleted page, Lexington School? Thanks. Tezkag72 (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not have that ability. You can ask User:Ohnoitsjamie the admin who deleted it. It didn't say much - nothing constructive. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Hi, I have closed your RFA as it is unlikely to succeed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Speedy deletion template

I noticed you tagged Moncypoomoottil as 'not referring to a real person'. It's actually nonsense, because the title doesn't make sense and the text is made of illegible gibberish. I'll fix it up. - Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It was tagged A7, that applies to an organization too, which is what the text described. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, you could say that too, and the article's deleted anyway. At least, we had different but legitimate views on what the page looked like. - Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You might run into trouble by tagging things as nonsense because unless it is irrefutably obvious, and it was not obvious to me that Moncypoomoottil was not a word in another language, you are not assuming good faith. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGill Street

The link from the disambiguation page McGill Street to McGill Street (Vancouver) is now blue. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGill Street. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Colorado Amendment 58

While the text is directly quoted from a webpage, it is not a copyright violation, and thus not a valid request for speedy deletion.

The Reporter Herald website whose copyright is being claimed to be violated by me directly copies its information from the Colorado Blue Book, a non-copyrighted nonpartisan government resource. It is mere coincidence that we are using the same GOVERNMENT resource, and they can't take us to court or anything.

So...yeah. The lesson here is to read the talk page before speedy deletion requests.

--Heero Kirashami (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for helping me out with getting the route shield size correct on Milton Road. The Template:Infobox Australian Road page isn't clear at all on this matter. --TripleThree (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It took me a second to realize that the infobox sets the image size. That's different from most others I've seen. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

userboxes

hey your user box that says: "This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know." has bad grammar. I suggest you retool it. The subject of the sentence is "This user", which is a singular noun. Your subject pronoun, they, should really be "he or she," and your indirect object, "them" should really be him/her. I've seen a lot of bad grammar, especially concerning verb conjugations, on Wikipedia. Please look for things like this in your future edits. Thanks, -the grammar police. --Deeejazzy (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create the box, so it isn't one of my edits, but I have fixed it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

Just wanted to let you know I am trying at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu, so far failing [5], but I am trying. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal note. I have been following the progress closely. I just want to see how it unfolds. I haven't gotten involved because I could appear biased in the case. It's an interesting game of cat and mouse. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Arthashastra‎

Thanks for the help with the annoying troll. I hadn't noticed what you had done until just now, but thank you for the help. I didn't think it was sufficiently bothersome to bother the Check-Users about, so I appreciate the effort you took. Thanks again. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Frank Navetta redirect

I will not change this again, but I still disagree.

Frank Navetta didn’t get any more notable through dying. But a person’s death gets them into the news and raises interest for a while. This is what I meant. I tried to find out more about Navetta (whom I didn’t know before) after reading the news (his band I knew before). I thus entered his name into Google and got the Wikipedia article as the first result. I think the article was in Wikipedia for at least some months now. A person’s death is probably a bad time to delete their pre-existing Wikipedia article. (Also, the article on Frank Navetta includes interesting information that is not contained in the article about his band.)

Sorry, I am not registered with Wikipedia-EN, but here you go: 78.48.56.112 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your argument, but the fact that he died and will be in the news for a short period will not make him notable enough to warrant an article about him. If he does not pass WP:N on his own outside the band, he doesn't get an article. Only if other information can be provided that supports his personal notability can he get a dedicated article. There is no good time or bad time to delete an article. The process needs to be objective. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationales

• Talk page (AfD discussion)

What is your rationale for recommending that action? You haven't given one. Please add your own rationale to the discussion, making sure that it is well-founded in deletion policy and thus strong enough to withstand counterargument. Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to throw me a bone on which discussion. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Duh. I thought you forgot the link, but, alas, that was the link. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gracias

Thanks for removing all the March AfD templates...a certain admin kinda forgot a huge step... --Smashville^talk 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It gave me a controlled opportunity to try out AWB. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking date years

I saw your question on the AWB talk page. If you want a script to remove dates, you can add importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test_script.js'); to your monobook.js page. That gives you a link in your toolbox on the left side when you click "edit this page," that gives you the option of "All dates to mdy."--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 09:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that will work for me. I just want to do a search and replace for things like (d. [[2007]]) and replace with (d. 2007). There aren't really any dates on the pages and I only want to unlink certain instances of the years. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I should monitor the AWB page more often, but I could write that using an "ed" or "perl" regular expression replacement, so it should be possible using AWB's regular expression replacement. But I'm not the one to construct it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's possible, and I played with the regular expression but I didn't quite get it right. I'm sure I can figure it out. My reason for posting at AWB was to see if I would get in trouble for doing it with AWB. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's another question which the Olympian is unlikely to be able to answer.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Calendar Dates

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I will follow your approach. Wallie (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I now see you have removed all my edits. This is hardly a discussion. You have already decided and acted, it seems. Wallie (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have followed your approach. There is no discussion on the talkpage WT:DAYS. All that has happened is that the intros I have put up have all been reverted by you. At this point of time, it seems nothing will change. Wallie (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion doesn't happen immediately. Please be patient and we'll get some input from other editors. This won't be resolved today. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [6]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought consensus existed here. It was just never acted on. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

November 24

huh? Philly jawn (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Stock market 'records'

I saw your opinion on User:XSG's talk page. Thanks for the opinion, but would you mind reverting his changes on the pages in question? He's up to 3 reverts and gloating about it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was challenging you to actually discuss good-faith efforts prior to reverting them. I felt completely bullied by you and note that the only reason you had to request someone else's assistance in a reversion was because you were also at the limit for the day. Saying that I was gloating about this shows that you completely failed in the Wikipedia bahavioral guideline of assuming good faith. I hope you will learn to be more courteous to other Wikipedia editors, though comments on your talk page indicate that this has been an ongoing issue for you. —  X  S  G  16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Mufka has already judged your entries to be non-notable, and I'm simply asking him to follow through. And, once again, you quote policy without actually understanding it: it's 'assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary'. Your edit-warring over your (now for the fifth time) refusal to understand that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material has simply made it necessary. Hopefully, you will take the time to understand and follow policy, cease edit-warring because you cannot bring yourself to discuss changes, learn what edits fit and which don't, listen to feedback given (I notice that you've utterly ignored Mufka's critique on your talk page), argue honestly and not resort to irrelevancies and hiding behind policies you don't understand nor respect, and be able to differentiate between your narrow and trivial interests and the good of the encyclopaedia as a whole. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up at User talk:XSG. —  X  S  G  17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

XSG has reverted his edits in good faith pending further discussion. While I was tempted to revert the edits when I first saw them, the discussion is ongoing, the edits needed to remain. Otherwise it would have just been an edit war. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)