User talk:Mifter/Archive 5

Happy birthday!
Happy birthday! Have a good one. Malinaccier (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :)  iMatthew  talk   at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXV
Delivered by JCbot (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:


 * T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
 * WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
 * WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
 * WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
 * WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 02:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Artemis Fowl Time Paradox Cover US Version.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Artemis Fowl Time Paradox Cover US Version.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

block of
Could I ask you to double check your block of Cokea? I had previously issued a warning to the editor which I retracted. It appears the editor was removing unsourced sourced defamatory nicknames about a college band. Toddst1 (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look ;), I had taken a look at the page history before issuing the block and it appeared that their had been some controversy in the past over that text being added to disamg and it appeared to be vandalism so I blocked, but I'd be happy to take a second look ;). Best, Mifter (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrm, I'd have to say I'm really not sure here, the statement has been in the article for a long period of time with multiple different editors reverting atempts to remove it saying it is sourced, but if you have something to suggest that it is defamatory and unsourced then I'd be happy to remove the block, and if you want to go ahead and just unblock, then I have no problem with that :). Best, Mifter (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will do that. It just seems like that shouldn't be part of an encyclopedia. (I don't have anything to do with any schools or bands.) Toddst1 (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BQ
I will happily admit to the person putting the term on there. It is no less notable than the other terms on there. It should also be noted that, IMNSHO, the user in question is a sockpuppet account of User:ThreeE or a meatpuppet of the same user. Since Wikipedia makes no distinction between the two, I won't either. There is an ongoing problem with this disambiguation page as "new" accounts "seem" to repeatedly make it their first edit. Conversely, others have made the bare minimum number of edits to not be "new" users, waited the requisite four days, and then made changes to the same page. There is an ongoing sockpuppetry case regarding these "users" (and I use that term loosely as it appears it clearly is the same person...)

As for the term "Band Queer" itself, it was once considered derogatory toward Aggie band members, but is now quite complimentary and band members take no offense at it (please see the BQ talk page for lots more information). As for it being unsourced, I have provided a number of sources for anyone to pick from and no one has yet seen fit to pick a source or sources. Moreover, disambiguation pages generally don't include sources as they are simply forks in the road leading people to the actual articles.

Given this person's penchant for disruptive behavior and stated intent to circumvent blocks for sockpuppetry, I request that the block be reinstated for User:Cokea. — BQZip01 — talk 05:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment By OnlineBC
I created the page "corporationwiki.com" because this is a company with no information anywhere, it seems to be a rogue company that has no records, no information about it, and no way to find out what it is or who runs it. it certainly was not advertising. I created it to assist other company owners who are suffering as a result of this company publishing bad information and having no accountability. Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlineBC (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, while your motives for creating the article were good, in order for the article to remain on Wikipedia it has to be notable, verifiable, and it has to have significant mention in reliable third party sources. If you would like some help writing an article, then I recommend you see here for some helpful tips :).  If you need any help or have any questions, please feel free to ask me :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock
Hi. Can you please look at User talk:Ilovegerhardegerer? He appears to be a blatantly obvious sock of User talk:Gerhard94.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 04:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅, I've blocked the account for block evasion and socking ;). Best, Mifter (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protection review
Hi Mifter, can you please review Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring? I believe that the wrong page may have been protected, or that neither page should be protected. thank you and regards, --guyzero | talk 04:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day
Hi there, Mifter! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –p joe f (talk • contribs) 07:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for suggesting those mottos on the MotD Page, they both look pretty good! If you get some free time, you should feel free to browse through the other suggested mottos on the page and contribute to the discussions.  See you around.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free 3d art
Re : Two dimensional representations of three dimensional art are subject to copyright in the United States. Per the US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2), whoever holds rights to the original holds exclusive rights to derivative works. Photographs of three dimensional works of art constitute derivative works. I'm surprised you don't know this, being an administrator. Hopefully this clears things up. I've restored the missing fair use rationale warning tag. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, that was my mistake, I got confused between the image policy here and the one on commons (I tend to work at commons quiet often too). On commons, freedom of panorama is acceptable in some circumstances, sorry for the mix up ;).  Best, Mifter (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVI
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 15:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

