User talk:Mifter/Archive 7

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bleach episodes (season 17)
As you are the one who deleted the page List of Bleach episodes (season 17) ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=List+of+Bleach+episodes+(season+17) log link]) please be so kind as to close the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of Bleach episodes (season 17). – Allen4names 01:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * by Postdlf. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thanks for granting me rollback - I promise to use it responsibly. Michaelmas1957 01:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi again! I requested a few days ago the rollback feature, but it was denied because i had few reverts on my count. I went to the CVUA and increased my revert number to see if now i'm able to receive the right. Could you please verify if i'm eligible now? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. -- Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 04:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

CSCF
How can you delete an article when there is only one sentence written? Saying that the article is about a non-profit organization is not a valid reason. There are thousands of other works on Wikipedia on companies like Pepsi, Coca-Cola, etc. They are all companies, and, as weird as it can be, they weren't deleted minutes after creation. --BScMScMD (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll continue contributing on the French Wikipedia, where the other users are less harsh and obviously more friendly and welcoming... --BScMScMD (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Your article was deleted because it didn't assert why it was notable or why it deserved to included on Wikipedia.  It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the company is a non-profit, but simply that it did not establish what made it worth including on Wikipedia by citing content from verifiable 3rd party sources.  I would recommend seeing this page as it gives tips on how to write a good article.  If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask, and once again Welcome to Wikipedia :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I had this all written before you posted a second time on my talk page (I don't want you think I'm trying to be condescending by welcoming you, we really are happy you are here ) Mifter (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the problem... how can you judge that the article was not notable to be included on Wikipedia when there was only one sentence written. I was planning to continue writing and entering sources later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BScMScMD (talk • contribs) 01:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, most times we can't be 100% sure, because with the sheer volume of spam articles we receive, articles that are one sentence long and without sources are generally either spam, or written about companies that simply aren't notable. However, I have undeleted the article and moved it to User:BScMScMD/Canadian Ski Coaches Federation so that you can continue editing it, and once you have it at a point where it has more content and sources it can be moved back into the regular article space.  Best, Mifter (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand, and thank you for undeleting the article.--BScMScMD (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners
TonyTheTiger petitioned to close my four separate nominations of this multi-article hook in WP:AN. What are your thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You said that you have no opinions, yet you recommend that I must do what Tony wants me to do? ... Anyway, if you are less involved, then you may change your status in WP:did you know/Admins. --George Ho (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I simply stated that my only preference in this case was to run the multi article hook as that is what the nom requested, and outside of that I have no opinion or preference on how or why you do it. And thank you for the heads up about the DYK admins bit, in a bit of an ironic twist, I may pick up DYK a bit again because it looks like it could use another set of hands after looking at how many hooks need reviewing at T:TDYK.  Best, Mifter Public (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Glušica Nikšić
I just took a look at your talk page an articles you previously deleted. How many/what kind of references do I need to put to save this article from the same fate of countless articles that have succumbed under your all-powerful wikipedia deleting wrath!? Zastavafan76 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Article deletion
Why did you delete my article about Sparlock? It needed references, but I was working on that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.156.89 (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there, and Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that I deleted your article was because it didn't establish why it was notable, that is, why it deserved to be included in Wikipedia.  If you would like, I could undelete your article and move it back to your user page for you to work on, then when you have added references it can be moved back to the article space.  Best, Mifter Public (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Article
I updated the Frequency Deleted Records article that was deleted (A7). Do I need your permission to repost it?

Xybandit (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, if you have added sources so that the article established its notability, then you can be bold and go right ahead and repost it :). Best, Mifter Public (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible Queue 6 late substitution or addition
You an administrator who is listed at WP:DYK as actively involved, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. You may want to make a late addition or substitution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, unfortunately I was out at the time you left the note and by the time I got back it was already resolved. Thanks :), Mifter (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. 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) 11:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees  in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's  follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! 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) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for cognitive vulnerability
Greetings. I found you from the DYK main page. I was wondering if you can add your two cents to this nomination. Your help is greatly appreciated.Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bot @ simple.wiki
Due to you bot being inactive for over a year your bot flag has been removed. If your bot does become active again please re-request the flag. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

