|This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
|This is the user talk page for User:Mufka, where you can send messages and comments to Mufka.|
- 1 Jerry Johnson
- 2 Continuing "hijinks" from an IP editor you have dealt with in the past
- 3 March 23
- 4 Vandalism
- 5 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 6 Your alter ego
- 7 Day of the Year births and deaths
- 8 May 6
- 9 Request for comment
- 10 Page reverted
- 11 Straw Poll
- 12 Dates
- 13 January 1 edits
- 14 é vs e
- 15 "edit warring"
- 16 "Minor" edits
- 17 RE: Images on date pages
- 18 Reversion of my edits to date pages
There are at least three notable American football players named Jerry Johnson, so moving Jerry Johnson (defensive tackle) to Jerry Johnson (American football) was not a good idea. I moved it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bender235 (talk • contribs)
- Since no article exists for any of these other "notable" individuals, further disambiguation is inappropriate. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Continuing "hijinks" from an IP editor you have dealt with in the past
I stopped by to draw your attention to a potentially problematic IP editor  who you dealt with back in July of this year, in the form of a block. This individual's edits appear to consist of only two types. In one, they selectively convert capital letters appearing in an article to small case, which depending on the context, may or may not be appropriate. In the other type of edit, they are continuing the dubious practise of changing existing material in an article without either providing either a reference or an edit summary for rationalizing those changes. In at least one recent case, this took the form of the unreferenced altering of the material in a biography by adding what appears to be a nonsensical link to another article. A lot of these questionable edits are of the type that are potentially quite difficult to detect by many editors and thus the problem is compounded. I've noticed that this individual appears to spread out their edits over time and they also seem to vary the type of articles they are actually making these changes to, thus making it more difficult to both detect and control. I wonder if you could perhaps take a look at this situation and use your best judgement on the matter. Thank you for your time. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Outright vandalism from the IP address mentioned above is continuing. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I was not aware of this updated MOS. Quis separabit? 19:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You had recently questioned my reverting of user 18.104.22.168 on the Chevrolet Corvette and calling it vandalism. But, if you also check out the user 22.214.171.124 contribution history, you will see that many of the changes that were made by user 126.96.36.199, was reverted by other editors. And I also think that when a person has a history since October 2013, of continuing to change names and dates with no references being added or cited, is considered an act of vandalism.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Phil Robertson". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Your alter ego
There has been a resurgence of vandalism on User:Swayback Maru, so I took the liberty to semi-protect it indefinitely. No earthly reason why even legit IPs should edit it. If for some reason you disagree, you are of course free to unprotect it. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Day of the Year births and deaths
Hi Mufka, I wonder if you can clarify for me whether births and deaths of animals are acceptable on the pages of Day of the Year entries. I notice there are several at the moment but I don't take that as the rule. I could not find anything pertinent in the guidelines, no criticism of your guidelines, my selective blindness may be at fault. Best. Richard Avery (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Animals have generally been allowed but there has been no mention in the guideline. This is being discussed currently at WT:DOY. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've had a look at the discussion and I agree with you, a preference for humans only but it is hardly an issue to get worked up about. I can see that if any attention is drawn to it there will be a concerted effort by somebody (there's always somebody) who will ensure that the days are peppered with animalata of every shape and form. Keep up your excellent work. Richard Avery (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I would firstly just like to say that I didn't like the ominous tone your message had to it. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I am trying to do my best to abide by guidelines, not engage in any vandalistic activity and indeed trying to prevent it myself and to do the right thing and I infer from your message and its tone that you did not adequately acknowledge that.
I apologize sincerely for my breaking of the formatting guidelines and my addition of what you to perceive to be "unneccessary references". My intention was not to vandalize the page but merely to add an event to it which I genuinely thought was relevant, notable, interesting and critical in world affairs.