WikiCup Newsletter XXVII
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Thank you
Just wanted to say a quick thank you for the delete from my userspace... Happy editing! -Pax85 (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

172.26.66.105
Hello. You sure about that one? Per WP:IPB, it's probably best not to indef-block IPs. Most IPs are changed eventually. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm sure, what I did is I went on Bing and searched "web proxy" and I found sites that allowed you to input a URL and access a web page through that site, so I navigated to Wikipedia on the said proxy and used Special:Mytalk to check the IP's of the open proxy, and in addition, I also navigated to a "Whats My IP?" website in order to verify the two were the same and that the proxy didn't change its IP from page to page, then I proceed to block the IP's here for open proxies.  But, you do have a good point about the indef blocks, I was simply following the procedure I had seen other admins follow in the past, and as a result I have gone back and converted the indef blocks to long term blocks to expire in a few years.  All the Best, Mifter (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for revisiting the block lengths. This IP caught my eye because I thought it was still in a IANA reserved range (172.16.0.0/12). See for example Private network. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVIII
Delivered by – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk at 15:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Block of 99.141.246.39
You just blocked an IP, who had been edit warring on the Susan Roegsen page weeks ago and hasn't edited that page since the user was blocked. Did you mean to block 99.144.250.128 instead? That user may be the same person, but that IP was the one edit warring today. Thanks. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I've moved the block to the correct IP, that was my mistake I was looking over the contribs and I saw the old IP and accidentally blocked the wrong IP ;). Best, Mifter (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've come here with regards to the above, it seems to me the block on 99.144.250.128 was completely unnecessary considering the hadn't edited the page in something like 12 hours when you blocked them. Are there special circumstances here that I'm not aware or something?-- Jac 16888 Talk 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I issued the block after a complaint at WP:AN/3RR, and although the block may be a bit long (A small mistake on my part) the IP did violate WP:3RR and does appear to be in an edit war with other editors, I have just returned from a vacation (I had a marvelous time by the way :) ) and I still have yet to get back into the swing of things, so feel free to unblock if you see fit, but the block was for a 3RR vio and their are no other special circumstances. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that the block occured a long time after the ip's last edit to the page-- Jac 16888 Talk 10:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user was blocked for edit warring and for violating WP:3RR (more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, not a 12 hour period), in response to a complaint filed here.
 * This user:
 * has been warned about edit warring, disruptive editing and incivility on all three accounts listed here over the past couple weeks. He has been blocked on all three accounts listed here.  He has prompted the protection of the article involved here.  The fact that he didn't edit anything, not just that article, in the half-dozen hours before he was blocked doesn't seem to be an issue here - even edit warriors must sleep.
 * In response to his falsifications on his talk page: no, I haven't been edit warring; his violations over the past 72 hours were reverted by Sceptre; Gamaliel, Loonymonkey, RonaldB as well as myself. And no, I haven't been reverting every edit of his, nor do I have a personal vendetta, and no, he hasn't changed his edits so that they conform to WP:BLP.  Blocks are not meant to be punative; they are used to halt edit warring.  Unfortunately, that editor has not given any indication that the edit warring won't continue after this block expires. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm don't really see how you can say that, in the 12 hours since the IP's last edit to the page in question they edited repeatedly despite being reverted straight away on the article, including a comment on the talk psge of the article in question. A block to halt edit warring seems unnecessary when its already stopped-- Jac 16888 Talk 10:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * @Jac16888: My apologies, I did misread your understanding of the chronology of events. However, I still do not understand how you concluded that the edit warring had "already stopped".  His edits indicate to me that he blindly reverted up until he noticed he was reported by me for it (his comments about me make it clear he has been monitoring my edits and pages).  So he resorted to attempts to have others continue the reverting, while the unresolved 3RR report hung over him.  You mention his last comment on the article talk page, wherein he ignores the specific requests about his edit-warring and reverting, and instead only makes a comment on an earlier prose discussion.  His last edit summaries; his unblock request; his talk page comments all indicate that he doesn't see the problem. I view this as disruptive editing that has persisted for a couple weeks, and only abates when either his account has been blocked, or the article has been protected.
 * All that aside, I'm not pushing here for account blocks, which I consider fairly inconsequential against this dynamic-IP user anyway. I'm pushing to have the edit-warring cease.  If you are convinced that the editor will engage in discussion, collaboration and civility instead of disruptive editing, blind reverting and personal attacks, then reduce or remove the block. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have proposed some terms for unblocking to the IP,, does these seem acceptable to you (mainly mifter as the blocking admin, but xeno as well)-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those terms look fine to me, that would allow the IP to make useful contributions elsewhere while still working to stop the edit war :) Best, Mifter (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * cheers. Now to get him to agree to it-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have proposed some terms for unblocking to the IP,, does these seem acceptable to you (mainly mifter as the blocking admin, but xeno as well)-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those terms look fine to me, that would allow the IP to make useful contributions elsewhere while still working to stop the edit war :) Best, Mifter (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * cheers. Now to get him to agree to it-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick reminder
When you delete images (for example, and ), you need to remove them from the articles in which they appear (and those two were in Fumiyo Fujiyoshi after being deleted in the second week of June). -- Pakaran 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed
This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Requests for arbitration concerning a case in which you have commented at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list. --Lambiam 12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 06:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulbouscellmediagroup
I thought User:Bulbouscellmediagroup was blocked, but this person created another article. How is this possible? Clubmarx (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was created before I blocked the user for a username vio and edits stay in the db forever even if an account it blocked unless removed permanently by a dev. Best, Mifter (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXX
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 19:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Inappropriate use of rollback by Leuko
You granted rollback rights to Leuko on the 14th September. They have just rolled back an edit of mine on God save the queen which was clearly not vandalism; I fixed one typo, two spurious capitals, and inconsistent use of tense, with an edit summary of "Fix typos, inconsistent tense".

