User talk:Mifter/Archive 6

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. 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.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! 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 and The ed17 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources for "co-founder"
Please undo this revert. The page http://larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html has a list of reliable sources on the point - it is not mere self-published statements. I point people at it because it is extensive and definitive (IMHO). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (replying here instead of my talkpage is OK)


 * Hi there, I understand your point and after looking at Larry's site, I have gone back and simply listed both him as a co-founder/founder as it expresses both viewpoints and with the wikilink to the section of the History of Wikipedia article that explains the "who started Wikipedia" issue I believe that it is clear enough to anyone who may be confused by the dual listing. I think that this would represent a good compromise between the two viewpoints, although I am open to any other ideas you or anyone else would have.  Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
Hello Mifter. Thank you for the nomination; very unexpected. May I ask why you chose to nominate me? Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there :), the reason that I chose to nominate you for adminship, is because I feel that you can be trusted with the tools and that with your long tenure as an editor and content creator, I feel that you would be an asset to the encyclopedia as an admin due to your experience and level headness.  Best, Mifter (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I love being flattered; I accecpt! Fergananim (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * :), I'll get to writing the nomination and as soon as thats done I'll let you know :). Best, Mifter (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. 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.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! 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 and The ed17 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Complaint
Can you please guide me to a page, where I can formally lodge a complaint against any wikieditor/admnistrator. Fanatic Handler (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And get me a pizza. Meat-lovers, no ground beef. If I find ground beef on my pizza, I am going to be very unhappy. Half  Shadow  16:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fanatic Handler, I recommend that you follow the instructions on your block notice first, then if you have any more questions please feel free to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * HalfShadow, I would personally recommend feta and sundried tomatoes as an alternative (thanks to Risker :P), but in the future I would ask you to refrain from leaving comments like that on my talk page as it distracts from the discussion at hand and although it may be fun to do something like that once in a while ;), we aren't a social network. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin userbox
Yes, it also updates the Wikipedia logo to the correct one (which was the primary reason to use svg instead of png). Why have you restored the incorrect logo to the userbox? Prodego talk  17:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although, that svg version is huge, that might need to be fixed first. Prodego  talk  17:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the image needs to be shrunk a bit, but I also reverted it because wanted to keep a continuity between all the user rights userboxes (e.g. the oversight, b'crat, and oversight userboxes)  I would have no objection to reinstating the svg version once we iron out the size issue, and we can roll out a svg version across all admin user templates to keep continuity ;).  Best, Mifter (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What I did instead is update the png image to use a rendering of the svg, which should solve the size problem. I can see about updating the rest as well. Prodego  talk  18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me :). Best, Mifter (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment from AfD
In my case at least, I'm not trying to break the spirit of the rules, I'm trying to get what I think is a notable subject to an article status. I recently mentioned on the article talk page that this particular article should perhaps be scraped (no, I'm not changing my !vote) and portions of it incorporated into a larger subject such as Wikipedia governance or a similar title. To do so, the article would have to be completely redeveloped, dropping all unreliable sources, such as Solomon's ref, taking care to eliminate any BLP issues, and incorporating a lot of additional data from other sources. A check of JSTOR and EBSCOHost showed a multitude of articles on governance, and I believe such an article could be drafted in such a way so as to meet all applicable Wikipedia standards.

As to your second question, what motivated me was the lack of assistance available to editors that became involved in a dispute with an admin, as I have commented on elsewhere. A "move along, nothing to see here" or "drop it" response does not foster the principles of Wikipedia IMO, and I understand now that the article as initially written could be construed as an attack page, which was not the intent. The intent was to publish an article that laid out some of the problems in the current governance system, as covered by reliable, verifiable published sources. That is why I looked at peer reviewed journals in addition to news and media outlets, to show notability for the subject matter. Had I known of the controversy surrounding Connolley, I would have not included him in the article, since it appears that he has a following on Wikipedia that will defend him - look at the article on him - no mention of a number of items, including that which was sourced by The New Yorker, Nature, and the Canada Free Press.

I also appreciate the offer you made on my talk page, and hope I never have to take you up on it. When the original event happened, I posted an adminhelp template, and was told to drop it. To both of us, it seemed like we were being told that we didn't have a right to question the behavior of an admin, and we had no guidance on how to proceed. It left a sour taste in my mouth, and my original intention was to leave WP after 6,000+ edits, 2 GA, a DYK, and several other articles I'm trying to improve to GA status (I think I can get one to FA). Anyway, I hope that explains it a little better. Regards,  GregJackP    Boomer!  23:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your decisions
I suggest you read the thread here and then acquaint yourself with what rights you have and how you are supposed to perform your admin duties.  Giacomo  21:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey there, I am acutely aware of what powers the community has given and entrusted to me and how to perform my administrative duties. I was actually following advice given to admins at the WP:REVIEWER page which states


 * If you have rollback or autoreviewer rights, you are a good candidate for reviewer rights as well – the level of trust is similar. Administrators automatically have reviewer rights."


