User talk:Mike V

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Welcome to my Talk Page!

You can leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions you have on this page — I don't bite. I'll try to reply on your page, and I would hope that you reply on my page. That way no one has to keep checking his or her watchlist. If you wish to proceed differently, just leave a note with your response. As always, you can click here to leave me a new message.

Protection

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. -- care to explain this? Thanks, WazzaAzzaw (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection is a type of protection that administrators can use if there is an increase of things such as spamming, vandalism, etc. It prevents newly created accounts and anonymous editors from editing the article. In this situation, the article is semi-protected for a week, in which after a week, the protection will be removed by the Wikipedia system. Hope that helps! Mike V • Talk 23:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that makes sense; thanks. I'm just confused a bit though: Why the is Elephant protected and not African Elephant?? It just seems a bit racist... Is that to do with having a semi or just general vandalism? WazzaAzzaw (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection usage just depends on the level of vandalism on an article. If it picks up to levels higher than normal, then it will be protected. Mike V • Talk 00:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. WazzaAzzaw (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WazzaAzzaw

Thanks for getting rid of him. Was he just trolling or was he really that foolish? –TC N7 JM 00:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Quite honestly, I think he's trolling. I very rarely see new accounts use wiki-syntax without any issues, posting to WP:RFPP, etc. without some indication of prior experience. Mike V • Talk 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Thanks for moving Starz Inc., but the request was to move it to Starz, LLC. Apteva (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mike V • Talk 04:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes on I, Me Aur Main

Could I ask why you've chosen pending changes on I, Me Aur Main rather than semi-protection? In a case where almost all IP edits are vandalism, or unsourced at best, all that does is increase the amount of work for reviewers on the page. The article isn't a BLP, where our concern is to keep BLP-violating edits from going live; it's an article about a forthcoming Indian movie, which means that it will attract (as I'm just now learning having a number of these get added to my watchlist), editors adding every rumor, hope, or wish they have about the movie, along with run of the mill vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The reason being is that I felt that there were not enough frequent edits to use semi-protection. This article is currently getting about 5-6 edits every other day or so, in comparison to other articles that are experiencing a higher rate of edits. I don't feel that the number of potential reviews a reviewer may experience from this article would be significant, especially since it's only protected for 10 days. With many reviewers using automatic scripts and such, reviewing a page only takes a quick click of a button. Also, the use of pending revisions protection is not limited to issues of BLP, as protection policy also allows it to be used for issues of vandalism. I am willing to keep an eye on the article and see if the edits within the next few days become burdensome for the scope of pending changes protection. If so, I think it would be fair to switch to semi protection. Mike V • Talk 05:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's fair. I think part of it is that I still can't seem to use pending changes correctly; half the time it seems like whatever I'm doing, when I try to revert a "bad" nonconfirmed edit, my own edit shows as needing to be reviewed. Which I don't understand. But that's a problem on my end :). Thanks for the explanation! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, maybe it's time to change to semi since there is no constructive edits by IPs at all. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. Mike V • Talk 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Project 1231 submarine.png

ru:Файл:Ныряющий катер.png. ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования analogy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Project 1231 analogy ru:Опытный малый погружающийся ракетный корабль проекта 1231. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, these images are on the Russian wikipedia and I do not have administrative rights there. For further assistance, I recommend you contact an admin on the project's site. Mike V • Talk 01:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non free image

Mike

You deleted File:Project 1231 submarine.png under F7. The file is back as File:Project 1231.png. I'm pretty sure the editor who brought it back in is Russian and just doesn't get the copyright issues; he's not trying to be difficult, he just doesn't understand. Advice? 2.101.41.248 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop a note on his talk page and see if we can work it out. :) Mike V • Talk 03:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doc balt flot1.jpg

What to do? It is not a geographical map (there is not no mountains or rivers or forests or other geographical elements), it is map of the military facilities. This is the result work of several experts, that an outsider can not to repeat. There is essentially circuit area overlaid with the military installations. Besides military facilities represent special characters, why can no redraw. Replaceability No. Thank you in advance. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image seems to fall within our accepted non-free policies, so I have kept the image. Best, Mike V • Talk 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! What do you say about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter Zyu? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases&diff=542629500&oldid=542573108 ? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rocío Jurado

Hi. Thanks for updating the article in question. However, I just wanted to point out that the infobox still states "year of birth disputed, see above", but there isn't any "above". Also I have the page watchlisted, should I notify you of any IP reverts to your edits/formatting?