I believe this is not the intended purpose of the rollback facility. I cannot take this up with them personally because their user talk page is protected against anonymous edits, so I do not see what action I can take other than consulting you.

81.187.27.126 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey there, I see no misuse of rollback here, at a glance your edits looked like vandalism because you changed some worlds so they were misspelled which is a common form of vandalism on Wikipedia even though you were fixing some errors in the article. The user's reverts appear to be a simple mistake which has been already remedied (From what I can gather from Leuko's talk page) so Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not misspell words. I changed a misspelled word, "plased", to be correctly spelled. My edit only looks like vandalism at a glance to someone who doesn't actually understand which way around the diff is. Do you really think that's an appropriate basis on which to use rollback? 81.187.27.126 (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My apoligies, I misread the diff and confused your edit with another editors. Anyways, I believe that it the user made a simple mistake reverting and I'm going to assume he had no bad or negative intentions and that is was a simple mistake and let this go, if the user makes any more bad reverts than I may reconsider and take some action but otherwise I think that this was just a simple mistake ;).  Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo
I would appreciate it if you could please comment on the article I wrote about Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo. It is currently listed for peer review here. I decided to invite you because I think this article could possibly be listed in simple English wikipedia. Since you support S.E.W. I would like know what you think. This article is short, only 25KB. If you accept my invitation, it shouldn't take up too much of your time. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

