User talk:MaxSem/Archives/August 2012

Mail
Hi MaxSem. I've sent you an email you may wish to check out. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. Max Semenik (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

EC
Hi MaxSem, I'm afraid we seem to have tripped over each other's feet re SmashTheState - you've declined the unblock whilst I was unblocking him. Not sure what the best way forward is on this one, would you be happy giving him a topic ban from trivia sections?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 07:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See my userpage - I don't support the concept of admin action ownership, so I will not object if you unblocked him (though I still think that this block makes a perfect sense). And yes - some kind of restrictions would be good if you still want to unblock, but civility parole is imho more important in this case than topic ban. Max Semenik (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should probably put something similar on my userpage. My view of the rants against being incorrectly labelled as a sockpuppet is that we should look beyond that and see if he can play nice under less stressful circumstances. I'd be happy to compromise on a civility parole if you can think of an apt wording for it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 08:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hayanisel
I didn't realise that the IP I reverted was another sock of who I blocked for socking at List of haplogroups of historical and famous figures. I've posted to the talk page as they've appealed again. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. Max Semenik (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Michelle
Last I checked, "charted singles" + "signed to a major label" = notable per WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see from this article that it passes GNG, namely the non-trivial coverage part. Also, "signed to a major label" is not what WP:BAND says, it requires 2 albums at such labels. Max Semenik (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a lot on Google News. Did you look? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I specifically !voted "in its present state". Instead of arguing with me, why don't you add these sources to the article, that'll be much more productive. Max Semenik (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mbinebri
Hi Max, I was recently blocked for the edit warring but the other party avoided this by simply deleting the notice from his talk page. In fact, User:Mbinebri has breached Wikipedia guidelines two times: 1) started the edit warring and violated the reverting rule on 14-15 August. 2) deleted the blocking warning from his talk page 2 times to conceal the deed. I am not contesting my blocking but at least I want the same treatment as the other party. Regards. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to do about it? People are allowed to remove stuff from their userspacde, unless they're blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He removed the blocking warning from his page and therefore escaped the blocking by deception. I want to escalate the blocking of the aforementioned user for the breach of Wikipedia quidelines. Regards. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is permitted. Please stop kicking the dead horse, it isn't helpful. Max Semenik (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Spam-warn
Hello MaxSem, nice to make your acquaintance. You protected spam-warn back in 2008, but it now looks to be redundant with db-spam-notice, the warning used by Twinkle. Would you object to me redirecting spam-warn to db-spam-notice? Also, how about reducing the protection level to semi? It looks like most of the other speedy deletion notices have been semi-d rather than full protected. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 19:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, no objections. Note however that spam-warn has a nice "click here to contest deletion" button, which seems to be more easy to comprehend for novices. Max Semenik (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! I'll have a look into putting the button in db-notice so that it appears in all of the speedy deletion notices that Twinkle uses. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 20:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

okay great, i didn't knew this rules, please make me unbanned and i will don't do this again, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Omar (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not blocked - after all, you can write here. Max Semenik (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Warning for posting "non-encyclopedic" entry in clearly labelled controversy section.
You gave me a warning and edited out my comment that it is unclear if the USADA has authority in the Lance Armstrong case as it was "non-encyclopedic", despite that fact that there is specifically a section to cover the controversy of the case.

Let me refer you to http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/national/US-doping-agency-erases-Lance-Armstrongs-titles_64917455, specifically starting at the tenth paragraph:

[copyvio removed]

So, what you are saying is if I include this information, condensed down and with a proper attribute and link, you are going to erase it again because it is "non-encyclopedic"? I mean, I don't want to break any rules, but what is clear form all of this is that neither the UCI nor Tour de France consider his titles stripped, and they are the ones with the authority to strip them. Personally, I'd say that belongs in the controversy section, since that is what that section was created for. However, I don't want to break any rules here, so if you feel this does not belong in the controversy section, to whom do I appeal your decision to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosgrove (talk • contribs) 19:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What you added was an unsourced piece of opinion. Even if someone really said so, your addition was unhelpful as it neither provided sources, nor had tone appropriate for encyclopedia. Basically, without your elaborate explanation above it looked exactly like your personal opinion - and even after explanation it looks like you're mostly expressing your feelings. Max Semenik (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The fact that people are saying that the USADA has taken away Lance's titles is, in fact, the mis-informed opinion, and should not be on the page. The two agencies that actually control whether or not Lance Armstrong loses his Tour titles have both, so far, expressed no desire to remove his titles. Further, the USADA has, itself, expressed a hope/belief that the agencies will follow its lead. You can delete the actual quotes from those respective agencies if you so chose, but the fact remains that you are the one placing your own opinions into the page by deciding what is opinion and what is encyclopedic, and editing out the positions contra your beliefs.

Again, I ask, how do I appeal to a higher position person so that they can decide which of us is is including facts, and which is including opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosgrove (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as higher authority in content disputes: if your edit has been disputed, especially by more than one person (someone who reverted you in addition to me) you should start a discussion on article's talk page to reach consensus. Max Semenik (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Typoscan
I was wondering how do I make a list of typo articles. I downloaded a database dump and extracted it. I loaded it into AWB with the Database dump. Then I loaded it, clicked on 'Searching' and hit Typo. The problem is it takes a long time to find any article and the articles found have only one hypen error, and the rest flagged do not have errors according to Regex. TypoScan's backlog is long since finished, and Reedy isn't that active, so I was hoping you could provide some input on what to do or when a new dump will be up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not active in AWB development either, so just a general note: the dump is huge, so scanning for typos is predictably slow. Dumps are often outdated - so the typos you find might already be fixed. Max Semenik (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm scanning it now, I'll see how long it takes, but I am running it at high priority. I was hoping for a Typoscan update, but I found additional work thanks to my newly acquired database searches for other things. I just wish I could understand how it all works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)