 * And, following this advice I decided to decline the request (due to the recent block which would disqualify a user from rollback discussion IMO) but as you can see I wrote that if any other admin thought that the user in question was trustworthy that the user should be granted the rights. I apologize for not being able to see SlimVirgins response as I was away from my computer for a couple of days (why my reply has taken a few days) and not being able to grant the rights myself, but Moni was able to handle the case and grant Anthony the rights.  I assure you, I take my duties as an admin with the utmost care and seriousness and I am always sure I know what I'm doing to insure I don't make a mistake.  If you have any other questions please feel free to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I can assure you that I am completely sane :P. Mifter (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My userpage
Give it another weeks protection. Thanks. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ :). Best, Mifter (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, 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.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. 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 and The ed17 22:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB
Hi, thanks for your trust and confidence in me, but unfortunately, I'm from Iran, a banned country according to this list. So, I'm not able to download the AWB. Is there any alternative way to use this software? Thanks again.Farhikht (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

competition
Hi there. Im looking to have a writing competition held in September and I am looking for a couple people to help me with their thoughts and ideas. I have had some input on the competition and have had several chats with people outside the wikipedia talk pages and I have decided to keep the competition limited to the following restraints:

1. Judges and competitors are separate and there has to be a finite list of them.

2. The competition should range from a few days to no more than 2 weeks, depending on the theme. Not a year long competition and not multiple stages.

3. The theme will be either creating ONE new article, expanding a stub, illustrating a large article with no pictures, editing an article in crisis or something similar to these ideas. If its successful we can have more competitions with other themes.

4. My general idea (but this needs serious development) is to have each article judged two or three times. The top ten are then announced as finalists and every judge then reviews those articles and the top three are announced.

4. Simple is good. Decide theme, decide rules, find people, define judges, define scoring criteria, assign topic or stub or whatever, come up with a way to discourage other users from working on the page (by far most difficult part requiring a lot of ingenuity and good ideas). Judge. Sounds simpler than it really is doesn´t it?

5. Keep it informal, simple and fun.

6. Find a name for it.

Wanna help me with this? I´ll set up a new page and hope to build a team of three people to make this happen.

Shabidoo | Talk 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

reviewer
so i have reviewer rights now, just wondering i thought person would usually leave a note on the talk page. Inka 888 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, 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. 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 and The ed17 23:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants 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.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! 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 and The ed17 23:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Re PERM/RW, just wondering what's the standard for the right these days. That account has exactly 28 edits in article space (and only 25 when it got the right). T. Canens (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, the standard for the reviewer right has been up in question ever sense it was created, and I personally think that it should be rather high, but after I declined giving it to a user because they had been blocked, I was told by a few other admins that it was meant to be (and thus the de-facto standard for it) was set extremely low so that it wouldn't prevent any user at all who had a valuable contribution to be made from making it. And ever sense that I've been using that standard for giving the right.  If you have any more questions, feel free to ask :).  Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

69.7.226.216
The AIV request wasn't stale when it was made, and it lasted on the board all morning while others were posted and dealt with. I don't know why this one fell through the cracks. Maybe because I accidentally posted it at the top? And even if there are no edits from that IP for the last couple hours, I'm sure that editor will be back. He/she has been a nuisance for a while. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a good report back when it was first made, but for some reason no one handled it back when it was fresh/good and then it became stale as the user stopped editing, blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive so their isn't a need to block someone who isn't actively editing. Although if he were to resume editing, then he could and probably would be blocked if you were to re-report him to WP:AIV.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kim Williams
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My Last Warning.
I am probably an avid Wikipedia user and I do my best to keep Wikipedia factual and free of nonsense. I recently added some notes regarding Jamie Moyer, Paul Hoover and Greg Dobbs based on a factual news story. Their contract with the Philadelphia Phillies have expired and the Phillies cut ties with them today, effectively making them a free agent. If, for some reason, my entries were premature, then I apologize and will check more carefully in the future. I am the last person that would "vandalize" Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.96.242.152 (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! 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 and The ed17 03:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

