User talk:Mufka/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

The user you blocked

The user:Von Hugel Strudel that you blocked for 24 hours for 3rr violation in Baklava article has returned, not having patience for 24 hours, with another revert from IP adress 62.201.255.170 Would you mind blocking them further? Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ChelseaFCG

I see you just gave him a 3RR warning. Although evidently not Georgian, he considers himself an expert on Georgian history but has an abysmal understanding of sourcing and our NPOV policy. If you get a chance could you look at his edits at Darial Gorge and Gates of Alexander to see if I'm over-reacting (he was even using Tripadvisor as a source, but stopped that - however, his other sources seem so obscure I can't find most of them). Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how much I can help as I'm not familiar with the subject. I'll see if anything jumps out. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think you really need to know much about the subject. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletions?

What did I do wrong for them to be deleted? --Yek2iop (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You provided no claim of or support for notability. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I know the page had been deleted before, but I think it is now worthy of being on Wikipedia, as he is recorded and internationally known and premiered, both of which were cited. Matt92091 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mufka. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 19:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:StanWaterman.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:StanWaterman.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce page?

Hello, I was wondering why you deleted the "Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce" page I just created? Its sole purpose is to serve as a neutral resource, and it does not read like an advertisment. In fact, it's a lot more objective than other related entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicagoland_Chamber_of_Commerce

I feel this was an unnecessary delete on your part. Please let me know what I can do to ensure this content is retained.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jty789 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It was an (suspiciously) exact copy of the article that was deleted as a result of this discussion in September. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Yes, I am the owner of that copy which was deleted on my secondary account. I have complete copyright control over that text and can verify it. What do I need to get that copy up there? Again, the tone and text of the article is objective, and non-promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jty789 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you read and do you understand WP:COI. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Victory dance listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Victory dance. Since you had some involvement with the Victory dance redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Against the current (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mufka. You have new messages at GSK's talk page.
Message added 21:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

12/12/12

Have you seen December 12, 2012? What do you make of the article/dab page? Jared Preston (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Should be like November 11, 2011. I don't think I have the energy to argue either way at WP:MFD but I'd support it being sent there as an unnecessary DAB page. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

RymJym

You recently gave this user and indefblock for spamming. I will concede that all of his edits are spam, but all of them come to a total of one. Only one. Do you think an indefblock for a single spam edit is a bit harsh? I have already chided the editor who nominated this editor at AIV. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The obvious spam/promotional username adds another level. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I'm missing the obvious; I am good at that. His only edit is to Pakistani clothing; how is his username spam?the only google hits are to restaurants, and they are spelled differently.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He added a link to rymjym.com. RymJym is the company. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ganbare Robocon page

I removed the TV bar after numerous attempts to try and make the infobox different, as it stated that the show was an animated show when it wasen't. It was a Tokusatsu live action programme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.78.49 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fix it, don't delete it. And use and edit summary so we know what you're thinking. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello h r u ? Cud u please let me edit that birth page for one day cauze i really like to show someone and its kind of a gesture so it wud be really appriciated if u wud let that entry there for one day.....i ll be really thankfull to u thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.76.250 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Waterways

Hi Mufka, and thank you very much for this. Could you please see also Canal & River Trust, which has had exactly the same problems, and perhaps consider similar action there? Your call, not mine, I know, but I feel that we are probably in the same trouble there too. Two as-yet unanswered requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection also apply, and I suppose will need magic-admin-updating anyway. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dealt with, thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

PS

On the same topic: I have tried without apparent success to explain to the IP editors why this cannot work, at least until a RS writes it all up in a wonderfully bulletproof way. I was considering trying a moderately-worded appeal along the same lines on the Talk page of the article(s) but in all honesty I cannot see if this is a good idea or not ... might help, might just inflame things. I would be most grateful for your view. Thanks again DBaK (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about reaching out to the editors. Bouncing IPs and potentially compromised accounts indicate to me a lack of good faith by someone pushing an agenda. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks very much for the advice; I will leave it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

You guys are so overworked. I think you need some tea to relax. Thanks for responding to the request to protect FIFA Ballon d'Or. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Freebirdthemonk

He's caught in an autoblock of yours on user:PakistanSucks. I'm fairly sure they're not the same - FBM has been here with no problems since last October. If you could take a look at it, it may be a school IP to blame. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's been handled by IPBE. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Date pages