Thanks, Quis separabit? 18:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the see above part. Also, I have already notified the IP as well. Mike V • Talk 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 8

File:Doc balt flot1.jpg, File:200318-karta70-406.jpg, File:List of Russian military bases abroad.JPG, File:Far Eastern Military District.JPG, File:Siberian Military District.JPG Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Charan Teja

Hi Mike, isn't ~~four~~ three months protection for the article too long? Torreslfchero (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I picked 3 months for protection is twofold. One, it's long enough that it requires the editors to initiate discussion and talk about the issue at hand, instead of waiting it out for full protection to expire. Second, it's not indefinite so it serves as a failsafe on the rare occasion that it gets overlooked. In the majority of these situations, the dispute is resolved fairly quickly and the article is unprotected by myself or another admin. Hope that helps! Mike V • Talk 23:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining and I hope the dispute will be resolved shortly. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I'm requesting unprotection since one of the editor is blocked for sockpuppeting. You can see by unprotecting the article and if the same problem arises then you can surely fully protect again. T4B (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mike V • Talk 17:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No roman one for Pope Francis?

Per en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Popes, correct style is "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one}" -- sorry to bother you, but I couldn't figure out any other way to give this input. Thanks, Rtrac3y (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm not bothered at all! I'll see if I can place the edit in on your behalf on the talk page. Mike V • Talk 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

New pope article protected and talk page as well. Keep out those pesky IPs, I say. Thye've no business on WP anyway. LOL! 86.29.59.5 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis Talk Page

Mike, I am inclined to disagree with the protection of Talk:Pope Francis. The article is extremely high profile (for obvious reasons), so some vandalism is to be expected, but the history seems to show a number of productive contributions by newly registered accounts and anonymous contributors prior to the protection, and not an excessive amount of vandalism for something of this nature. In the interest of allowing new / anonymous users continue to contribute to the talk page discussions, I think the protection of the talk page should be lifted in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears someone else already removed the talk page protection. Dragons flight (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Initially, the protection was in response to some vandalism. I figured a day's worth of protection would be a reasonable amount of time for the initial negative attention to subside. In light of the positive contributions from the IPs, I think you present a fair argument. Mike V • Talk 22:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection of that talk page was complete nonsense. It was outrageous and I let Jimbo know about it. I noticed a couple minutes later that it was removed. I've been using Wikipedia for many, many years and have never seen a talk page protected. You inexplicably prevented many editors from disussing issues and making edit requests for no good reason. There was absolutely no vandalism problem on that page at the time you protected it. And even if there had been some vandalism, it would have been nothing more than a nuisance, as the removing admin stated. Blocking a talk page... outrageous. I hope this edit by you is not indicative of your rationale when using your admin powers to make important decisions. And for the record, at the time you added that protection template, the article itself had a message at the top telling IPs that they were welcome to use the talk page. But surprise, surprise... when they got there it was locked. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree with your statements. There were concerns with the talk page, such as editors removing other user's comments, BLP concerns, and vandalism, just to name a few things. After discussion with other admins, it was recommended that protection should be removed as it was felt that the overall positive benefit of the IP contributors outweighed the negative ones. Also, semi-protection of a talk page, while not common, does occur. I refer you to this category. Mike V • Talk 03:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors removing other users' comments, and BLP concerns, are not even close to good reasons to lock a talk page. And vandalism needs to be very clear and very persistent to warrant protection of a talk page. I didn't say that talk pages were never locked; only that in all my years on Wikipedia I've never come across one, which tells you how extremely rare it is. There was clearly no problem at the time you protected the article that came even close to warranting protection. I looked at the page at the time you locked it and all the prior edits during the day. Saying "there were concerns" is far, far, far below the threshold of what constitutes a valid lock of a talk page. That's why if you look at the list of protected pages you referred me to, it shows a mere 78 articles... out of millions. That means that 99.99% of articles are not protected. Think about that. What I think happened is that your got very excited about the worldwide focus on a just-elected pope and stopped thinking rationally for a few minutes. My suggestion for the future: never protect a talk page unless you get agreement from at least three other administrators. I highly doubt you'll ever have that happen. Blocking an article (mainspace) for persistent vandalism, fine. Blocking a talk page for any reason, it should almost never happen. Regular vandalizing of an article is a big problem. Regular vandalizing of a talk page is a minor problem. You really pissed off a lot editors by doing that because they had no way of discussing their concerns or making edit requests. You sound like a very nice guy, but you really fucked up (pardon the French). 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what edit war is this again?

