User talk:Mufka/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Bret Himmelman

He gets ghits which is why I tagged it. Could you restore and if necessary BLP PROD it? ----moreno oso (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In its last state it had no assertion of notability. The content is so sparce that restoring it seems a bit pointless. Perhaps it will be recreated with an assertion of notability and some refs. If I restored it, it wouldn't get a BLP prod, it would end up with a CSD#A7. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Lots of stubs are like that. To delete it within its first 10 minutes or so existence seems contra WP:BEFORE. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Let's see how it goes. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like he is a teen-ager. Probably should have been deleted. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Good effort. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Wish I had stayed in the tub with the cold beer. What a waste of an hour! ----moreno oso (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Stevens

I ask you to remove your nomination for deletion, as it appears that you were mistaken about the subject's lack of notability. Even if not all bishops are notable, he has been shown thusly. I have added several ciations and more information as to why he is notable, and have improved the article sufficiently for it to be kept. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Selena

I would like to know what "official" sites are you talking about, that you reverted? AJona1992 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the diff here you can see exactly what was removed. One link was labeled "official website" the other, dead link, was labeled "Selena articles". Seems very straightforward to me. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok I see. The Q-Productions web site, is the only official web site for Selena. That web site is owned and operated by her family, esp. her father. So I will put that site back, but the other one I won't. AJona1992 (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Official or not, the site is primarily a promotional/sales vehicle. It doesn't provide any insight into the subject that the article doesn't already. The only reason anyone would visit the site is to buy something - which seems to be the reason for the site. I won't remove it, but I think it is very low quality for an external link. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but there are some helpful information (see Talk:Selena I responded and asked you for some help for citing information, thank you!) AJona1992 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not vandalism

Hi. You recently blocked 24.111.157.231 for repeated vandalism. The vandalism was all attempts to enter the name of a slide that Ron and Sundae went down during specific adventures in Wacky Adventures of Ronald McDonald. I thought it was vandalism, too, and reverted it a couple of times, but then I found an episode on You Tube and Ron and Sundae did go down a slide, so I am thinking maybe it wasn't vandalism after all. In the video it did look like going down a specific slide might be a feature. I can't really tell if the edits were vandalism or not. The only thing I am sure of is that I shouldn't have reverted the edits. Susfele (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the block is still warranted because if it isn't vandalism, it is still a 3RR violation or at least just disruptive. Even if it was good faith, ignoring the warnings isn't good. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, anyway, on further investigation, it looks more like vandalism to me. Found a review about a different episode that made me think they always go down the same slide. And of course you are right about the 3RR. Thanks. --Susfele (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Birth of a cartoon character?

Hi - Just curious what you think about this. I'm inclined to delete it (a cartoon character is not a person), but suspect you've probably thought about this before. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That fits squarely under fictional births. That would be a definite delete on sight just like Harry Potter. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing link to article subject's Web page

Hi. Can you tell me why you took out the link at Lars Eighner to Eighner's own Web page? Your summary said it "adds no value", but it seems to me that people reading that page could easily want to look at the personal page, so the link would be valuable to them. As far as I can tell, the policy is more favorable to "official links" of this kind than to any other external links. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a judgment call. My feeling was that just because it can be added doesn't mean it should be added. I won't object to adding it back if you feel it is relevant. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

World Smile Day

Hi Mufka, just returning from my summer vacation, and a bit busy these days. By the way, there is a new article World Smile Day, can you check it? --Rochelimit (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to blame TW

Actually, it was not TW's fault, because TW notified me the IP-address had already been notified by you, but I clicked Yes/OK anyway, which basically lead to the duplicate. /HeyMid (contributions) 15:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Shame on you!  :-) I blame Twinkle because it sometimes opens the user talk page before the revert finishes. AFAIK that is an unfixable bug. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tricky, yes

Yep. Go ahead and reapply your comment.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good Catch thanks

Thanks, good catch. Let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hey how many non-free images are allowed on the Selena article? Thanks AJona1992 (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