H S Pledge
Mifter, please see WP:AN, advice would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mark1tex
Could this have been an honest mistake, or is there a history behind the user? --Stephen 02:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to assume that it was an honest mistake and just AGF it for an unblock (worst case scenario he resumes vandalism/BLP violations and we just re-block him with no permanent damage done the encylopedia, best case, the encyclopedia gets a new contributer) so I'd be fine with an unblock to give him the benefit of the doubt. Best, Mifter (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Ragsdale
Hi, I undid your revert at the Jeff Ragsdale article. While there are many issues with the article (and the IP editor likely has a COI...), I don't see how their recent, properly documented edits constitute vandalism.... Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 15:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I was using WP:STiki and I thought accidentally double clicked the revert button but wasn't sure; and being that I couldn't find the diff that I had accidentally reverted by double clicking I assumed that I hadn't double clicked, (apparently I did :P) which reverted the vandalism diff that I saw, but it also reverted the next diff in the quene which it shouldn't have, so thanks for catching that error. Best, Mifter (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, happens to the best of us. Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mark1tex
Hi there; this user, whom you recently blocked for two weeks for violation of WP:BLP is asking for unblock. I have looked at the thread, and it looks as if he was attempting, as a new user, to revert a vandalism which, it is clear, was inserted by an IP editor with only one edit to his credit (?debit) this year. He clearly did it wrong, but I wonder if a 2 week block for an honest mistake by a newby is a bit too harsh? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I would be happy to have the user unblocked under AGF (Stephan has already done so :)). Best, Mifter (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mifterbot and welcome messages
Question--what specifically is the point behind having Mifterbot replace the welcome template with the full message? I see the statement on your talk page that it's doing it when there is no signature. The problem is that that isn't really correct. For example, very often when I leave a welcome message, I also leave a second message below it, in the same edit. Thus, I sign only at the very bottom. If it will prevent the bot from overwhelming my watchlist, I suppose I shall add double signatures, but I'm wondering if there's really any benefit to replacing the template with words that say the same thing--isn't the whole point behind a template to avoid having to duplicate information? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a part of Template Substitution, which is mainly used because as the main templates are changed that could change the meaning of them thus distorting talk pages. Substitution takes a snapshot of a template which prevents modifications to the main template from changing the meaning on a particular user's talk page.  Also, it doesn't do it when their only is no signature it does it with a signature as well (there is no need to double sign your posts :)) Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mifter. You worked on Jeff Ragsdale's page at one time, citing perhaps vandalism on Ragsdale page. Ragsdale is currently being harassed by IP number 71.190.77.101. This person, whom we have identified through correct legal means, is a fellow actor and he started his attack on Ragsdale by submitting a fake resume regarding Ragsdale on craigslist. Then said person started a commentary regarding Jeff Ragsdale's Wikipedia "notability". This whole issue has now snowballed into a "notability" issue on Wikipedia because of IP number 71.190.77.101's false claims regarding Ragsdale. My question to you is can you leave a message on Theda's page about your sentiments regarding Ragsdale's notability? Theda has since reinserted the notability tag on Ragsdale's Wikipedia page. Ragsdale is clearly a notable person. One would just have to look at the rich sources, and all of his television and film credits, as well as his international activism. Or could you possibly point me in other directions? Richard Peterson  11-20-10  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardPeterson44 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011
Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

TinyGrab Vandalism
Hey,

Thanks for semi-protecting the TinyGrab page. We've been having issues with someone changing the image and what not to attack the owner. Unfortunately there is still a little bit of vandalism and I'm unable to edit it.

In the History: "LGBT" -> Should be removed out of the sentence. "This highly helped the uses of portable electronics inside of helecopters." -> Should be removed completely.

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trikun3 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Best, Mifter (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi!
Thanks for the rollback! I'l be the best! Good day! Memo18 (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
I just wanted to say thank you very much for the Barnstar, I do my best. :) EkoGraf (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ray Toro
Could you do me a favor and create an AfD page for Ray Toro? Per WP:MUSIC: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Also, the existing information on the article is poorly referenced, and either already exists in the band's article or is hardly significant. --194.150.65.61 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to, I'll drop a note on your talk page once I've created it :). Best, Mifter (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Im not trying to rush you but can you please review my and Sgt. R.K. Blue request for autopatroller, Cheers. Gabesta449  edits  ♦  chat  02:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplebotics®
Please comment at Articles for deletion/Simplebotics® regarding your A7 speedy deletion of the same. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Need admin help
Hi Mifter, i got this message from some anonymous user on my talk page, who is very much frustrated by Wikipedia. It'd be better if admin like you will answer him. undefinedBill william compton  Talk   04:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!
Hello, Mifter,

Thank you for the message. I live in the Southern Hemisphere (Brazil) and so I'm entering the season of Autumn, not Spring.

Happy First Day of Spring to you!

Ruy Pugliesi &#9701; 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Spring/Admin Nom
Happy Spring to you as well. :) The weather has already turned spring-like here in Virginia...rain and 65 today. :)  As for the admin nom, I have been asked about it a few times, even started writing up some answers, when a couple admin friends told me my block log (which I am not proud of) would be the death of my RfA and talked me back from going through with the RfA. So I don't know if it would be any different this time. I have asked one of my trusted admin friends for his opinion, he gave it to me straight last time, and will let you know. Regardless, I do thank you for thinking I am worthy of adminship. Take Care... Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 06:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I talked with my admin friend and after thinking it over, I am going to give it a shot. I have the first three questions ready to go.  When you are ready with the nom, just let me know.  I will be around somewhere, probably working on the Frank Buckles article. :)  Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll put the whole thing together tomorrow (or the day after depending on my schedule :P) after I get some sleep; I'll drop a note by your talk page to let you know :). Best, Mifter (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. I tinkered a little with the first 3, so they are ready.  If you think I need to post anything else, please let me know. :)  Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!
Hi, Mifter,

Thank you for the message but I live in the Istanbul and so I'm entering the season of Autumn, not Spring.