eventual rfa
I noticed that you nominate users seeking to become admins...my general thought is that I probably don't have the volume of edits to become an admin, but it's in my longer range plan...could you just give me a little feedback? Thanks. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
 * 1) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
 * 2) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
 * 3) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
 * 4) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
 * 5) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
 * 6) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
 * 7) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
 * 8) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle:, , , , , , and. We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. 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) 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)
Hi Mifter ! I have started my second editor review at Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page. Happy reviewing!  TheSpecialUser TSU
 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. 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) J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rare Earth (band)
You objected to my using the word "intimidating". How about the phrase "hard driving" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.174.212 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, and Welcome to Wikipedia!, the reason I undid your addition of the word "intimidating" to the article, was because it gave the impression of not being impartial and unbiased. As an encyclopedia we have to strive to as much as possible not have any bias in our content so that our readers may come to there own conclusions.  So unfortunately "hard driving" also could be seen as pushing a particular point of view, I couldn't say it would be a good addition unless you could find a third party source that described their music as being such and cited it with the satement.  If you have any further questions and need any help, please feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:
Just to be sure so I don't do any wrong doing again, did I do something wrong? or was that a mistake on Huggle's part? Hairrr (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, you're good ;). Huggle lagged (thats what I get for using a temp old wifi router :P) and accidentally undid your revert instead of the vandalism that I meant to revert.  Sorry about that, Mifter (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our 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 goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted and deleted contr....
Actually I wanted to delete a few parts, not everything, it was an error, sorry, anyway some of your comparisons looks like invented to me, would be best for everyone to avoid putting things from which there is not a reliable source to back in, the reliable source is not you but maybe an external link. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.80.120 (talk) 00:33, November 8, 2012‎


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to have helped you fix your mistake.  Also, I've never edited the article that you are talking about outside of reverting vandalism on it so I'm not sure what you mean by saying I "invented" comparisons, if you have an issue with the factual nature of a statement in an article, feel free to find a source to back it up and insert it :).  If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Purushottama Bilimoria: my own biography is piece of shit.
So Mifter, you claim a right to construct Purushottama Bilimoria in your own or wikipedia's image. Be God: Facebook, Google, and all Paulo Alto based information giants are doing that. It is offensive to me: I am the subject of that biography, not someone else. Why don;t you let others write my eulogy and obituary: I would readily commit sati to live to the misconcpetions and understatements! Why bother having me on Wikipedia in the first place if it attains the rank of eternity but is woefully imcomplete, misleading and short-cut to purgatory. Amen Purushottama Bilimoria (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm afraid you misconstrue my intentions, while I'm sorry you are not happy with the article that you claim is about yourself, we have policies about all of our content being verifiable and being cited from 3rd party reliable sources.  We also have a policy about certain conflicts of interest that may arise from writing about yourself.  I am sorry if I have in any way offended you, but our goal as an encyclopedia is to build a repository of neutral impartial information about the world that is not clouded by personal biases or ideas and instead allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the information presented.  You are welcome and encouraged to contribute to the encyclopedia in whatever way you can, however I must caution you about editing your own article as it is often hard if not impossible to write impartially about oneself and our goal is above all else to build an encyclopedia that represents the highest quality information and knowledge available, not to write personal information about specific individuals that is original research and self-credited information.  Should you have any more questions or concerns please feel free to contact me :).  All the best, Mifter (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So if reliable sources are used why is this information missing? Go to University of Berkeley website, Springer website, University of Melbourne website, Deakin University website, University of Stony Brook website to update the information, Your 3rd party sources had no clues about me, wanted to pigenohole me to a claim within Indian diaspora community and we are stuck with. Why not google me and pick out the 3rd party reliable sources from there, including my recent publications, and fill in the gaps; otherwise remove this biography which is about me, I am not just claming it as mine: if I see my name slandered I have a right to complain and the judge won;t give me the apologia you are giving. Yuo have not checked against any sources as you claim to have done against your policies of Wikipedia Inc. You guys should be in some other business.Pbilimo (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The information is missing because no one has ever gotten around to adding it to the article. We are an encyclopedia written entirely and completely by volunteers.  The Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit that is responsible for Wikipedia and a number of other projects like it) has an extraordinarily small staff and that staff is devoted primarily to the technical aspects of running one of the top 10 websites in the world (such as server maintenance, interface updates, etc.) with all of the editing being done by volunteers.  And as such, if no one has an interest in a topic it generally is only briefly written about and rarely updated (as people tend to write about what they find interesting).  Unfortunately your article likely fits into that category which is the most likely reason that the article is so short (and also why it hasn't been updated in such a long time), and as I said above we welcome contributions from anyone, but strongly caution people from writing about themselves as most people find it very hard to write about themselves with a neutral point of view which is critical to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia.  Furthermore I can personally assure you that no one here is out to get you or to "pigeonhole you" as you put it.  We are a nonprofit organization that is not in any form of "business" other than attempting to collect the world’s knowledge and distribute it freely to all.  We always strive to assume the best of intentions with people and to remain polite and civil when dealing with anyone, all while giving our time freely to try and make the world a better place by spreading knowledge freely.  Also, as a general point making any sort of legal threat is something that is looked upon very poorly in our community as it often escalates disputes quickly by putting people on the defensive and in the end prevents any actual progress from being made in resolving the issues at hand.  Finally, slander is the act of deliberately seeking to hurt another person’s reputation through statements that are knowingly false, and I am not sure I see where you think you are being slandered in the article.  After reading it, I cannot see any negative statements made about you or your work nor does it seek to provide known incorrect information.  If you could find a specific example of where you feel you are being slandered, then we can seek to rectify it with the proper information.  Once again if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask me :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After re-reading what I wrote above I realized that there is a chance that what I wrote could be construed in a negative fashion (as is sometimes the case with textual communication as it lacks non-verbal cues or tone inflections). And, I wanted to add this to assure you that I have no ill will towards you or your article, and that I am very sorry that you are upset with the current quality of your article as a stub.  Also that I want to work with you to attempt to improve the article to a better state, and that I have no desire to come across as negative or hostile.  All the Best, Mifter (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Message
Hi, you removed my edit from the Stonesfield page citing that it wasn't neutral but you didn't state why you thought that. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that the village has a deserved reputation for actively encouraging youth sports for both genders - outside large cities this in not usual and should be acknowledged by sites like wikipedia. I really don't see why this isn't neutral, so can you please return it?