DOY warning templates

Do you mind if I use your custom warning templates, ie User:Mufka/uw-date1? I've actually used them two or three times over the last few months already, so apologies if that's a problem. It's rare to get someone who persists in adding a non-notable person to a DOY page more than twice yet seems to be acting in good faith, but in those cases your templates make the point very nicely. What do you think about putting warnings like these into subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year? Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to use them. If we put them somewhere else, we'd want them to have a short path. Something like WP:DOY/uw-date1. You could just do a redirect from that location. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, I like that. The other option would be WP:DAYS/uw-date1, but WP:DOY is more natural to me. Should I bring this up on the project talk page? Winston365 (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:DOY is the actual guideline so that is probably the best place for it. You could bring it up at WT:UTM but I think it's too specific to be approved for addition to the general templates. You could post a notice at WT:DOY like I did on WT:DAYS here a couple of years ago. I never added any usage notes to the templates, which might be helpful for others who might use them. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll play around with it. I'll post a note on WT:DOY if I come up with something. Usage notes are certainly a must if this is worth doing at all. Winston365 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Earliest day" removal

Hi Mufka, I feel sorry that you removed the "earliest day" holidays in the Holidays and Observances section. For me actually this is ok until I realize that the summer solstice, winter solstice, autumnal equinox, and vernal equinox (and the corresponding observances e.g. the neopagan holidays of litha, samhain; and even the national day of Greenland) have the same earliest day formatting; and these four points in the year are an important source of some of the major world holiday.

Not only that, some "fixed, solar" holidays like the Christian holidays also have the "earliest day" template, but they are not tied into one single month, as some holidays like the Easter may fall from 22 March to 25 April, but following the same principle of the first Sunday after the March equinox. So I feel sorry for them for not being able to be listed even in the month article.

So actually I feel that I'm a bit losing my fire in trying to complete this huge mission, because you as the main administrator, disagree to this. My actual plan is, after reorganizing all the holidays and observances, I will create a default guideline for this (in progress, but part of it already available in my user page: User_talk:Rochelimit#Rules). Tell me what you think of this, and if you agree to give me a chance, that will be very helpful for the completion of the huge project. Regards --Rochelimit (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposed guideline looks like a good start. The intent of the date articles is to list the observances that occur on a particular date. My personal preference is to exclude the earliest and latest dates because it opens the door to list things like Mother's Day, Father's Day, Easter, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, etc. Then we will have a hard time preventing things like "Easter (2010)", "Easter (1975, 1986, 1997)", etc. I stress that this is my personal opinion. The fact that I am an administrator does not factor in. I also don't want to derail your efforts. If excluding the earliest and latest dates is a deal breaker for you, maybe we could start a WP:3O at WT:DOY to see what others think about the manageability of including them and the risks that they create. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding this, I will continue with what I think the best, which is including the "earliest-latest day" holidays (not the "latest day"). There are reasons for this, as it gives room for other type of holidays that e.g. has 2 main days (Venezuelan Our Lady of Chiquirira) or has consequtive main days (Kwanzaa and 12 days of Christmas). It also gives time to people to realize that such holiday exist.
True that people inserted Easter (1975, etc) before, but that always happens, even without the "earliest day" formatting. That's why creating a guideline is more important because we don't have a basic guideline for this Holidays and observations section.
Give me time to finalize the entire holidays and observations section of the year, then I'll consult WP:3O at WT:DOY to the community. Thanks --Rochelimit (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a very basic guideline to holidays and observances here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I read that guideline before. I wished to upgrade that guideline into a more systemized one. --Rochelimit (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OMFG

I figured you'd be a bit surprised when you checked your watchlist this morning, and your edit summary described my feelings as well when it was happening, and gave me a much needed smile . Thanks for cleaning all this up, I was feeling quite overwhelmed. I probably should have just kept my mouth shut from the beginning. Winston365 (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the block of AJona1992 he was in clear violation of 3RR and ignored my warning. Hopefully he would work it out with me on the talk page of Selena. Thanks Secret account 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Help with Afd

Because of the lack of response, I suspect that I have missed a step in my nomination of two Afds yesterday:

I added the template to their respective pages and I added to the top of the Afd log yesterday (although they appear on today's log). What have I done wrong? Thanks! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 15:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

They look ok to me. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mufka. You have new messages at Anowlin's talk page.
Message added 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jason Rogers - Country Artist

For other people named Jason Rogers, see Jason Rogers (disambiguation).

Could you please tell me why you erased me from this page? This is Jason Rogers/ www.JasonRogers.com

I have been featured in major publication magazines covering 19 countries, currently played on the radio in 16 countries, I have had 2 Top 40 Hits this year on the Country Music Singles Chart with Cashbox Magazine ( Billboards competition back in business/ physical production ) ( Cashbox 1942 - 1996 ) www.CashboxMagazine.com. I am listed on several websites as a celebrity. I have been featured on Fox & CBS news as well as been on National Television television on the CW network and various stations with a potential audience of 60 million people. I have had 2 songs on the Billboard Top 500 songs for 6 years in a row.