Happy First Day of Spring to you.

alptns90 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates
I noticed you added Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates to a number of templates. Categories should be added to documentation pages, not to the templates themselves. See and  for an example. Since you seem to be an admin, since you have been able to make this edit to protected templates, please go back to all the other templates, and move the category to the documentation. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up :). Best, Mifter (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you do something major like this, you better be sure of how it should be done. We learn from our mistakes. Nothing wrong with that. Debresser (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A few requests
First, I would like to thank you for giving me that barn star. Also, could you please make me an autoreviwer. I have not made the recommended 50 articles however I have made quite a few good contributions. And secondly how would an editor (me) nominate an article (FBI Atlanta Field Office) to be featured on the Main Page. I do see it is possible from your FBI Buffalo Field Office article, Cheers. Jessy  T/C 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Oh, BTW, I have read the RFA Guide. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 06:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, just got up and am ready when you are. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 16:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just posted the standard three questions, but there seems to be some code at the top appearing in red. Not sure how to take care of that as I don't want to give the appearance I am nom'ing myself. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 16:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats the time clock for the end of the RfA, once you transclude it then you subst that to start the clock. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So do I transclude it? -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 16:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, whenever you're ready :). Best, Mifter (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, sub'd and transcluded. Clock is started.  Here we go. :)  Thanks. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 16:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Best of luck :). Best, Mifter (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sir. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 16:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Mifter, the counter on my RfA doesn't seem to be registering. Could you take a look and see if I goofed something in the transclusion or sub'ing, please?  It is working fine in the RfA template found on most talk pages (mine included). - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfA counter on the page itself has to be manually updated, and the template on talk pages is bot updated every hour. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. The manual updating is probably best suited for someone else, so it doesn't look like I am "keeping count". - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 01:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Slightly frustrated request for opinion
Hi! Sorry to take your time. I just don't get the wiki logic on importance. I made a page on BioNavis in similar manner as I found Biacore page. However, mine was deleted by you as unsignificant. What makes the difference? (Similarly, in other page, adding manufacturers to a technology is allowed in some areas, but not in others?) I'd like to add some original pictures too, but that I'll have to wait for obviously quite some time, with the current requirements.. --Joanka (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello there, and first off Welcome to Wikipedia :), I undeleted the article you created and I moved it to here (where you can edit and improve it until it is ready to go back into the main article space), the reason that I deleted it from the main article area is because it didn't have any third party sources (reliable books, websites, new articles, etc.) mentioning it and giving it a claim of notability. I would personally recommend seeing our guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and your first article for the specifics.  I hope this helped, and if you have any more questions please feel free to ask me.  Best, Mifter (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

THX. Will do :) --Joanka (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dev Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya deleted
Hi Mifter. You have deleted Dev Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya page. May I know the reason. Is there any possibility to wikify it instead of deletion? I have visited this university many times and as per my knowledge, all information mentioned in the last version of article which I saw, were correct. Anusut (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I deleted the article because its main content was a copyright violation from another website and because it didn't assert its notability with reliable 3rd party sources. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Vacation
Have a Good Vacation, take many pictures, and if you are at the beach, just lounge and think "why are there so many seagulls above me...and are they smiling?". :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate use of RevDel
Hi there,

Please be aware that at this edit you deleted an edit summary because it included a spam link. Note that WP:RD3 specifically excludes this as a reason to delete an edit summary. You may want to review those criteria before acting again with the RevDel tool. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mifter is on vacation and might be slow to respond. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 19:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I read his userpage. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I misunderstood the wording of the interface message for RD3 and will be more careful in the future. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel
I have reverted your Revision Deletion here; WP:RD3 specifically notes that spam links are not appropriate targets for the tool. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mifter is on vacation and might be slow to respond. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 19:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up :). Best, Mifter (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

School Block should have expired
Hello, I am a student at Windom Area High School and my school was put on a block that was set to expire on April 16. This created problems with the layout on wikipedia because everything was formatted incorrectly and no pictures would appear on screens. As of today, the block has not expired. Can you tell me what is wrong? Please leave me a message on my actual user account User:Ryan Vesey. Thanks 66.172.163.2 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

AfDs
EDIT: Nevermind, I'll ask somebody else. (I tried to remove this entirely but a bot wouldn't let me.) -- — Soap  —  16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This text was removed by the original author but the edit filter disallowed the edit; I am just leaving this message as a reminder and explanation of what happened.  — Soap  —  16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 19:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you check this user?
User:HXL49 has made a personal attack on my talk page. He also appears to be arguing in his edit summaries. Finally his user talk page, specifically once you press edit, appears to attack (for lack of better words) all other users. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 23:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure why my page COMUNE Clothing has been deleted I feel that all references were cited correctly and content was extremely unbiased. I would like to write and article on this topic but feel it will continue to be deleted. the article i previously wrote on COMUNE clothing sourced 22 published sites in which gave me my information. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyisbusiness (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit
About the recent edit, the only content was a redirect to itself, it should be deleted. -75.173.147.186 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I just deleted the page, thanks for the heads up :). Best, Mifter (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure thing :) Glad I could help. -75.173.147.186 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What about this?
User:Shrug-shrug/Testdirect1. There seems to be a triple redirect, but it's a user page. How is this resolved without violating the user's rights? Do you just take it off of the list? -75.173.147.186 (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Per what I can see here I would say just to leave it. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Me again
Sorry to bother you with this, but who do I contact to clear the Double redirect page? -75.173.147.186 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, I was busy and unable to get to a computer for a few days. The page is a special page which means that it isn't an editable page and it is generated by the MediaWiki software, so it is only cleared when the software updates the page which to my knowledge is daily it can't be updated before that time as it isn't a regular wiki page.  Best, Mifter (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Section break for Anon editor
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with that edit I am speaking the truth and stop doing this stuff I bet fi I made an account you wouldn't care less about that edit 86.45.202.75 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to Wikipedia, I appreciate your contributions and your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but as an encyclopedia we have to be verifiable, and in order for us to ensure we are publishing reliable content and no origional research, we ask that you cite the sources from which you obtained the information. Also, you are welcome to continue editing without an account, but there are a number of benifits to creating one.  If you have any more questions or would like help adding sources for your information feel free to ask me :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ernst Lindemann correction being over ruled
Hello