IRC
Sorry I couldn't help you out. Just email the list and someone will get to it. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 23:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What?
What's User:MifterBot I doing? My watchlist has gone crazy! This is the first I've seen of your bot, and I don't know anything about it, but does it intend to post a welcome to every IP address on Wikipedia? A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 15:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, my bot is doing template substitution of the template Template:Welcome, and its not actually welcoming users, its simply changing the un-substituted template welcome to, for more details you can see its bot approval (for task 2) here.  Also if you wish to hide my bot's contribs from your watchlist you can click the option "Hide Bots" and the edits of any bots will no longer show up ;).  Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I understand. Sorry about the panic attack, and thanks for getting back to me quickly. I'll check out it's tasks and hide it from the watchlist. Thanks! A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem :) Mifter (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing dispute of copyright aspects
You have just tagged the graphics with the RADURA-symbol for copyright problems. This is an ongoing dispute; no resulution has been achieved. Please see also my comments on the discussion page for the RADURA-symbol. Dieter E (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello their, it is not a bot error that your image was tagged with SVG-Logo, your image was tagged because it uses the license template Non-free logo because per Wikipedia policy the image is considered a non-free image which is copyrighted and as such can only be used under a claim of fair use. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanations! However, who is able and willing to convert this RADURA-file by its several tags into a copyright-free and generally available graphics. When I uploaded first this international version of the RADURA-logo it took some time to get it accepted by several WIKI-editors; and to tag it as a 'non-free logo' was not my proposal or wish, but added by others. And please compare File:Radura-Symbol.svg where the required fields have not yet been filled. And where several fields do not convey correct information (eg. what means EURATOM in this context?) I feel incompetent with respect to those basic WIKI-rules. Dieter E (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfA
I appreciate the sentiment, really I do, and I've even been approached in the past by others wanting to nominate me for adminship, but I really have no interest in most of the duties that an admin has to perform in order to stay "active". I believe an admin has to be active in the Wikipedia pages, like WP:AN, WP:AN/I and other related pages, and I do not believe I have enough interest in those aspects of the job to ever want to become an admin, and at that I doubt I would have the time either to check such pages with any regularity if I didn't want to take away from what I mainly do on Wikipedia, article building. I'm merely a meager editor whose main goals with the encyclopedia are article building, and resolving any disputes I may find myself in on any of the articles I edit. I would also like to add that I would enjoy the added tools and things that come with being an admin, as it would make my work here a little easier some of the time when I have to request pages to be speedily deleted, or if I had to request a history merge, which I've done at least once in the last year and was a huge pain to deal with. So thanks for the offer, and I guess if I've been approached at least 3 times already for adminship (this is actually the 4th time from 3 different admins including yourself), I'm doing something right. : ) --  十  八  00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest, you don't have to do anything to stay "active" as an admin - my workload composition really hasn't changed all that much since I became an admin myself, and I actually don't watch (or even regularly check) any of the admin noticeboards, though I probably would if I had more time. Just, y'know, putting it out there... =D 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:User:Roux/tb
Hello. I see that you speedily deleted User:Roux/tb as per the author's request yesterday. Have you given any thought as to what to do with the 16 instances where the page was transcluded ? Perhaps they could be substituted by a bot? Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello there, I just went and restored the template, I tried not to delete any pages that were being used outside his userspace, but it appears that I missed that one :). Thanks for bringing that to my attention :).  All the Best, Mifter (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed RfA nom
Hi Mifter; thanks for your note at my talk page, which I saw today. Just to say I will comment in more detail when I get a chance at the weekend. I must say I had never considered this course of action until my name started to be "mentioned" informally a few times in the last few weeks, prompting me to think of what my considered response would be. I will put these thoughts here soon once I have finalised them—in particular, the various concerns I have such as my total lack of experience in many admin-type areas and my previously poor understanding of image copyright. Anyway, look out for more comments soon. With regards,  Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Based on a weekend of consideration, these would be my main concerns and observations:


 * I don't yet have the "intimate understanding of Wikipedia policy" quoted at the linked page. To satisfy my own standards, I would need to spend some time familiarising myself with all aspects of adminship - even though I would not want to participate in all areas that would be "available" to me.
 * My understanding of image copyright requirements used to be non-existent, and is still sketchy. This is (rightly) considered to be an important part of the project, and I don't think the errors I have made historically, and my subsequent failures to correct them promptly, would be looked upon favourably.  (To be specific: I originally thought that if I created an image by scanning it, I could then upload it as "Public Domain".  Most of the "bad" images were of railway tickets, where a company called Rail Settlement Plan holds the copyright to the design.)  Sounds daft now, but I simply didn't know any better.
 * I have never participated in several of the "usual" areas, where competence is considered necessary: CSD, AFD, AIV etc. Frankly, I can't remember the last time I even looked at those pages.  Although I appreciate the importance of deleting junk, I feel that I can better serve the interests of the project by creating content.  (That's not to say I will never investigate those places and participate, natürlich!)
 * I'm not one for taking swift, decisive action: I prefer to stop, think and analyse all aspects of something. I am also more of a follower than a leader: I'm good at getting down and doing something that's been e.g. suggested at a WikiProject, even something that looks boring, but I am less likely to suggest something and help to implement it, such as a change in policy or a guideline.  I don't know: maybe there are advantages as well as disadvantages there.  Hmm...