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.3.24 (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! I removed the material that you added to the article because it did not conform with our policy on keeping a neutral point of view, particularly where you said "and want to ensure they develop young players in a safe and positive environment that encourages fun, friendship, fairness and respect."  That statement isn't sourced by an impartial 3rd party, and it also is putting a spin on what this organization is doing by portraying it from a positive point of view (almost like an advertisement) rather than an impartial one.  For those reasons I cannot re-add the content.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Seljuq dynasty edit: my statements were true and sources are plenty but I suck with computers
Hi. I edited the Seljuq dynasty site earlier and you deleted my edit. I didn't have a source, so it was understandable. However I can show you to the site on wikipedia about Genetic history of the Turkish people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people), which has sources to back it up where it says:

"In 2001, Benedetto et al revealed that Central Asian genetic contribution to the current Anatolian mtDNA gene pool was estimated as roughly 30%, by comparing the populations of Mediterranean Europe, and Turkic-speaking people of Central Asia. [21] In 2003, Cinnioğlu et al. made a research of Y-DNA including the samples from eight regions of Turkey, without classifying the ethnicity of the people, which indicated that high resolution SNP analysis totally provides evidence of a detectable weak signal (<9%) of gene flow from Central Asia.[22] In 2006, Berkman concluded that the true Central Asian contribution to Anatolia for both males and females were assumed to be 22%, with respect to the Balkans.[23] "

Thus my statement about the Central Asian influence on Turkeys genetics being between 10-30 % is valid and sourced in this wiki page.

When it comes to Azerbaijani Turks I show to the following wiki page which has sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Azerbaijanis

In addition, when it comes to Iranian Azerbaijanis (which number 16-20 million, double that of the nation of Azerbaijan) I can show you a genetic study on this page:

http://journals.tums.ac.ir/upload_files/pdf/_/17783.pdf

"Conclusion: The imposition of Turkish language to this region was realized predominantly by the process of elite dominance, i.e. by the limited number of invaders who left only weak patrilineal genetic trace in modern populations of the region."