When I read the article about Ernst Lindemann I noticed a small error, I've corrected it twice and twice it has been reverted to a previous edit. I would like to know why? My edit is a contribution of positive value as I corrected an OBVIOUS mistake. The Bismarck and Prinz Eugen left Gotenhafen (now Gdynia), Poland on 18 May and stopped off at Bergan, Norway (where Prinz Eugen refuelled but the Bismarck did not), neither ship were based in Norway on Operation Rheinübung, they simply stopped off at Bergan and were not based there as it states in the overview of the article. Furthermore I have noticed that there are two articles referencing Operation Rheinübung which state two different days for the operations commencement The German battleship Bismarck article says "She and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen left Gotenhafen (Gdynia) on the morning of 19 May 1941 for Operation Rheinübung," while Operation Rheinübung article says "the "Lutjens' force left Gotenhafen (now Gdynia, Poland) on 18 May." I would correct the mistake myself but I am pretty sure someone who has no knowledge of the events in question would, in there misplaced wisdom, ignore my correction and revert the article to a previous state.

Thank you for your time Michael ‘The Dominatormaximus’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dominatormaximus (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello there :), I apologize for the late response; I've been busy as of late and haven't been able to check Wikipedia for a while. The reason that I reverted your edits was because of the signature that you left at the top of the page by leaving ~ at the top of the page which is generally indicative of vandalism or editing test.  If you'd like to re-add your content that that would be absolutely fine, just remember not to accidentally sign the page ;).  If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * I am letting you know via talkback as the discussion indirectly involves you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 02:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article about me a fan, I presume, posted on Wikipedia
I stumbled on my bio on Wikipedia and clicked on the link.

I got this error message:

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

20:07, 13 June 2011 Mifter (talk | contribs) deleted "Frank Sanello" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)

What does "unambiguous copyright infringement" mean?

The problem may be that my unknown benefactor who the article about me have taken material from other web stitles and incorporated it my Wikipeida autobio.

Please advise.

Frank Sanello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisanthonyxavier (talk • contribs) 11:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia!, the article was deleted because it was a complete copyright violation from here and as a copyright violation it is policy for it to be deleted as soon as possible to protect Wikipedia from any liability. Best, Mifter (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

there is no newcomer
whos the newcomer i bite mate? the one i reported is a user that used to vandalise with his real IP. now he registered to spam more. ( (Argento1985) 14:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Hello, when it comes to users who appear to be vandalizing, we have to assume good intentions and the user is still a newcomer as he/she is trying to contribute to the Encyclopedia. New users are critical to the continued growth of the Encyclopedia and they are the future administrators and editors of the Encyclopedia and they offer new perspectives on articles and each have something to contribute to the encyclopedia.  Also, spamming is the addition of advertising or irrelevant external links, adding information that is unsourced or poorly laid out is not spam or vandalism.  Best, Mifter (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

block evasion
2.97.74.57 has very similar editing patterns to 2.97.70.35, who is blocked for one week for block evasion of a registered user. I think you should extend the block for 2.97.74.57 to one week. Thanks! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 21:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Monsters vs. Aliens semi-protection
I have a concern about the semi-protection of Monsters vs. Aliens. The IP edits appear to me to not be vandalism, but rather a dispute of the subsection "Night of the Living Carrots". The explanation at WP:RFPP was not accurate, the title of the article was not being changed to "Monsters vs. Aliens: Night Of The Living Carrots", but rather the "Night of the Living Carrots" subsection was (which itself is based on what appears to be a dubious source). The IPs edits were made in good faith and seemed to be an attempt to have the section match the formatting of the other sections, not vandalism. Also, the source is a resume, and many of the searches for this title return such resumes, many giving the formatting of "Monsters vs Aliens: The Night of the Living Carrots" (this being one example). I think labeling the semi-protection as being due to vandalism when that is not the case is likely to drive good-faith editors away. - SudoGhost&trade; 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While it does appear to be partially a content dispute, the lack of an explanation by either party does in my opinion show vandalism, however after taking a closer look at the points you raised I do partially agree. I have therefore shortened the protection to two days and I have given warnings to both the parties involved to discuss the issue and to avoid entering into a revert war.  Best, Mifter (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - SudoGhost&trade; 22:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. 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 and The ed17 23:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

