User talk:Mifter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Gtk-go-forward-ltr.svg STOP! If your question regards things like Copyvio, License and Something-like-that, please read this!. Please also note that I'm using a Bot to put the messages in your talk page so excuse it if it makes errors. Usually, if you are the author of the picture it can be enough to add only {{PD-Self}} otherwise search the license here! And all will be ok. If the problem regards Bot-Problems (for example, if it's too fast or something like that..) or something else, don't be shy and notify me ASAP. Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


(Note: This welcome message will not be archieved) Mifter (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mifter! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Polly (Parrot) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

(Note: This welcome message will not be archieved) Mifter (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter[edit]

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter[edit]

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone ever told you...[edit]

Not to template the regulars? And if you must do so, please ensure you know what you're talking about first. Said IP has been doing this for well over a month, across numerous IPs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't believe in that idea that we shouldn't template the regulars (see WP:TR). However, I am concerned that your edit summaries, and general decorum (which I am assuming is sarcastic in nature) are straying close to being personal attacks and are assuming the bad faith of others. Finally, after looking over the articles you had requested to be protected, the IP which I suspect you are concerned about appears to have only started really editing yesterday. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The IP has shown precious little interest in sourcing things over the last month. Yes, that IP started editing yesterday, but they have a combination of a dynamic IP, and moving around the country a lot. Which is why they are not a new user, and why I am not treating them as such. They've hopped to another location on a totally different range. They've also been blocked under a few of the IPs before, but it would take me hours to list every single one they've used. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why small=yes?[edit]

In your edit of 22:23, 17 May 2015 of Chinx, you added {{pp-pc1|expiry=7 June 2015|small=yes}} at the top. Given that template pp-pc1 defaults to small=yes, what is the purpose of adding small=yes? I'll look for a response here. Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your note. The "small=yes" is added automatically by Twinkle (a semi-automated piece of software designed to streamline maintenance functions) when it tags the page after I have protected it. As not all protection templates default to the smaller padlock, the software always adds it as a precaution unless I specify otherwise. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi - Thank you for your message. I've just been working to made the article readable by reducing the length but ensuring all points are retained and POV is not changed. It wasn't a mistake. I felt the point of the paragraph was covered, and in better detail in the following paragraph - and the paragraph I removed was not relevant to that section. I have spent a lot of time on this trying to make it readable. What level of detail in the comment is necessary? (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the note. After looking at your edits I realize that you are correct and making positive changes to the article. I apologize for reverting your edits, the tool I was using (called Huggle) only shows the last change made and in isolation your cleanup looks like content removal vandalism which is why I reverted the edit. Thank you for your work on the page, looking at the changes you have made it has drastically improved the readability of the article. Please don't hesitate to let me know should you have any questions or need any help (if you really like it here you can also create an account which would decrease the chance of future mix-ups such as this.) Best, Mifter (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I feel really terrible. I have an account LOTSScholar but often forget to sign in. My IP is fixed by my university so I am not operating anonymously. I just discovered a whois would reveal my email address! Perhaps you could offer some general advice. With regard to lengthy articles how can you go about drastically reducing word count - and even blanking sections - without looking like vandalism? I tried to raise the issue on the talk page but no response from anyone. That page in particular contained so much double ups and referenced every single possible thing, some relevant, some less relevant and some just not even relevant. The problem appears to be that the issue is so contentious that both relevant POVs just add more content, citing more sources for their side, instead of actually incorporating the contrasting POVs into the existing framework. (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Please