Please email me at: JasonRogersFans@gmail.com as I 100% for sure fill your notability status that you require and I would very much like to be listed on Wikipedia. I am a world wide known country singer/artist/songwriter whom is continally gaining more media and fans and find it unfair that you will only list the Jason Rogers that is the Olympic fencer. I could understand if I had not enough ammo to fill your requirements but this is not the case as I have more then enough. I have also been featured in over 200 newspaper articles in the last year. I actually receive more publicity then Jason Rogers the Olympic fencer. Please help me fix this misunderstanding on your part. I can give you any information you need. I am signed to a major record label as well. There are other famous Jason Rogers's as well whom I am sure feel the same way. I will donate money to Wikipedia once this problem is fixed.

~ Jason Rogers

www.JasonRogers.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.16.217 (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking back at this, I didn't delete an article, I deleted an unnecessary disambiguation page. Generally you shouldn't contribute information about yourself, but if you feel that you meet the notability requirements for inclusion, you should make a request at WP:RA. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizing IP sock

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190fordhouse, which appears to be related to an IP you helped out with a few days ago (98.198.174.81). I've reviewed all of that IPs edits (and undone the factual changing ones), but the others remain to be checked. If you have any additional information it might be useful at the SPI. I have already found 2 other IPs on different IPSs. Shadowjams (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Hobley

Any chace we could unlock Hannah Hobley, so I can create a reasonable page for her? From the deletion discussions it would seem that the problems with the page are a result of a poor quality page being repeatedly recreated. It has just taken me 20 minutes to create this and whould like to put it up. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can find another reliable source that has more than trivial coverage, I'll unprotect it. Otherwise it will end up back at AfD in no time. As it stands you have one reliable source with more than trivial coverage. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this may now be the most heavily referenced page on here (in relation to its size at least), but hopefully it would satisfy even her worst Wikipedia enemy! Take another look. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the sources provide the significant coverage necessary per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. But I won't keep you from trying to create the article. Be prepared for another AfD or G4 deletion. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that right now, she probably doesn’t meet those criteria, but I know quite a few others (which I imagine translates into thousands across Wikipedia) that shouldn’t really be on here if we’re being super strict about things. And I’ve got to admit that for someone who seems to have been eager to put herself on here, it seems odd that she doesn’t even have her own website. I will stick the page on and hope I can argue may past any deletions until more info becomes available. There are enough existing or potential links to mean the page won’t be an orphan, and there’s always the argument regards wikilinks vs weblinks. Out of interest, if it is deleted again where would I stand creating a redirect to the user space it’s currently on? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't create a cross-namespace redirect (and the user space page should also be deleted). If it gets deleted, you can go to WP:DRV. Otherwise, it just isn't meant to be. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Holidays and observances guideline - finished

Hi Mufka, I'm inviting you to recheck the guideline that has been made for keeping the 'Holidays and observances section' consistent. You can check it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rochelimit/Guidelines and gives suggestions or critics. Thanks --Rochelimit (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got a lot in there. Overall it looks sound. Still need some grammar fixes and there are some unfinished thoughts. One thing that I notice is mention of ancient observances. That conflicts with the statement "observances that are currently celebrated (not the date it was once celebrated or will be celebrated)" in WP:DOY. I don't have a lot of spare time to read through to process and comment, but overall it looks sound. I'll probably have more time in about a month. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Basically there are two new invented guidelines that is not compatible with the current WP:DAYS: one regarding the "ancient holidays", the other regarding the "moving days". As I promised months ago, I will bring this up at WT:DOY or WT:DAYS. --Rochelimit (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Church of Scientology and Discordianism

Dear Mufka, I have several questions regarding the pseudoreligion's holiday.

How do you feel about including Scientology holidays in Holidays and observances?
How do you feel about including this article in Holidays and observanes X-Day (Church of the SubGenius)?

Personally, I think some Scientology holidays can be too commercial, so I don't like placing them in Holidays and observances (eventhough Church of Scientology is a relatively old religion for a modern cult).

For the second one, I am actually against any kind of observances by Discordianism, but their articles in Wikipedia are well made (although only by a single source, that is, their own bible; and maintained by only their own community). Discussing with them is impossible, they are pros in twisting words into philosophical notion. Trying to be neutral, of course, the wiki article of X-Day is actually well-established enough to be placed in Holidays and observances, but the content is ridiculous.