About the genre dispute in Muse band article
I invite you to give a look to Muse's talk page, there i've submited ten sources that describes their music as Prog metal, and four for rock opera, i guess this is more than enough to end with the dispute and add'em to the Muse's infobox, regardless if the other editor involved Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) likes or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnotaurus044 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh
Just an update regarding the pp you placed at Govind Kumar Singh. The "revert war" was being conducted by a new sock of. Several contributors were in agreement about that even though the SPI has been in the backlog for some days. The stylistic evidence was clear, especially the unusual way of signing posts and the use of spacing both before and after commas; plus, of course, the articles being visited, the counter-accusations of socking, the ability to use 3RR templates, the similar words used in the whining, the ... I could go on!

has now blocked for abuse of multiple accounts and another admin with past knowledge of the sockmaster was involved in the situation, being. I have no idea how Ironholds picked up on this; C.Fred stalks my talk page & spotted the 3RR notices. The SPI is still not concluded but further disruption is unlikely for a while, at which point s/he will return under yet another name if things follow the usual pattern. When the article is unprotected it will probably be reverted to the state prior to the recent sock activity. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Please keep under Protection (Permanent ) for the page Govind Kumar Singh ,as every one is trying to change and edit war is going on, so please keep it under permanent protection only administrators can edit the page.

best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.254.183 (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Please keep under Protection (Permanent ) for the page Govind Kumar Singh ,as every one is trying to change and edit war is going on, so please keep it under permanent protection only administrators can edit the page.

best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.254.183 (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. 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 and The ed17 11:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalizing my userpage
At June 13, you vandalized my userpage and wrote that I was "indefinately blocked". To write that on the userpages of users that are not indefinately blocked, is not allowed. I think you are an anti-communist and that you saw a chance when I was blocked, because then I couldn't revert your edit before two weeks, when my block expired.

This is vandalism; if you do it once more time, I will contact an administrator and you may risk to be blocked.

I will call this harrassment. It's not allowed to edit other users' userpages. An exception is such as if I was indefefinately blocked. And it's not legal. Shame on you, and don't do it again, then you may be blocked. Mobbing and dissing of others is not allowed on Wikipedia. --A young communist (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, my apologies for adding that template to your userpage ;). It was a few months ago, and I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I must have incorrectly thought you were indefinitely blocked.  I can assure you that the template was added without any malicious intent and that it was simply a mistake on my part.  Secondly, while it is alright to be upset when someone else makes a mistake, it is important to remember that we are all human and we all sometimes make mistakes.  But on Wikipedia and in life in general it is generally a good idea to assume good intentions as most people on Wikipedia or in life in general aren't out to get you, and similarly to what I did most times its an absent minded mistake with no malicious intent.  So before jumping to conclusions in saying that something is harassment, making threats concerning legality, or making comments against a user personally it is better to leave a polite comment asking why what happened occurred the way that it did so that it can be sorted out civilly without conflict.  Once again I apologize for my mistake and if you have any further questions or concerns feel free to ask ;).  Best, Mifter Public (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Then have a good day, and goodbye! :) Good Luck. Best wishes from your comrade A young communist (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 00:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you Know help
Hello. I need some help with getting some recognition for article I've created. I would like to have User:KAVEBEAR/Kingdom of Hawaii – Kingdom of Tahiti relations on the did you know page. But I'm not sure how the process works and I'm not sure if the article is worthy of one. Please help. Respond on my talk page because I probably won't check your talk page. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do something to "Sir Armbrust". I posted the scores of the last 11 frames of the 1994 World Snooker Championship final, which I took from the recording of the event, but that guy have deleted it repeteadly alleging that that video "is not a reliable source". How can the actual recording of something not be a "reliable source"?! Please do something, that article doesn't belong to him. People want to know the scores. Why should they suffer because of some hair-splitter?

You can read the discussion with him here:

1994 World Snooker Championship 1994 World Snooker Championship II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Armbrust/Archive_7 89.41.103.17 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wiki letter w.svg


A tag has been placed on File:Wiki letter w.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Video-x-generic.svg


A tag has been placed on File:Video-x-generic.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 12:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

