User talk:Mazca

This is Mazca's talk page.

If you want to leave me a message, please do so in a new section below. I will reply here, to keep the conversation together, unless you tell me otherwise. If I suspect you might not be watching my talkpage, I'll tag you.
If I left you a message on your talk page, please feel free to reply there.
If I didn't leave you a message, and you don't want to leave me a message, that is your own problem. Enjoy the picture of a dead horse to the left.

I tend to cram anything that's no longer immediately relevant in the archive. If you want to discuss something in there, please start a new section here rather than posting in there.

Deletion of Alpha MOS - Perichrom discussion

Why did you delete my company page, whereas there many other companies that created their own page or their products page, for example in our business area: Agilent, Shimadzu, etc? Do you have any link with this area? Could you please let me create it without interefering with my business? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonnefille (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you read our FAQ for organisations - it's generally discouraged for people to write articles about themselves and their own companies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view, and your article was written in a highly promotional way, with no references to coverage in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 08:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP block

Hello Mazca, you blocked an IP for their behavior at Meadville, Pennsylvania. That user, 76.166.222.254, has now gotten an account and is doing the same ole thing, now with a smidgen of Wikilawyering. Please have a look at the article history and tell me how to proceed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the user's talk page. I suggest ceasing your edit warring, Drmies, as it looks like both he and you have broken the 3RR. Hopefully, we can reason with this guy, but if he continues to remove these people as long as they still have articles, he'll have to be blocked for edit warring and disruption. Tim meh (review me) 00:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this; got posted just after I went to bed. Looks like he's been blocked for now for further edit-warring - I do agree with Timmeh, however, that you should watch out for 3RR yourself here. Let me know if I can be of assistance if this starts up again. Thanks to both of you ~ mazca ^talk 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mazca, you might want to block 99.48.92.202, as it is obviously the same person as the blocked account. He has made the exact same edits to the Meadville article as the other IP and the blocked account. Also, see here and here. Both IPs originate in Los Angeles. It seems we have someone circumventing a block. Tim meh (review me) 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blocked that one, and decided just semi-protecting the article for a week was probably going to be easier for all involved. ~ mazca ^talk 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. :) Tim meh (review me) 18:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you both. Thanks also for pointing out that I fell foul of 3RR--I guess I just got carried away by my own sense of rightness. But while I'm here, and while I have your attention, wouldn't this fall under Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions_to_3RR, "Exception--Obvious vandalism"? I mean, the Bulldog and their IPs are arguing that this is a matter of content, not of policy, whereas I would maintain that removing notable people from a list of notable people is automatically vandalism. So--was this obvious vandalism, and would that plead me free of a 3RR charge? (I think I reverted five times? maybe six. Mea culpa.) I'm not trying to say that I was right (and in fact, if you block me I'll have time to get some work done, haha), but I am wondering about this, also because I figured that I want to run for admin when I hit 100,000 edits (I have plenty of time to learn). Thanks again to both of you, Drmies (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it would fall under that exception. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and that person thought he was abiding by Wikipedia's policies. He even took my advice and started AfDs instead of continuing his edit warring. If you want to run for adminship, you definitely don't need 100,000 edits. Most people view the threshold at 3,000-5,000 edits to be acceptable. I ran when I had less edits than you do, and I didn't receive any opposes based on my number of edits. If you plan on running, though, you should make sure you haven't done anything controversial in the last three or four months. The recent incident at Meadville, Pennsylvania would probably get you a few opposes. Tim meh (review me) 03:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I offered him the same advice, here and here. You have shown a lot more patience and good faith than I have, though. Thanks for the advice, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I passed RfA with barely 4,500 edits! I think waiting for 100k is getting a bit over the top

. Either way though, I think I agree with Tim that this wasn't quite "obvious vandalism", though it was rather unconstructive. However, normally the 3RR blocks where both parties to an edit-war get blocked are when neither is talking - in this case, I could see that you were trying to take it to the talk page while he was just edit-warring without communication. Edit-warring's still worth avoiding, but I didn't think it was blockable when that kind of thing doesn't happen very often. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 11:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIV notes

Sorry if my comments at AIV look like they are duplicating yours. While processing the block request for Xellas (talk · contribs) my kids asked me for something after I had left him the 3rr warning, but before I could save my decline note on AIV. By the time I could save, I got an edit-conflict with your decline note. Anyway, just wanted to give you the heads up in case you were wondering why I was re-inventing the wheel here. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, no problem - AIV had quite a pile of unaddressed borderline reports like that, so I was going through responding to everything. Looks like this discussion's fairly academic at this point as he just got blocked anyway after starting the edit war again. Don't you just love these people? :) ~ mazca ^talk 00:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi there. I found your name on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests.