Hi. Please don't change the formatting of the date pages as you have done at April 7. The format, including spacing, is dictated by the template for the date pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template. Your edits will create a lot of work for someone to go back and fix. Also, please consider using the show preview button when making changes rather than making dozens of small changes consecutively. Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sorry for the late reply. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

1272

I think that the edit filter would be more effective than protection here, as it could block the spam and allow useful edits, and the vandals/spammers are likely to target other unprotected pages - I've removed similar nonsense from the 1372 page where it had been for a few days. Peter James (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I don't have any experience with the edit filter so someone else will have to look into it. I didn't expect that the protect would last long. I figured someone would come along with a better solution. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've requested it at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, although I'm not sure whether that page is still active as the requests go back several months and the last completed request was in September. Peter James (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

AIV report

I'm not sure why you templated me with a "bad AIV report" message. Perhaps you misunderstood something. Your note said "it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned." But the user I reported was given a final warning [1] on 4 January 2013. They then vandalized Simms, Montana here [2]. Are you saying that was not vandalism and that in the President in 1902 wasn't Theodore Roosevelt,but in reality was Cole Tribby or that it was somehow a good faith edit? Please elaborate. Mojoworker (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning IPs is different than warning logged in users. Last warnings don't carry over several days in most cases because you're potentially dealing with multiple users. From WP:GAIV: "Administrator intervention against vandalism is for reporting users currently engaging in persistent vandalism." and from WP:AIV: "The warnings must have been given recently, especially for unregistered users". You put this IP to AIV 8 days after its last edit. Now, with all that said, this IP will probably end up with a long term block based on past history if they show up again. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the template you gave me mentions none of that – mentioning only "may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith." Don't get me wrong, I understand your rationale for declining, I saw your message at AIV (which was much more helpful and much less confusing). But do you really think my report at AIV was wrong? The template message makes it seem so. I realize the IP hasn't edited this week, but all of their edits have been vandalism, and the IP has an extensive block log, being blocked for 1 year in the last instance. And they are editing the same article over and over, so I don't really think it's different editors. I know that many admins would've blocked in this circumstance, but I understand why you didn't. In any case, I appreciate that you let me know you declined it, since I might have missed it at AIV, but I don't think the template (or at least that template) was appropriate, because none of the things mentioned in the template were relevant to the situation, and I don't think my report was a "Bad AIV Report". If you agree and would self revert it, that would be great, but if not, I'll delete it myself in a little while. I'm not trying to be crabby or confrontational – just trying to understand what I did that warranted what, in my view, is a reprimand. Mojoworker (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The words I felt were relevant in the template were "not sufficiently or appropriately warned". Sometimes it's just splitting hairs. If you're worried about the template being a stain on your talk page, by all means, remove it. You have that right. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible unblock of User:KirstyHurst

Hi Mufka. This user is requesting an unblock via UTRS. It looks as though they misunderstood the appropriate process for contesting an AFD - they've agreed to follow the proper procedure now, and claim to have no intention of editing the Lee Westwick article again; instead, they want to work on Madeira-related articles. I'm inclined to unblock under WP:ROPE, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first (difficult without seeing the unblock request, I realise!). Yunshui 雲‍水 05:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have more information, feel free to unblock. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked - feel free to reinstate it if you see any further disruption from that quarter. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to WT:DOY

---

Andrews Sisters Individual Pages

You know there's no individual page for Orville Wright, either? Are we saying that Orville Wright isn't notable enough because he doesn't have a "bio?" I think that's a little literal. -- JCaesar (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You know what I'm going to do at this point? I'm just going to find people who don't have individual pages, just to make you work your butt off. Auguste and Louis Lumière. Check their birth and death dates. Without individual pages? Not on my Wiki! -- JCaesar (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The McGuire Sisters. Some of them are listed, and some of them aren't. Ain't tellin' which. Better go check that out. Not on my Wiki! -- JCaesar (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Grimm Brothers. You're gonna have to dig a little for them. Not on my Wiki! -- JCaesar (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Already done hours ago. -- JCaesar (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And Please Do Understand...