help. Another user has just reverted again without explanation! I thought this was resolved? (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm writing a note to the editor who reverted right now. Mifter (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I've left a note, we'll see what the rationale is and if it was similar to my original misconstrual of vandalism or something else (in which case we would have to discuss how to proceed). And, editing logged out is perfectly alright, the advantages of being logged in are the ability to edit semi-protected pages, upload files, and a number of small things like advanced editing tools, etc. Another bonus as you are now seeing is also a lesser likelihood of being accidentally seen as a vandal as you can build up a history of positive contributions. Personally, I am an advocate for being bold when it comes to fixing issues (including removing content where necessary) and editing while logged in is probably one of the easiest ways to minimize or avoid things like this in the future as editors are not as likely to revert an established user without looking in more detail first. Also, utilizing detailed edit summaries can be helpful to conveying reasons for removal making it less likely your edits are misconstrued as vandalism as they provide insight at a glance at what you are trying to accomplish. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
He has put an IPA on my talk page? This is really unfair. I was just trying to contribute and now he has accused me of vandalism and made my personal details public? (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
How long will this take? I feel really uncomfortable about all this. You will note I have been working on that page for weeks. This is not some hit and run vandalism. I need to get this resolved. (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(edit conflict) Generally such notices are merely for information, there is no connotation of vandalism nor is it making any details public that would not already come up through a WHOIS or similar search. I truly don't think that the user is being malicious. Without trying to sound like a broken record, editing logged in (especially when working on things that can be accidentally misconstrued as vandalism) would make most of these issues moot (logged in users IP's cannot be pulled except under extreme circumstances). We'll get this all straightened out, I apologize for the headache I'd imagine this is causing you. Mifter (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This is what the page looked like before my vandalism Before I started edited weeks ago . Perhaps he should just revert everything I have done. This is not a nice way to treat people. (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm just sitting here waiting. Can you do anything? This is causing a panic attack. (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I suspect the editor had similar logic for reverting as I originally did, I've undone their edit. Should they have an opinion that the content should be restored then we will have to discuss to determine how to proceed as warring over content never ends well. Once again, thanks for your work. Mifter (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I said above, I truly do not believe that the editor had bad intentions. The work we do here (yourself included) for the most part is thankless, just as your edit appeared at first glance to be vandalism to me I suspect that this editor made a similar mistake. They were very likely just trying to protect the encyclopedia and the hard work of others from those who may wish to harm it, and it is not in any way personal. We all have the same goal, to build an encyclopedia and Wikipedia's unique aspects are what make it such a great tool and place to contribute. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
He could have at least responded. Some people have health difficulties and when you imply they are vandals and don't even respond it makes the problem worse. You responded. He didn't. (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
My fast response time was because you caught me right before I was about to do something else and I had some extra time I could shuffle. We are all volunteers and I would suspect that if we sent the editor a message just as they were finishing up they may have not seen it or they may not have had time to respond fully. It helps for piece of mind to assume the best until you have concrete evidence to do otherwise. Mifter (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
My health means I don't always think that way. I hope you understand. He keeps putting an IPA on my talk page. I really don't want it there because it can identify me personally. Am I required to have it there? I am required to be identified personally? (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(edit conflict)I have had a user revert months of work on the Enrica Lexie case article describing them as repetitive disruptions. I have reverted that but I am afraid they will do it again and I don't want to enter into an edit war. Can you suggest anything? (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