Have you taken a look at the history of the page in question, or the comments on the talk page? -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the notice in response to a post on WP:RFPP requesting for page protection due to an edit war. It appears that over the course of a week, there was an edit war between yourself an another user. While it appears that the discussion is resolved, I gave the warning to both you and another user to encourage future discussion on the talk page. Mike V • Talk 22:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garath Bale

Don't know if you noticed my reply on the Page protection, but I don't think 2 weeks protection will be long enough. Maybe you can extend it. cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, two weeks is enough time for most vandals to forget about the page. If it starts back up after the protection ends, shoot me a message and I'd be glad to reapply protection. Mike V • Talk 19:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP, thanks

Thanks Mike! I appreciate the assist. Crazynas^t 04:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Glad I could be of help! Mike V • Talk 04:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry White

Thanks for sorting out the mess. But the main article should, I think, be at Barry White, and Barry White (singer) should be a redirect to it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Done See below.[reply]

Thank you - and thanks to the others who sorted it out as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry White

I have found the talk page, which got deleted in that chaos of moves, and reunited it with the article at Barry White (singer). As far as I can make out, the article was actually at Barry White before that nutcase started his operations, and unless you object I propose to move it back there (and re-protect it). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I went ahead and did that. Thanks for you help as well for cleaning that up! Mike V • Talk 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can make out, his previous set of moves relating to MTR KTT are not unconstructive and don't actually need reverting. JohnCD (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can guess, this must have been a sleeper vandal account. It looks like the user made enough edits to get past the confirmed threshold, made a couple of moves to test the limiting rate of the move page function, and then started vandalizing. Mike V • Talk 00:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Juddhoward

This user has been engaged in leaving insulting edit summaries at the article Pope Francis. He has also engaged in insulting contributions to the talk page of that article and in insulting people who ask him to refrain from being so rude. I noticed you had been involved in blocking him in the past, and thought it might be worth notifying you that he is still engaged in combative behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from the archive of the Pope Frnacis discussion page where his comments caused me to ask him to refrain from being so rude.

"A message to the homophobe that keeps on sanitising the Homosexuality paragraph

"The source states: "he strongly affirms church teaching on the intrinsic immorality of homosexual practices, though he teaches the importance of respecting homosexual persons."

"Yet, you insist on rendering this source as: "yet has stated that "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect and compassion". The Church has stated that homosexual desires or attractions are not themselves sinful."

"Kindly refrain from portraying Pope Francis' begrudging concession that homosexual people are worthy of respect as the pinnacle of progressive thinking. He is a homophobe; not an egalitarian that is the poster child for the liberal cause.

"Stop misleadingly synthesizing a vacuous Christian catechism with what the source discussing PF actually says, and comply with the self-evident policy, WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTACHURCH. The paragraph on PF's deplorable views on homosexuality is not an invitation for you to start propagating Catholic dogma. They are an unnecessary elaboration and are wholly unrelated to PF's personal views.

"While there is a pack of immature children scampering between the pews of Wikipedia, it is still not a Catholic church, the article is not your pulpit, and its readers should not have to tolerate your abuse. Juddhoward (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC) "Contributors should not have to tolerate your calling them names when they share views different than your own. --190.19.81.137 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Remove the cowl that conceals your face, my anonymous IP friend. The bible shall be my guide on how to treat others. If it can declare that homosexuals are abominations, then I can condemn bigots that are actually deserving of rebuke. Juddhoward (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)"

I am not sure if my inclusion of the above worked well as a clear indication of the quote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC) See User talk:Juddhoward to see how he has engaged in insulting others as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has also made an accusation of censoring against User talk:Marauder40 based on his explanation that he is removing an unnedded overly inflamatory quote because a reliable-sources and contextualized later quote on the subject is included. Instead of opening a talk page discussion of the issue, which should have been done, Juddhoward has engaged in unilateral claims of "censorship", and in insulting explanations for his revisions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the WP:OS MfD

Thank you so much for showing some common sense - seriously, more admins like yourself around at a time like this would not go amiss. You could also whack the RfA for User:Example if you really want to help! Cheers! Humblesnore (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