I am not very good with internet sources and adding links etc, if you would be so kind to add source links and put my statement back on there I would greatly appreciate it.

Yours truly, Anonymous contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.197.140 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Raymond McCord
I have literally just created this article and have a load of references for it.DColt (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I just left you a message on your talk page stating something along the same lines :) (I've been seeing so many completly non-notable articles in new page patrol that I've been tagging rather quickly to try and keep up with them). Best, Mifter (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi from David31584
Hi Mifter. Actually I've been editing pages on Wikipedia for quite a while now, afew years to be exact. Usually trying to be as acurate as possible with my information, though I would even correct myself, if I had made an error which I was at first unaware of. I admit though I tend to sometimes not log in first, but sometimes I do. It's a pleasure to meet you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David31584 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a pleasure to meet you as well :). If you ever have any questions or need any help, please feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much :). I haven't received a barnstar in a number of years and it’s a nice surprise to get one :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from 84.13.12.224
The information is from a road test of the v16 brm. I think from memory it was Classic Cars. Even in modern times the engine would randomly throw distributors and then suddenly run cleanly. Not what you want on crossply tires in an A35 let alone a 400hp behemoth. I get very tired of people correcting stuff all the time. I edited the R25 and Humber Sceptre pages and was again called a liar despite owning 2 of the former and three of the latter. Ditto the Renault Safrane, I own one of the last 2.2vi engined cars ever built. *NOTE: Personal Attack Removed* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.12.224 (talk • contribs) 22:24, November 15, 2012‎


 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that I removed your additions is because they did not cite verifiable 3rd party sources to substantiate their authenticity.  Furthermore, Wikipedia has a policy against original research that has not been independently published which is also why your information has been removed.  If you could find a third party source to back up your statements, then they would be a welcome addition to the article.  Finally, I would like to caution you to remain civil in your statements to others as Wikipedia has a policy against personally attacking others as it discourages cooperation and only incites anger.  If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Otumwa, Iowa
Hi Mifter. Just a courtesy notification I partially reverted your revertion (???? lol) on the Ottumwa, Iowa wiki. The original editor, OttumwaPIO, had their heart in the right place, if not their technique. I suspect the PIO stands for the city's public information officer. Both of their additions were correct. I added a ref for the mayoral change. The nickname thing wasn't working well in the infobox so I left it out for now, but it was also correct and I can provide a ref. I've no particular need for a reply, as I said just letting you know whats going down. Sometimes it prevents hard feelings/edit warring/general mayhem. Take care and have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem :). I have no problem with information being re-added once a source has been found (as it is then positively contributing to the information of the encyclopedia instead of potentially lowering its quality in the case of unsourced additions), and I appreciate your taking the time to leave this message.  It’s refreshing to hear that a source could be found for the information instead of it just being left out, and it’s always good when we can expand our information so that others can benefit.  Best, Mifter (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from a vandal, erroneously placed at the top of your page
Anon Comment See the wiki pages in question, I'm not wrong about the primary claim regarding missiles (computer guided precision weapons) vs rockets and artillery. (And I'm not wrong about the rest though one may despute details or attempt justifications.) I'm well aware that I made the redirect manual, instead of automatic, and made what I deem constructive contributions, namely noting egregious propaganda, despited those being deemed otherwise by Wikipedia policy. But I am not wrong about the propagandistic misnomer of referring to rockets and artillery as missiles and I shall restore my edits as a form of protest until all erroneous, bad faith references to Qassam missiles, Grad missiles, etc. are removed from the multifariously disproportionate number of articles devoted to the murder of civilians by Palestinians, compared to Israeli terror, apartheid ethnic cleansing and aggression (war crime). (Which unfortunately is not a war-crime as evidenced by the fact that the Allies (including gold old "uncle Joe") murdered more defenseless civilians by military means with no credible pretext of military targets than the Axis, and any type of despicable act that the Fascists' attributed beyond reasonable doubt to the Allies was therefore not criminal.)220.233.78.32 (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