 * So at this time, and without prejudice to any future changes of mind, I must politely decline your proposal, which I nevertheless appreciate: I do not feel ready yet, and my mindset demands that I must be fully prepared for something and ready to do the best job possible. (That's why I don't create stub articles: I just can't bring myself to do it!)  Anyway, your thoughts on this rather long-winded comment would be appreciated - especially whether you think the vetting thing might be worthwhile.  Victuallers, another admin, has kindly made some comments as well, and I have asked him to look here as well.  Cheers,  Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  18:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

H. I think you have a rationale. If you are thinking of doing it then hang around the RFA, the AFD etc as you would need a history of being there to get admin credability. INtimate knowledge of all policy? Some might claim it... the important thing is to know it exists and can be consulted. You know know that image copyright exists. And experts exist. Its something I understand now, but didn't if you need help. Anyway you're a great editor we need all the skills. Oh and looking forward to finding out about the skeleton army! Victuallers (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Turkish Airlines Flight 452
Hi! Thanks a lot for your contribution. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Albanian Association in Middle East
I think you should have a look at this. --Aeternus (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter One: The Prince Who Would Be King
You might want to double-check this close a bit. Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I caught it before coming here - when you closed the debate, you missed deleting the second nominated article (a single from the album). I went ahead and deleted it, since it seems to be completely non-controversial, with clear consensus. No biggie. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WT Sherman
Mifter: Thank you for your swift action in semi-protecting the Sherman article. I was baffled by the fact that another user simply removed my earlier request. Perhaps he or she thought my 1st request today was too preachy. I do think, however, that it is wasteful for Wikipedia to allow a mature article to be repeatedly vandalized. And it places a burden on watchers to try to keep the article free of vandalism. Anyway, thanks again. Hartfelt (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey I have a question
I saw ur block im just wondering

doesnt indefinite mean forever? (RealityShowsRCool (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Alex image
I don't think this image will exist else where, unless somebody took the picture during the filming. For example, Harry Potter is different from Daniel Radcliff, even though he is played by Daniel! --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 23:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the difference their is that Harry Potter has a definitive costume, while Alex Russo does not, and because of that, a free Image of Sekena Gomez could work just fine for the article. Best, Mifter (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Falling In Reverse
Hi i am a Falling In Reverse fan and every time I click on Falling In Reverse it leads to Escape the Fate. My problem is that there is a Falling In Reverse wiki and your putting Falling in Reverse when it is Falling In Reverse. So I'm so asking if you make that i in the Falling In Reverse a capital letter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_In_Reverse THIS LINK NEVER COMES UP Falling In Reverse

no confusion thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech395 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance needed
I wonder if you would help me understand how to use the .svg files that are on Wiki? I saw that you were the creator of the British flag file being used. We are starting a Wiki Claone and would like to use the flags templates, which are so nested; a template inside a template; it's very confusing. The main problem we are having is copying the flags themselves. When you save an svg file it saves as flag.svg.png and then you can;t ftp it to the new site. Changing the name fails as then the file appears corrupt and the  wiki software can;t upload it either. Any suggestions? please.Д-р СДжП,ДС 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC) As u didn't get around to this, I'm canceling my request. I figured it out. Thanks anyway.Д-р СДжП,ДС 01:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk   at 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax  05:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dormammu
Greetings. As per your suggestion, I've tried talking until I'm blue in the face, and now have no choice but to go to the Admin. Noticeboard about the editor in question. I've linked to a post I made on another editor's Talk Page, which outlines what I believe to be the fundamental issue with David A. A look at his entire Edit History and the comments amde is also very telling. I don't want to have to air this, but it seems we are at an impasse. I'd welcome some outside input.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Name issue
I see that you blocked User:Mujahid1947 for the (four) reasons: "Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username (see Mujahideen)".