I'd love to know where this discussion was that April Fools jokes can't exist in project space anymore. Because as far as I know, there hasn't been one. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you should go delete them, and even then not as deliberate hoaxes. Have a little sense of humor please. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all one for having fun, I truly am, but at a certain point things get a bit excessive. Posting such requests on project spaces can clog up the page and detract from legitimate requests that we may get today. Listing such requests will also indicate to the bots to post templates on the specific page, and this can carryover into the article space and policy pages. Edits such as these: [1] can create issues for users who are legitimately trying to request suppression. Requests like these that are made in bad faith could lead to inappropriate criticism at best and at worst, BLP concerns. I don't oppose having April Fools fun in a contained manner, but when it begins to hinder our articles and the fluidity of the project, then I believe we have reached a point where such activity is detrimental. Mike V • Talk 03:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, considering the notices were removed, and there was a simple fix (removing a html comment in the XfD pages) for the bot, it wasn't that bad. I agree that the AfDs are all overboard. But the whole MfD of OS and then keeping that going, or deletion policy, where there wasn't any actual harm seemed a little overboard to unilaterally delete them. I highly doubt people can't sift through a few MfDs on a page for ~24 (probably less, maybe even 12 or less) hours when they're open for 7 days anyway. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Gotta agree with Gwick on this one. The only highly-viewed projectspace page that was MfD'd was WP:OS, which only had an {{mfd}} template up for a minute or so. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For helping in the fight to make April 1st history on Wikipedia, I award this barnstar. If only there were a hell of a lot more like you. Humblesnore (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: wish to edit a small portion of april fools day article, with intent of removing it within a few hours

Guess I wrote out the message in the sunject :) Please contact me ASAP (before the day is over)

I will send the intended edits soon.. they are taking longer to load than sending this message, so thought I'd send this in the meantime

Skopp (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would suggest that you avoid placing comical information in the article space, as current consensus appears to discourage it. (Take a look at the Administrator's Noticeboard.) While it's great to have fun during April Fools day, we should also be mindful of readers and editors that are looking for accurate information about our articles. Mike V • Talk 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock issues

Hi Mike, my home IP seems to be included in the following set of rangeblocked IPs: 71.212.64.0/19. The block is not set to expire until June 1, but I sometimes need to perform anon test edits in the course of my work for WMF. Can I be whitelisted from this rangeblock? I promise I won't vandalize :) Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that! I've lifted the block and will just keep an eye out on the articles that have been having issues. Best, Mike V • Talk 03:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I appreciate the quick turnaround. If you let me know which articles are having issues, I'll watch 'em too. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Vbdz9.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Vbdz9.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC INC Central Temple

Please note this article has been created 4 times in the past two weeks by the same editor under two different accounts (True Article (talk · contribs) and Zhzhw (talk · contribs)). I recommend SALTing and sanctioning the creator (again). Elizium23 (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article page and the talk page have been salted. The users have been warned about copyright infringement as well. Mike V • Talk 05:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fashion in South Korea"

Hi Mike V! This article has been recreated, with some actual content this time. It's part of a class project. (Much as I'm tempted to write the article myself, I'll leave that to the students.) --Shirt58 (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks for letting me know. Mike V • Talk 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Apologies, and thanks for the help.--File Éireann 02:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's no big deal! :) Mike V • Talk 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Request to remove personal information from uploaded photo

Mike, you recently denied a request to delete photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jayneshill.jpg#filelinks . I am the author of this photo. I am not so concerned as to removing the photo as I am to removing my name from the file's history. Can you please explain how I can get my name removed from the file and file history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goneja (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image fitting for the article and of higher resolution is already a part of Commons here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Jaynes_Hill_summit.jpg Can I simply replace my photo in the article to reflect this image, then have my image deleted?

Since the photo on commons is different, we can't delete it through your suggested method. However, what I did was went ahead and deleted the image, and re-uploaded and restored the file comments. I replaced the attribution with your username. I think this may be able to resolve your concerns. Let me know if you need anything else! Mike V • Talk 17:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, thank you very much. I appreciate your efforts and it was the best solution to the problem. I will be more careful in the future when contributing to avoid this situation again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goneja (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

school cheating list

mike, thanks, someone else managed to the page onto my talk, so at least i have a copy of hte material. Over the next few days, will try and spurce it up and retry adding. Cinnamon colbert (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]