PS other troubling issues are the way the structure of pages frames things, and using state (and corporations') propaganda agencies as sources for unattributed claims to objectivity, especially when these states (and corporations) are actors in the events being described.220.233.78.32 (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy reading! (Yeah, and I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but come on... this stuff is priceless). — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie  (Je vous invite à me parler ) 11:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly is :P. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent Deletion of 2 new pages.
Hello,

I was working on two pages simultaneously and saved after entering basic information in order to attend to something off my computer. Upon returning to them, both were flagged for deletion, one of which was speedily deleted before I could complete any edits because it only had basic information provided. It is unfair that both articles were nominated and flagged within minutes of them being posted because someone else feels that they are not up to standard, when as a new user I need time to figure out all the edits, and I save frequently out of habit. Doesn't exactly inspire me to add content to Wikipedia when it is flagged and deleted in such a short time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeisbeautiful83 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! Your article was speedy deleted because I did not feel that it had enough context to identify the subject of the article or what in particular made it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  However, I have temporarily restored it so that you can have a chance to edit it pending the outcome of this Articles for Deletion discussion.  I suggest you read this page about writing your first article as it is full of tips and information about how to help avoid a situation like this in the future.  Also, in the future, you might wish to create a personal sandbox for yourself so that you can create and edit an article in your userspace and then move it to the full article space once it is ready.  Once again welcome, and if you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:Your request for rollback
Happy to help :). Best, Mifter (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Not sure if you had watched/checking my talkpage, so just wanted to thank you again :) gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 01:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was watching and saw your response, but thanks for the heads up :). Congrats, Mifter (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha okay, I wasn't sure, even with the message floating on the screen, and notices everywhere I could think, people still try to leave me talkbacks, expect me to reply places... Thanks again. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.


 * Datestamp added for archive Bot. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor you just blocked
Posted an unblock request on their talkpage, that (somewhat malformed) request was removed by another editor, thought you might want to be aware of it anyway. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, the unblock request itself turned out to be vandalism (and a personal attack directed towards me) and was declined. Nevertheless, thanks.  Best, Mifter (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RFPP: Rio Ferdinand
Hi!

It appears that we were handling the same article on the RFPP page at the same time. I semi-protected the article for a month, mainly due to the recent, repeated BLP issues. Given the history of the article over the years, I figured that would be enough time to deter vandals, while not imposing an indefinite protection, which I feel is a bit too much at this time. Let me know if you have any thoughts about this. If you feel that it should be unprotected, just let me know and I'll be happy to reconsider! Best,  Icestorm815  •  Talk  02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi :). I noticed you had protected it just as I was declining the request.  I was pretty much on the fence about how to handle it, thus when you opted for semi-protection I struck my previous comment.  In many cases it is better to be safe when dealing with BLP's due to their sensitive nature especially when articles have a long term history of issues (such as this one), so I have no objections to your protection :).  I agree that an indef protection isn't warranted at this time, and 1 month semi should be fine, if the issues crop up again once the protection expires next year we can always reevaluate.  Happy Holidays, Mifter (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you said here that had been insufficiently warned. The user has received a 1, 2, 3, and 4 over the last two months, started editing constructively for a short period, the continued to vandalize and earned another two level 2 warnings. What should I do? Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I stated that the user was insufficiently warned because during this month the IP has only gotten (as of my writing this) up to a lvl 2 warning. Warnings tend to go stale rather quickly especially when dealing with IPs because as the notice at the top states, the IP is registered to Verizon internet.   This means that it can be cycled between a number of different internet users within the same geographic area within a short period of time.  This can be seen in how the IP has had periods of constructive editing interspersed with vandalism.  Each "period" of editing was likely from a completely different internet user in a different location which in most cases serves to render all the older warnings stale.  If the IP continues to vandalize, then I would recommend just continuing to run up the standard warning scale (1 - 4) and then reporting to AIV if the behavior continues.  Blocks are meant to stop the encyclopedia from immanent damage, not be punitive for past behavior.  Generally what I do is every month the scale resets (with the exception if vandalism is occurring on the 31st of one month and then the 1st of the subsequent month or if there are special circumstances) once a user has received 4 warnings within a month a report to AIV or block could be in order (with exceptions as needed determined on a case by case basis as warnings are not necessarily always needed to be blocked if the vandalism is especially egrigious).  If you have any further questions, need clarification, or need help with anything, please feel free to ask :).  Happy Holidays, Mifter (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1) nominated for deletion
Hi Mifter, I've nominated Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1) for deletion see the category's entry. I am informing you, because you are listed as one of the authors in Cydebot's move summary. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rain brings weather
You have just deleted this article as I was in the process of adding a reference to it.