I've used Vandal Proof in the past, and just today decided to give Huggle a go. However, it says I need rollback rights to use it on en. So I was wondering if you could grant me said rights. I'm a long time editor in good standing (as far as I'm aware! ;)). If there's anything else you'd like to know, just hit me up. Thanks! --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me! Replied on your talk page. ~ mazca ^talk 20:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Jonasbrotherareterrible

I don't see why I can't edit my old posts. That account was banned without a good reason and I edited my old post. I did the same on Avenged sevenfold's talk page. KezianAvenger (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Feldman

Somehow in changing "Scott Feldman (baseball)" to "Scott Feldman", someone deleted the "Scott Feldman (baseball) talk page." I can't find it.

Can you? If you can, can you deleted what is now on the Scott Feldman talk page with that material? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have botched something while moving the page; though I can't see any obvious missing content right now. I will investigate further when I get home from work later today. ~ mazca ^talk 09:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the content was split over multiple talk pages by assorted incomplete moves over time - it seems Juliancolton (talk · contribs) has merged the histories which should solve the problem. Let me know if I can be of further assistance - thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 17:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VandaI from hell block

Just to let you know that I think that User:VandaI from hell, who you just blocked, is a sock puppet of User:Lolsuper7am (based on similar editing terms and vandalism targets). I'm not sure what the process is with this – or even if one is necessary – but thought I'd give you a heads-up. Cheers, Fribbulus Xax (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely, but but I don't think it's worth worrying about. Tracking sockpuppets is worthwhile if their vandalism is subtle or insidious, but in this case it's just an idiot creating nonsense pages. Any further accounts are just going to get blocked indefinitely straightaway because they're vandalism-only accounts, regardless of any sockpuppetry. Every time he gets blocked the autoblock disables editing from his IP address, so unless we really note a long-term pattern of abuse then it's best to just revert, block, ignore. Thanks for your efforts, anyway. :) ~ mazca ^talk 10:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem AN/I vandal

The AN/I vandal that you've just stopped by protecting the page is a BIG problem. Just in case you don't already know he did the same thing only a while ago (before the page was protected for a few hours). When it was unprotected again, he came back to make those edits. I believe it is the same person but how on earth can someone have so many IP Adresses?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 08:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few possibilities. They may simply be using open proxies, or another occasional tactic is to post a diff link of a vandalised version of the page to a web-board that would find it funny, then just ask whoever reads it to go to the link and press "save page". Both of those things result in lots of completely different IPs doing the same edit - it may or may not all be the same person. That kind of thing is hard to stop permanently, but semi-protection stops their fun pretty easily. ~ mazca ^talk 08:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But since they've just come back for a second go, is there anything you can do to stop them coming back for a third go once the protection is lifted? After all, even if you block all those IP Adresses think of how many more there could be! --^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 08:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact about 99% of vandals is that they're easily bored. It's quite likely that by the time that semi-protection expires in five or six hours, the vandal(s) in question will have gone to bed or found something else diverting to do. They may be back tomorrow, but by protecting the page without a fuss (see WP:DENY they generally lose interest. It's a lot easier to protect a page than it is to repeatedly switch your IP address to vandalise, so if the vandal isn't getting the attention they crave then they rapidly tend to go away. ~ mazca ^talk 08:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for that. The reason I asked was because I am a rollbacker, so it's always good for editors like me to know exactly how vandals are thinking and seeing 8 different IPs attack the AN/I page over 16 minutes was something new for me. Again, thank you for your time.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 08:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Do let me know if there's anything else you need help with, I've seen your anti-vandal work and appreciate the effort you put in. Thanks :) ~ mazca ^talk 08:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

209.36.244.253 (talk · contribs)

I think you forgot to uncheck "Allow this user to edit his own talk page while blocked" as he still has access. Best, →javért ^breakaway 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Touché! Now corrected - thanks. That's what I get for doing things right before bed time... ~ mazca ^talk 23:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjd0060 does have a point though, that wasn't worth an edit war and he probably is within his rights to blank the page. I'm going to sleep, if I've cocked anything further up with this block I give any other admin permission to fiddle with it as much as necessary! ~ mazca ^talk 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian rock bands