regarding edit[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the edit on the page Pandaga Chesko. Actually some anonymous user did that I was just trying to revert that due to slow internet connection it took time..But,Thanks to you you did it fastly..

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijitrath75 (talkcontribs) 03:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your help, I've also removed the warning from your talk page. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


So next you are going to tell me the avengers are not real? Let me guess you are a DC fan! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jt211630 (talkcontribs) 03:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello mr.mifter :) , I totally agree with you protecting the Messi's page , but i feel it is misunderstanding and very unfair to tag me as I was in editing war with someone as what mr @Qed237: suggested ,because all i did is I restored the page to Carlos's version which Qued did it TWICE himself , while i have done it once. but i dont know how to jump edits so i had to do it one after eachother until i have reached Carlo version like him, but i have done it once he even has done it twice , and when i felt this user doesnt want to listen i even posted on Qued's page my self .and when he removed other information after qued restored it , I didnt do anything just posted on Qued page again telling him he did this . So to tell me i was risk being blocked it is unfair and i didnt break any wikipedia rules as i believe ! So hope you understand. and explain for me what i did wrong . or just tell me it is misunderstanding :)

I am very honest person and i like to be treated fairly thats all .

thank you

Adnan (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you don't see it before RFPP archives it[edit]

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you declining the protection request on Titus Bramble. Since then, the user beyond the IP has hopped to a new one. However, for you to say "not enough activity" doesn't really show any sign that you've analysed the history; the previous protection was for a year (hence why the last request was in 2013), and since then, almost every single new user or IP has been a vandal on this article. As this is a BLP, I'm fairly sure that this article easily justifies an indefinite semi-protection, based on this history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luke, thanks for the note. After looking at the page again, I still believe there is not enough activity for indef semi-protection. There have been less than 50 edits since October of last year (the previous protection expired in September as you pointed out), and while a number of the edits made by unregistered contributors are not constructive you cannot infer the actions of future unregistered users from the past. I do not believe that the sporadic editing and issues are prevalent enough to justify prohibiting unregistered and newly registered contributors from editing and contributing to the page (to quote directly from the protection policy "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view)."). That being said, it is a BLP and noting that there have been some more disruptive edits since I declined the first request I've decided to implement temporary pending-changes protection on the article which will still enable all to edit, but provide another level of assurance before such edits are displayed publicly. Best, Mifter (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If it was anything other than a BLP, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But look at it from this angle, and from my perspective (which may be slightly more informed than yours, given that I expect my familiarity with association football is probably greater - no offence meant here. Bramble was not a particularly well-rated player during his time at Newcastle); it is a BLP, with a long protection log, and the previous protection length was a year long. This generally means that the next protection level is indefinite. In addition to this, he hasn't played professionally since 2013; so there is little chance of the article needing that much in the way of updating (and, by extension, most IP edits will probably be vandalism). In my opinion, once the vandalism started again in November 2014, the page should've had a protection request that resulted in an indef protection, given the prior history. And there hasn't been a single good new user/IP edit since that protection expired. The fact that this article has been poorly patrolled is evident when you consider that [1] has not been oversighted/revdelled as of right now (just emailing Oversight as I type this to get it nuked) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Request to reconsider[edit]

While "the spirit of an open encyclopedia" is a fine sentiment, "the spirit of an open forum to continue character assassination campaigns and harassment and casting unsourced aspersions " are not. If they are truly here to build an encyclopedia rather than evade detection as part of continued coordinated off site harassment campaigns, they can create an account and be accountable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, I appreciate the candor and the opportunity to discuss this further. That being said, while I understand your sentiments, I disagree with them. Our encyclopedia welcomes anonymous editing, was built around the idea that "anyone can edit", and the fundamental assumption of good faith. Having the article being full protected for a number of months is already something I find concerning (personally I believe Pending Changes Level 2 combined with semi-protection would be the ideal solution here if the community was not so split about using it). Blocking anonymous/new users from even being able to suggest an edit or make a comment on the talk page is something I find contrary to our goal here. We were all new once and while AGF shouldn't be taken to detrimental levels protecting a talk page is something I believe blanket assumes the bad faith of new/unregistered contributors and is a little biting. The talk page is not something a reader would normally see unless it was sought out and it is the forum for discussion to take place about changes to the article. I believe it should remain open for that discussion in all but the most exceptional cases. Best, Mifter (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This is quite obviously an exceptional case, as the number of deleted and suppressed revisions relating to this person should make plain. She has been the victim of a long-term abuse campaign and your refusal to recognize this fact does not reflect well on the encyclopedia. Highlime (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there and Welcome to Wikipedia! In this case we have already taken the fairly extraordinary step of fully protecting a mainspace article for a period of months due to the horrific harassment/abuse this individual is facing. By protecting the page, the article's talk page (which is an internal project page) is the only place an unregistered or newly registered editor would be able to discuss and provide input to recommend changes to the article. Without restating my rationale above too much, our encyclopedia believes that this input is valuable in shaping consensus and improving the article and I believe protecting a "non-front facing" discussion page blanket assumes the bad faith of new/unregistered contributors and is contrary to the goal of this project. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remove false information[edit]

Check this link: (Clearly, ozil has more assists than messi in 2011-12 season) So,

Clearly this record in messi's page: ( Only top goalscorer and top assists supplier in the same league season: 2011/12 (50 goals and 15 assists)


This is one of the frivolous and fan made lies about messi among many!

The references to many of messi's page records are based on fan run fcbarcelona website and clearly have wrong stats as proven by this example.

Please delete this immediately. I ask you because you have protected the page. SupernovaeIA (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How it is clearly..? the website you provided doesn't mention anything about assists..and I dont understand your point about barcelona website..why does it matter? and how a global wide club website shouldn't be count for unknown other website ? if they are listed something as national record..and CLEARLY stating it is tied with Ozil at 15 assists each..why should we doubt it ?

also my friend check Ronaldo's page you would find some of the records i have added my self to his records section ..I was the one who checked messi page also and marked the records which didn't have a reference so they were deleted . I have deleted the fastest hat-tricks record at his page because it was wrong , so i am not sure what you were implying , and as an advice always assume a good faith in other editors we are here all to improve the page , it wont really get anyone good in making messi o ronaldo better .

here is other examples : seriously my friend don't let this debate turn to assumption and why we are doing this . thank you . Adnan (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mifter (talk) can you please move discussion to so other editors have their opinion ? I dont know how to do it and it doesnt seem right to move it from your page without your consensus . thank you

Adnan (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)