I am not trying to disrupt the Wiki. I'm not even trying to disrupt your day nor anyone else's. Like I said, I sort of stumbled across this whole situation by accident while updating the calendar pages with people who all have individual pages, and when I said, "That's as silly as saying the Wright Brothers shouldn't be listed," lo and behold, the Wright Brothers were removed, which wasn't my intent. I genuinely thought that would be an obvious exception to the letter of the law, and instead, it became a victim of the letter of the law, which both baffled and frustrated me. It's just... it really does seem ludicrous to me, and it really does seem like, "Where the hell do I go to get a consensus?" and it really does seem like, "How long does a sane person have to wait to get a consensus?" Like, do I have to wait two years to get a consensus? Three? Ten? Eleven? -- JCaesar (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also (and this is a personal sidebar not relevant to the discussion, which is why I say it here): I want to sincerely apologize for my antagonistic stance toward you earlier. I did not know you were an admin. If I had, I would have never antagonized. I only antagonized because I personally felt antagonized. I'm a person with feelings, too, and I sometimes feel ganged-up-on and have bad days, just like you.

In addition, the reason I'm taking this discussion seriously is because I rely on the Wikipedia calendar pages for my job and my Website. I'm working on a project where I update every day with notable birthdays, and I use Wikipedia as my first source of information because it's the most complete. If it's not complete, that negatively impacts my business. Hence my involvement. -- JCaesar (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that someone is an admin should never enter the equation when undertaking policy discussions. It's entirely irrelevant. You have no reason to adjust your point of view just because of who you're talking to. It's what you're talking about that's important. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Except admins have a lot more to deal with than users, and when admins make decisions, it can and should mean more than a user off the top of his head. -- 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCaesar (talk • contribs)

A brownie for you!

Good Job editing and stuff. Jdc1197 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Movie/Album/Book Releases

OK. Now I have a new, unrelated question. I see you removed the release of Dark Side of the Moon as an event. But there are certain movie, album and book releases which are included. What exactly is the yardstick that would not include Dark Side of the Moon? This is a serious question. -- JCaesar (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you give examples? Generally they're all excluded. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not asking you to delete the ones that are included, but off the top of my head Sense and Sensibility, Birth of a Nation, I believe Gone with the Wind. ... Look, how about I just propose a simple solution: New section, in addition to "Events," "Births," "Deaths" and "Holidays and Observances:" "Releases in Arts and Entertainment." Same format, same notability rules, can include books, movies, albums, singles, paintings, online media, etc. Two or three editors could have all 366 sections set up within a couple hours with a little copy-paste and lists populated by what might already be there. Saves you the effort of deciding what belongs in the Events and what doesn't, gives editors something to do. -- JCaesar (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Without looking specifically, an argument can be made that some books, movies, or other works of art represent social milestones and can be included. No Pink Floyd album would meet that criteria. Propose new sections at WT:DOY. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Individual article requirement

Hi - Can you poke some of the DOY regulars to get some more input on the suggestion at WT:DOY? No one has objected, but the level of response is somewhat underwhelming. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Many of the "regulars" don't participate in discussions. We've gotten the level of participation we usually get. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sun (R&B band)

After doing some follow-up we appear successful in resolving the issue you reported regarding a Conflict of Interest. Tiggerjay (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Qworty did some cleanup and there hasn't been any drama over it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mufka. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year.
Message added 09:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Calendar

FYI, by definition, because of the way the Chinese calculate their calendars, Chinese astrology is the Chinese calendar. They're completely synonymous. There is a chart in the cited book which shows when the new years start vs. when the Chinese New Year celebration is held. It's the first day of spring, which is almost always February 4th, except sometimes it's the 5th. You can find the book at any library or bookstore and double-check if you like. -- JCaesar (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed the text, and it now falls completely under WP:BOOKLINKS by any definition. -- JCaesar (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Context? I don't know what you're talking about. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Whatever you add must be supported by a linked article. We don't put references in the date articles. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "Scorched (software)"

Hi Mufka,

Regarding the page you just deleted: Scorched (software). You've deleted it citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G11. I believe you've incorrectly interpreted and applied that criteria.

G11 states "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". I fail to see how my page on Scorched is exclusively promotional when I've basically copied the format of a similar page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinatra_(software). How does the Sinatra page qualify, where as the Scorched page does not. Wikipedia has no policy that prevents authors or related parties to write about projects or personal topics of theirs, as long as it is done so from a neutral point of view.

Please, can you let me know the specific problem you had with the page so I can correct it. Note though, that I can't correct the page while it's deleted, so if you would undelete the page, I can apply any suggested amendments you make.

Thanks, Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwardrop (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no indication that the subject of the article meets notability requirements - and a 42 day old piece of software can't possibly meet notability requirements. There were no reliable sources cited that support any claim of notability. I reviewed this page on its own merit, not based on any other page's existence. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better reason, and I respect that. Tomwardrop (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mufka. You have new messages at TempName1's talk page.
Message added 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TempName1 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)