While the first three are indeed legitimate grounds for blocking a user, and I think the fourth reason given was inappropriate. "Mujahid" is a normal common amongst Muslims of various ethnicities. (For example see Abdul Malik Mujahid for its use as a last name, and Mujahid Barelvi for use as a first name). Of course, the word can also be used in a disruptive way. But, firstly, did you try and ask the user why he/she chose the particular name (whether it was for disruptive reasons, or maybe this happened to be their name)? Secondly, did you point the user to our policy on our user names and ask him/her to change the usrname before citing "disruptive username" as one of the four groudns on which you blocked the user?

Secondly, I have raised cocnerns over the length of the block here. I think, esp. since the user had never been blocked before, an "indefinite" period is a bit harsh. VR talk  16:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have realized that an indefinite block is not the same as an infinite block (whih would have been harsh).VR talk  16:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My attention was first directed to this user through a report at WP:AIV (or maybe WP:UAA I honestly can't remember being that I patrol both) and either way, the username was not the primary reason for the block or the primary concern of the reporting editor, it was the removal of content, and what appeared to be POV pushing (along with the addition of incorrect info). The reporting user linked Mujahideen to the report and it appeared to me as what could be construed as a disruptive username, and because of the other things I didn't really investigate further.  I would be happy to unblock the user if they were just ignorant of the policies while having good intentions and if they were willing to consider changing their username.  Thanks and all the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we really supposed to assume that 1947 has nothing to do with the partitioning of Palestine? Especially considering this user's area of editing interest.  Woogee (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pakistan declared independence in 1947. For Palestine, the relevant year would be 1948. The IPs that the user has used geolocate to Pakistan. I therefore assume that 1947 refers to Pakistan's declaration of independence. The user has not shown any interest in editing Palestian issues, to my knowledge. Cs32en   Talk to me  01:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