Hello mazca, thank you for your message. I actually have no particular interest in, or knowledge of article List of Christian rock bands... It was just a random article I stumbled upon, that looked to be in need of a little help. I hadn't realised it was a recently created article, or that it had been deleted twice before, til after I performed a rather lengthily copy-edit and page-move to solve the title CAPS issue. As I mentioned to PMDrive1061, my biggest concern was with the vast amount of ambiguous overlinking... and now, the fact that I believe the list should perhaps be displayed in a single column. I should mention however, that while copy-editing, I removed a number of textual items that clearly indicated that the list of bands had indeed been copied and pasted from an existing category. I think maybe I should just back away from that article until the admins decide whether it's a keeper or not. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance, I'm always willing to help out around here :) -- WikHead (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my page "List of Christian rock bands??"

You say that this page was "redundant" and repeated itself several times. First of all, this page was a LIST of music, that stated the bands name, country, and genre. The only thing that repeated itself several times was the genre, and country. Also, I hadn't finished creating it, which was the reason that not all bands had their country and genre beside them. I would like the actual reason why you deleted this page, and would like you too undo the deletion of this page. Darchaf (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian rock bands, a consensus formed that a previous version of that page, very similar to the one you've created, was not necessary. The page did not contain any information that was not already basically covered by the existing Category:Christian rock groups, which is why it was redundant - at no point did I say the page "repeated itself". If you're planning on adding more information that will solve the problems raised there, I shall now undelete the page and give you some time to finish it. ~ mazca ^talk 22:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now undeleted - List of Christian rock bands. ~ mazca ^talk 22:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will add more information than the last article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darchaf (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for WP:USERFY

Hi. You seem to be onwiki at the moment and I would like to request that David Orr (British businessman) be placed in the mainspace. I think it is ready. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I agree that it's a good start. A Telegraph obituary is good; but I'd suggest you may wish to include a few other reliable sources in the article to properly demonstrate his notability. In any case, I've moved it to mainspace at David Orr (businessman) -the "British" qualifier seemed unnecessary, as he's the only David Orr of that type on Wikipedia. All the best. ~ mazca ^talk 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi. Can you perhaps help me with another disambig issue on another page? There was a band in the 50's called The Shells (which has a wikipedia article -- The Shells), and now there is a modern day band by the same name (up for an MTV award). As a first step, I wanted to set up a disambiguation page mentioning both. I did ... see [1] but can't figure out how to make that be the "go-to" page when someone enters "The Shells" (rather than the band that is not playing these days). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do it is this:

Move The Shells to a new title with a disambiguator, such as The Shells (doo-wop band)
Move The Shells (disambiguation) to The Shells - it should allow you to do this, as there will just be a redirect with no history there. If it doesn't, let me know - an admin will be able to perform the move.

Hi -- I did step one (thanks!). Tried step two, before even creating the new page (that will take a little time, and I may ask someone else if they want to do it) -- but it would not allow step two (message was "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."). Thoughts? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was obviously wrong when I said a non-admin would be able to move over that redirect - in any case, I've done the second move for you, so The Shells now contains your disambiguation page. I'd suggest you may wish to create a stub article for the new band soon, as disambiguation pages with only one actual target tend to cause disagreement. Best of luck, hopefully this is all sorted out now. :) ~ mazca ^talk 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best! I run into so many people on Wikipedia who only like to fight, not help, that it has been tremendously refreshing to receive your excellent assistance. Thanks so much. Will do.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you're welcome. Let me know if you need any help in future. :) ~ mazca ^talk 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, before you move the disambiguation page as above, I'd suggest you actually create the article on the new band. If you take a look at WP:DISAMBIG, you'll see that a disambiguation page should generally just contain the minimum information, rather than the list of members and sources you've got on it at the moment. All that should be in the article on the band instead. Hope this helps, let me know if I can be of more assistance. ~ mazca ^talk 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Just one more question (I hope). How do I move a page? Thanks again for your help.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be as simple as clicking the "move" tab that appears at the top (near the edit tab) when you're viewing the page. A page will then show up asking where you want to move it to, it should be fairly self-explanatory. Take a look at Help:Moving a page for a rather exhaustive guide to it if you're confused. Hope this helps. ~ mazca ^talk 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback!

Hello, Mazca. You have new messages at LineofWisdom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bret Hart =

Hello, there is no way this Darren is going to do the right thing here. he is just trolling now. As an admin, why don't you see what is best? I think its clear to see what's going on. Arthur Cutz (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]