I perfectly understand why I was in breach of the formatting rules and why my references were not welcome but I beg to differ on your assertion that the main event I added and I quote you verbatim "does not meet the inclusion criteria per WP:DOY." It clearly states under the section What is notable on the Wikipedia:Days of the year page that "dates significant world leaders or movements ROSE TO or fell from POWER" is notable! Now if you want to take the sorry line of argument and say that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is not a 'significant' leader and that the outcome of the last national election in the UK has not had a bearing on global affairs then let me inform you of this if you didn't already know. It was OUR Prime Minister's decision to not involve OUR country's troops in Syria militarily which influenced YOUR President's decision to not involve YOUR country's troops in Syria militarily. Had the outcome of our last national election not been the way it was, UK and US troops would not have withdrawed and be withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan respectively as quickly. The amount of aid per our country's respective GDP's granted to poor African countries is determined by a consensus made by our leaders. I could give many more reasons as to why the 2010 General Election in the UK and its outcome was significant globally but I do at this point rest my case and plead of you to see reason and add the United Kingdom general election, 2010 to the page May 6 without the incorrect formatting and "unnecessary references".
- Rising to and falling from power are both very distinct from gaining or losing power as a result of the normal political process that establishes ruling parties. Now you may say that these are the same. But in the context of notability for DOY, rise and fall from power refer to extraordinary circumstances that do not normally occur to facilitate a change of power. For example, a US presidential election is never notable in this context (unless of course we include the very narrow example of the first black president which falls under social milestone). -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC). Your comments
You deleted an article on Pranav Sivakumar recently. The references indicate that he is a real person. You can verify that yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcturus27 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- He may be real, but it didn't appear that he met notability requirements. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.
I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.
I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.
There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.
The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.
Why 2 spaces [ ] are to be added? i am not getting it! and if you undid my edits...did you see i had added info also. Undid that too. I also had fixed typo. Why reverted it too? --aGastya (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- The spacing is part of the template and it makes it easier to follow and duplicate in the edit window. Where a clean revert was not possible, I tried to put back any additional changes that were made. Some were left unchanged because they appeared to be wrong or insignificant. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
January 1 edits
I have made edits on the page January 1. Arranging people born in a particular year alphabetically; and I hope now that isn't wrong! Just check it once: and if it is fine, let me know to fix rest of the other days! Thanks! ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 11:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- The alphabetization is great. That's how it's supposed to be but most don't pay attention. But you're wreaking havoc on the formatting. The spacing is off and it creates a lot of work for another editor to fix it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:Mufka Well at time of editing, i understood the importance of [ ] spaces and if that correction was okay, shall i do it to other pages too? And those spaces [ ], i will fix those: sorry for it but it is actually a very aching procedure to arrange in alphabetic order and consumes a lot of time too. but if we do first order then [ ], it would be quicker. So, shall i move to January 2? thanks ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 06:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Doubt how do i apply those [ ] spaces where it were supposed to be? like or something? And is there an option for doing the same in edit beta ? thanks ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 07:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
é vs e
Hi. You're way behind with this discussion. See Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year#June_11_and_removal_of_entries_by_Deb Deb (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Deb, @User:Redsky89 I'm aware. But how is it constructive for you to remove stuff and Redsky89 puts it back? That's edit warring. Whether you've both explained your positions or not, it's still disruptive. A passing editor (me) shouldn't need to be in on the conversation to be able to understand why it shouldn't be called an edit war. What is the point of either of your edits if you're just reverting each other? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'd have to take issue with that - a passing editor shouldn't just label something as an edit war without understanding the context. You're a participant in the project - why not join in the discussion and help to find a resolution? Deb (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. I do my best, but not having the sitzfleisch to navigate guiedelines - I learn by doing. BTW may I snag a tag or two from your UserPage? Cheers! Shir-El too 20:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
RE: Images on date pages
OK. I have never done it as I don't know how to, anyway. Quis separabit? 00:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Why did you remove my Singapore 006 edit? Singapore 006 was an important and well known air crash, I just want to know.
Kauri Chennai Singh
- It may be important to you, but most plane crashes are not notable per WP:DOY. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Reversion of my edits to date pages
My comment: The title says it all. The only times when it's OK to do this is in telling jokes: "A horse goes into a bar..." or writing a script for a movie or play: MacBeth: "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and tomorrow..." or: Billy the Kid picks up his gun. This is evident in the changed articles in the lead in where it says e.g. 1582 *WAS* a year. This is probably in the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
This template is inconsistent because it correctly describes the year as something that happened in the past, then it goes on to use grammatically and factually make the mistake of using the present tense. This is only done very informally or by semi-illiterate of very informal speakers. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- The date articles use historical present. Consensus for this is established here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 09:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)