About user Mujahid1947
So I think I'm coming into this story a little late here, but I've been watching this anon user doing nothing but updating the casualty figures at War in Afghanistan (2001–present) for a few months, and now I found out that his account has been indefinitely blocked. He says on that article's talk page that he's sorry and that he doesn't understand what he has done wrong. Nick-D tells me that he's been doing some content removal and POV pushing, but his edits and comments lead me to believe this was done out of ignorance, not out of malice. Perhaps we can unblock his talk page at least and get some dialog going now that we have a statement of remorse?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 08:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As Nick tells me the way out of the block is for the user to acknowlege what they have done and then give assurances that they won't repeat that. That requires that he/she be able to post messages on his/her talk page.VR talk  16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with an unblock being that it appears that the user has the best of intentions but simply didn't/doesn't know any better, which is understandable with how complex our policies can be when you just starting out as an editor ;). Best, Mifter (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 The Thing //  Talk  //  Contribs  04:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support
User: - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Question
I've had an issue with the coloring on my browse bar. I was wondering if the "#F8FCFF" in your template on your userpage is "Wikipedia blue" or just another color. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * #F8FCFF is the background color of all non mainspace pages (Mainspace pages have a normal white background) and Its to make my custom text over the standard "User Talk:Mifter" match the color of the rest of the page so I guess it could be called a wikipedia blue. Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if you wish, I could fix the coloring of your top bar in order to make it match the page background ;). Best, Mifter (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried that to no avail. Oh well, I guess a bit of tinkering is needed tomorrow. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you Semi-protect my user page
Since I work a lot in Counter-Vandalism, vandals like to vandalize my user-page. With that said could you semi-protect my user page for an indefinite time period, Thank You --Clarince63 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ :). Best, Mifter (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Spam with baked beans?
Is it wrong to have a username with "spam" in it? We just allowed User:Soylent spam a few days ago.  ♥ Soap  ♥  21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it was kind of borderline (which is why I used a softblock) because I remember when User:ClockworkSoul had some trouble at WP:RFA over his name User:ClockworkTroll (He changed his name during his RFA to address those concerns) and I thought that a softblock would be best as I think it is slightly objectionable. Although, I would have no objections to an unblock though if their was agreement to do so or if he/she wished to change their username.  Best, Mifter (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam with baked beans
Mifter, this was frankly a careless block. "Spam with baked beans" is not in any way malicious, much less blockable. Please take more care when barring people from the project. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, I thought it was slightly objectionable, although I agree that it was a bad block and a mistake on my part. I also agree that I was too hasty in blocking the user :( I guess thats what I get for hanging around WP:UAA for too long with all of the username vios :P after 10 or so you start to think everyone is evil :P.  Best, Mifter (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the name is a tad bit iffy, being named after a food product is hardly blockable. Hopefully you'll be a bit more careful when you go to block usernames. Cheers!  The Thing //  Talk  //  Contribs  22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow I completely forgot that spam was a food there :P I really have been hanging around UAA to much :P. Wow, upon reading that I really see how stupid my block was O_O.  Best, Mifter (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deaths in 2010 protection.
If you'll forgive me, a month seems like an unusually long time to semi this page as we do get a lot of useful contribs from IPs, and not so much nonsense. I think we were hit by a bunch of schoolkids and hopefully, they'll have got the message by now. The page is well-patrolled anyhow. Thoughts? Rodhull andemu  22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I opted for so long a protection is because of the BLP vios that were being added (with IP's adding false deaths of celebrities) and I thought longer might be better to help curb the BLP vios. If you think that a shorter term would be better, than feel free to shorten it, if its well patrolled than malicious edits shouldn't have much impact anyways ;).  Best, Mifter (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just shortened the protection to three days after looking at the page history and seeing how many people watch the page and I agree how it was probably just a bunch of school kids who hopefully will be gone now :). Best, Mifter (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Mifter,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could I get rollback?
It would be helpful, I'm usually the only one reverts on some pages, most notably things that usually never get reverted that should until I step in, so I would find the feature to a good use on my part. Also, it's my birthday :) -- GunMetal Angel  21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ :). Just remember to use it for obvious vandalism only and when in doubt use the undo feature instead (Be very careful not to use it to edit war because that will result in its immediate removal).  Best, Mifter (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha, thanks. =) • GunMetal Angel  21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship    proposal was  started  on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the  existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working   compromise, so CDA is still largely being  floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the  RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and  Neutral, with Comments  underneath), this RfC is still essentially a  'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just curious
Hello. I randomly happened across your user page while checking articles I had edited months ago. I noticed above that you mention remembering User:ClockworkSoul's RFA and the issue about his previous username. Wow, *I* remember that, and that was years ago (Nov 2004 - I just checked). So, I have to ask... Your userbox says you've been on Wikipedia for 2 years,  1 month, and 3 days. Might I know you by another user name, or were you an anonymous user for a very long time before registering an account? BTW, this is User:SWAdair editing while logged out. Thank you, and happy editing! 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is my first and only account (Excluding the bots that I occasionally run), but I edited as an anon for a few years before I decided to finally register an account; and during that time I started to become pretty involved in the intricacies of Wikipedia and I really wanted to contribute more so because I have a semi-static ip that reassigns itself every few months I finally decided to create an account. Ironically my first edit as a registered user was to join the WP:LE wikiproject ;) which has tipped people off to my editing as an anon for a while before :P because it is an atypical first edit for a newbie ;).  Anyways, If I can help you in anyway, feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

RfA nominaton
Thanks, I've considered it in the past and thought about what would be involved. I travel pretty far and wide here and I think adminship would cut into my fun time and lead to the more frustrating areas of the project, bless the people who do it. Thanks for the vote of confidence, it means a lot. --CliffC (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)