MifterBot I
What's up with MifterBot I? It hasn't been editing for 4 months now. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there :), I have been very busy as of late, and as such have not been able to run any of my bots, I do plan to resume their editing sometime in the future contingent on my availability. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering an RfA, mind giving me a review?
Hey Mifter. Mind taking a look at my contributions and giving me your thoughts on a possible RfA? I'm just feeling it out right now, and I'd like to get some input before I actually try for it. You'll notice that I don't have nearly the volume of edits as many others (only around 1600 globally), however I have been a part of the community for a long while now (my first edit being on February 23, 2006). Now there have been time periods in this where I've edited more and edited less as time allows, however I am getting back into the swing of things now! Thanks, and no hard feelings if you don't think I'm quite ready for it. Any input is greatly appreciated! nf utvol (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there :), first off I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, I have been busy in real life and haven't had time to check my talk page recently. Concerning the prospects of an RfA, I think that you are on the right track; however I think that you aren't quite ready to make a run at it.  RfA is a brutal process and from experience I can tell you that it is something you do not want to go through more than once.  That aside, I like your work on various articles and in article creation, we are an encyclopedia first and foremost and as such content is an important area that many editors neglect.  From that however, I think at this time you need more work in policy areas (having only 28 edits in the Wikipedia: namespace).  Being an Administrator means you will have to have a thorough understanding of policy and it is important to demonstrate to others that you understand how we operate.  Good ways to demonstrate this are working at fighting vandalism, reviewing new articles for speedy deletion, voting at articles for deletion, and undertaking other maintenance oriented tasks (personally I enjoyed working at WP:DYK).  But from this it is important to be sure you act in accordance with policy (policy mistakes are a big issue at RfA's) and that you demonstrate that you not only have a need for the tools, but know how to use and not abuse them.  Finally, I would recommend working on your edit count, edit counts are not absolute by any stretch, but seeing a sporadic pattern of edits with a low overall total is not something that will help you at RfA, and most voters looks for at least 5-6 months of good activity with no major issues in addition to a few thousand edits before supporting a candidate.  I think that you are on the right track, and in a few months if you work at it, you could be ready to attempt an RfA.  If you have any other questions, I would be happy to assist you.  All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Njavallil's recent rollback
I noticed that you just granted this user rollback. I happened to stumble across them a few days ago. You might want to keep an eye on them. I think that their recent talk page may speak for itself. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Turned out to be a sock of User:Divineabraham, so it's been blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My New Design for the Main page
Hello,
 * I hereby submit a New Design for the English wikipedia. Please visitMy New Design for the Main page to see my Design for the main page. I'm not a Computer engineer but only a student currently in year 10. If theWikipedia Community likes my Design then can't we think about a change to the Designof Main page? Could you Please comment about it in the Talk page ofMy New Design for the Main page. Thank you.

I seen the comment by Jauerback, If you want to remove my Rollback right, you always are welcome. But as he said I have some mistake (I have some mistake, not all!!!). Please Don't forget to visit My New Design for the Main page.

-- Njavallil ... Talk 2 Me  19:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Question
Dan653 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

22:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of images
An editor has expressed concern at WT:TV regarding a number of images that you deleted recently. The images are: These were all added to the various 24 (TV series) season articles on 24 August 2011. Yesterday they were all deleted from the articles. About two hours later you left a series of notifications on the uploader's talk page, warning him that the images would be deleted in 7 days, but you then deleted all of the images immediately, stating "Author requests deletion" in your edit summaries, even though the author had not actually requested deletion. I can understand the uploader's confusion over this. I can understand why the cast images were restored, as I managed to find an obscure discussion at User talk:Steven Zhang but perhaps you could explain why you did what you did to the uploader, to address his concerns. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:24 Season 1 DVD Cover.jpg
 * File:24 Season 2 DVD Cover.jpg
 * File:24 Season 3 DVD Cover.jpg
 * File:24 Season 4 DVD Cover.jpg
 * File:24 Season 5 DVD Cover.jpg
 * File:24 Season 6 DVD Cover.jpg
 * File:24 Season 7 DVD Cover.jpg
 * File:24 Season 8 DVD Cover.jpg


 * Hi there. I admit that the deletions may look a little confusing, but what occurred was last night while I was on IRC chatting with Steven Zhang about all the random things that get brought up in #wikipedia-en, when he asked if anyone was an admin, I stated that I was one after which he said he had a bunch of images he wanted deleted that were unused fair use.  So I tagged them for the standard unused Fair Use image which is a week deletion turn around.  He then told me that he had wanted them deleted as he was the uploader but didn't feel like tagging them, and after realizing how we had misunderstood each other, I went back and deleted the images as author request which allows for immediate deletion.  As he was the uploader I thought he had removed the erroneous warnings that Twinkle should have placed on his (the uploaders) talk page when I tagged them the first time (For some reason Twinkle sent them to someone other than the uploader which I will look at.)  I can see how this was confusing and appreciate your note.  If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Another RfA
Hello, Mifter,

I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. I will really appreciate your support when I reach the edit number necessary for adminship --Orekhova (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

List of LNG terminals
Would you like to explain why you consider adding Golden Pass LNG to the list of LNG terminals to be a test or vandalism? There's only a handful of the things, and it was the only one not on the list. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 23:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, that was a mistake on my part, Stiki froze and I hit the revert button a second time to try and unfreeze it thinking I had mis-clicked and it must have then not only reverted my intended revision but also your edit. My apologies for the mistake.  Best, Mifter (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sry but I AM trying to be producteve. Some Marmosets CAN juggle in circuses Ive seen them with my own eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.66.23 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello there :). Please read our policy on original research to see why we need a reliable 3rd party source.  Best, Mifter (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Subject: Re: Wikipedia page User talk:Waryfox has been created by Mifter

Sir(or Madsam): This concerns Tennessee Williams's one-act 27 Wagons Full of Cotton. Flora is described as "frail, delicate" but this is not correct. She describes herself as "delicate" but this is because her husband Jake treats her as a baby, and she likes being considered "delicate". The delicacy is putting on airs, not physical. It's like extending your pinky when drinking tea. And she is far from frail. She is in fact quite plump, important to the play. Jake makes much of that fact, and threatens to leave her if she loses any weight. She is slow, and easily confused, hence my term "intellectually-challenged". She is instructed to pretend that Jake has been home all the previous evening, when he in fact was out committing arson, but slips up almost immediately.