So what do you think, considering the possibility of conflict? --Rochelimit (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

When I see "mythology and satirical" in the same sentence it makes me think these don't belong. As far as Scientology and Discordianism, if the observances are the subject of their own article they meet the minimum criteria. The next judgment is subjective as to whether they are widely observed. I would exclude them all, but I probably wouldn't have the energy to argue their exclusion in the case of conflict. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

?

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

Thanks Mufka

--Nuwanda360 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mufka, Nuwanda360 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Msg. Received

I appreciate your insight, I will be willing to back up any questions you may have about the relevance to "global" events. Are there a few specific ones that you find questionable? Please refer to: Portal:Pittsburgh/On_this_day, I am in no way including Pgh events just to include them (only the most global). All about making wikipedia as accurate and relevant as possible and non-pgh centric however I have seen outright bias such as Wikinews replying to me that the G-20 summit wasn't newsworthy because it took place outside of (I am assuming "relevant" cities like) New York, Toronto or Seattle, and an editor calling KDKA a cable access "show" (couldn't even get it as a "channel" let alone a O&O broadcast, a few of us had to remind him that the call letters were the first granted and there are K-stations on the east coast. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle, in no way are all Pgh events global, but I have faith that you realize things do take place outside of the pop-culture centers. Thank you and will be more than willing to consider your thoughts (and eventual if necessary deletions)on any borderline entries. Hholt01 (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

March 4

This page has been bugging me for a long time. Do you have any idea what is going on here? It's a sea of unreferenced articles, stubs and orphans. Well, from the page history it's perfectly obvious what happened, but why? Has anyone brought this up before? I'm probably gonna take a hatchet to this article some day...I was very tempted to make a start today but it's a big job. Does this page drive you nuts too, or is it just me? Winston365 (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You're the first to bring it up that I know of. I have noticed that the article has a lot more on it compared to others. I just thought it was a coincidence that so many people were born on March 4. It's not so obvious to me what happened. Am I missing something? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Certainly not a coincidence, this births section for instance is much longer than for any other date page (raw data here), with 577 entries instead of they typical 150 or so. The reason for this is that Acumen76 (talk · contribs) added most of them, dating back to early 2006. Strikes me as rather an odd thing to do, to concentrate so heavily on just one of these pages. I suppose there's nothing wrong with doing that, but many of these entries really aren't notable enough for inclusion on these pages. I think I'll pay more attention to what gets added to this page and if I see any more non-referenced additions I'll drop a note on his/her talk page. I tend to give additions to these pages less scrutiny if they come from long time editors, especially if they come with good edit summaries (I have to applaud Acumen for his excellent (for the most part) edit summaries as of late). In the meantime I'll try and get down to removing some of the least notable entries on this page. Winston365 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Jamescdozier.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Jamescdozier.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Libel?

Hello, I've just come across this and, not being sure what should be done about it, I have submitted it to you as I see you're an administrator and have been active at Talk:Joseph_Brant_Arseneau. Someone has already removed the offending piece but I don't know if it needs to be followed up any further.--~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any further follow-up is necessary at this point. I'll try to keep an eye on it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Plan to invite people to check H&O guideline

Dear Mufka. I am planning to invite interested people to look at the newly proposed H&O (holidays and observances) guideline through Wikipedia:VPP. I'm planning to create a new thread in WT:DAYS with a summary of the changes, reason, etc. and a link to the proposed Guideline. I have prepared a small "opening" for this new thread. I have a question though, where do you think should I post the new guideline for people to see? in the original Rochelimit page or in a new subpage in WT:DAYS? Thanks before. --Rochelimit (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I would put it at Wikipedia:Days of the year/Holidays and observances. You could shortcut it to WP:H&O and WT:H&O. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mufka, I'll get back to you before I officially invite people. --Rochelimit (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mufka, I'm planning to "publish" the H&O today. I moved my H&O and introduction to Wikipedia:Days of the year/Holidays and observances, WP:H&O, and WT:H&O. Is this what you meant with shortcut and everything? --Rochelimit (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I made some fixes to the shortcuts. Check to see that it didn't break your thought process at WP:VPP. Also, be sure to sign your post at VPP. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Signed my VPP post already (silly me) and re-checked the link. Thanks for the fixes mufka. --Rochelimit (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mufka/Archive_11&oldid=1190138648"