I substituted "plump, intellectually-challenged" for "frail, delicate". A full-reading of the play should substantiate my change. I've produced and directed the play several times and know it well.

Thanks for Wiki. Jim Tommaney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waryfox (talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello there and Welcome to Wikipedia! First off thanks for your contributions, I reverted your edits mainly because they represented the opposite of what the article had previously stated which is usually what someone who wishes to vandalize the encyclopedia strives to do.  However, we have a policy of original research and how everything must be cited from a reliable source as to maintain neutrality and accuracy so if you can find such a source then your edits would be welcome (citing the a part of the paly where he tells her to not lose weight would work fine as source).  If you have any questions or any more concerns, please feel free to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Extracurricular activity, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Band (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Royal College (disambiguation)
Hi,

In regard to this page, my removal of links were based on WP:PTM. As you can understand disambiguation page is not an index for all articles that has very little similarity to the topic. In the case of disambiguation of Royal College, it makes sense to have articles with variations of Royal College (eg: Royal College of Defence Studies, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, etc) and for articles with little similarity to Royal Collegebut has much similarity of their own (eg: Royal Australian and New Zealand College) individual disambiguation pages would be most appropriate. Cossde (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Orphan image
I don't think that needs full protection. While it does have a comparatively high number of transclusions, it is not actually a "highly visible template" at all. It's a really geeky template that no one but people doing image cleanup work will ever see, and even if a vandalism-minded person did find it and changed to read "YOU LICK MONKEYBUTTS!!!" for a few minutes, this would have essentially zero public effect on the encyclopedia, since no one sees this but image-wonking admins and filemover bit-holders. :-) I was going to fix a typo in it, but it's locked ("Commons-compatible" should be hyphenated). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The number of transclusions is not the only factor in the protection of the image (although it is one of the primary ones). When a highly transclued page is changed, all its tranclusions are added to the Job Queue which then changes the templates appearance on each page it is trancluded on.  Opening the page to vandalism can mean a waste of limited resources as unneeded edits would only fill the Queue and bog it down also it would waste the time of an editor going to revert vandalism which could in theory go unnoticed for a bit of time.  Furthermore, if you ever need a protected page edited, editprotected is the way to go.  Best, Mifter (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 00:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Mifter,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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 would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 00:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Tempus vernum
Except that "spring" here in the tropics really just means "slightly more rain". ;) Thanks.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you could have a look at this?
— M. Mario  (T/C) 10:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin
If I why was to ask for a nomination, which I am not at this moment, or at least until I get around 2000 edits, what would you reccomend I do? Dan653 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

RfA
Hi, If I was to request an RfA TODAY. What would you say? I want to know where I need to go thanks. Please be as straight forward as possible, hold no punches. If you hold punches I may no realize all my faults. The Determinator p  t  c  22:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Racingpigeon
72 hours? He deserves an indefinite. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, for Racingpigeon, I decided to only go with a 72 hour block as his edits have been sporadic at best. And, while they have been edging more towards spam than useful, his contributions aren't completely bad.  Therefore I decided to AGF and go for a shorter block, if he resumes after his block then it’s a simple matter to revert and indef block. But, I figured I'd give this one the benefit of the doubt.  Also, as blocks aren't meant to be punitive and should be used as preventative measures to "Prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia," I didn't feel that an indef block was needed at this time, but if he continues after the block expires, then please feel free to have someone indef block him.  Best, Mifter (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI
I've asked a question at User_talk:Nikkimaria about that admin's reversal of your admin actions. Toddst1 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up, I personally believe (and to my knowledge policy agrees with) that there is no reason for indef blocked users to retain any advanced permissions because I feel that it can give the wrong impression of the project if someone notices that an infef blocked user holds "a position of trust" in their retention of advanced user rights even while indef blocked. Furthermore, if a user would to ever be unblocked, I feel any permissions that they held before their block would have to be reconsidered on a case by case basis due to the fact that they were blocked for a reason and they may no longer be fit to hold some or all of their former user rights.  Best, Mifter (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I agree with what you wrote above. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta
There doesn't seem to be enough edit warring to justify full protection at the moment, just some WP:BRD by one editor. Since this is a breaking news story, there should be the possibility of editing the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Respectfully I have to disagree. When people are starting to make aggressive comments in their edit summaries such as "rv, please cool down and take this to talk", "This is clear vandalism on your part", & when we are dealing with sensitive BLP issues such as WP:BLPCRIME it makes it all the more important that discussion take place and we not have undue conflict.  But your argument is correct about this being breaking news and a place where we need to be able to react quickly, therefore I have shortened the protection from four days down to one day so that there is ample time to discuss changes and dissipate the edit war while still trying to be flexible to any new information that may surface.  Best, Mifter (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Like Resolute, I was worried that putting "Canadian Psycho" in the lead section failed WP:BLPCRIME. It was also disappointing that this was immediately restored after two other editors had objected. I would also dispute that any of the edit summaries was aggressive.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)