The message I got when trying to save the page was confusing so I cut&pasted it here:


 * Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.
 * Anti-spam check. Do NOT fill this in!
 * User Mifter (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of:
 * Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11
 * Please confirm that you really want to recreate this article. Recreate

I have no idea why copyrightis are suddenly an issue but don't want to mess with it. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi :), I deleted the article under WP:CSD and WP:CSD which is lack of notability and advertizing. The copyright warning that you saw is a warning that is displayed when you edit any page (even my talk page, if look right above the editbox) and its text is pulled from MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn so its not an issue in this case, just a normal message that is always shown.  If you would like to edit and improve the article, I would be happy to restore it and move it to your userspace so that you can work on it and once it has been improved it can be moved back to the articlespace.  If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas G. Miller, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Army War College and The Second World War (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) 11:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK promotion problem
Mifter, there were some issues with your promotion of Prep 1 to Queue 6 which I've detailed in WT:DYK, in the hopes of getting them fixed quickly, and also to highlight the potential problems with someone moving a prep set they created to a queue. Please respond here or there rather than on my talk page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I'll stop by there to leave a note now. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Another change that came with moving nominations into individual templates is that the nominations are no longer removed from Template talk:Did you know immediately after promotion (e.g. ). When a nomination is closed the template prevents the nom text from being transcluded, keeping closed nominations from being seen at TT:DYK.  It is only when all the nominations for a specific day are completed that the group are removed together. --Allen3 talk 00:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update :). Best, Mifter (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Krenek correction
Thank you for telling me that you undid my change on the Ernst Krenek page. You say it wasn't "constructive". I think it was very necessary. That was NOT anything like a list of Krenek's compositions. It was an extremely selective list. That has to be made clear. If you want to do it in a different way, fine, but the current heading is wrong.

92.20.35.136 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there and Welcome to Wikipedia! You are correct that the list is incomplete.  However instead of inserting a comment to that effect within the actual prose of the article (as those tend to be reverted as unconstructive or vandalism) I have added Incomplete list to the top of the article so that if the list is completed, that tag can be easily and simply removed without searching through the text of the entire article.  Furthermore, the template also adds the article to a special category so that other editors can see it as an incomplete list and expand it.  If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Up_with_That
Hello, Responding in response to you stopping my changing the quote: "In the December 15, 2012, episode, Samuel L. Jackson said "bullshit" on the live broadcast, prompting Cole to respond with "Come on, man...that costs money."". However this quote is mistaken. S.L.J said "fuck...", interrupting himself before he had time to say "fuck you", creating the the response: "Come on, man...that costs money.". However seconds after he also said "this is bullshit" which probably was is original line. However this was not what prompted the response, hence a argue that the original quote on this page is misleading/incorrect.

I understand that some might find it problematic to use the word "fuck" on a wiki page, however i would personally be more offended that pages are incorrect/censored. I suggest therefore the use of some version of "fuck" such as "f***k" or "f-word", or delete the entire sentence.

Respectfully, 109.58.109.220 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC) J


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your edit because I was under the impression that you were trying to censor the page by replacing the expletive with stars (***).  Now after seeing that you were not in fact attempting to remove information rather correct it, I have readded the remark as well as found a 3rd party source to verify its accuracy.  There is generally no problem with using vulgarity on Wikipedia pages (where necessary for completeness and within reason) as Wikipedia is not censored.  If you have any other questions or need help with anything, please feel free to ask :).   Best, Mifter (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas G. Miller
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter
Delivered 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks :), just trying to keep the level of verified hooks high enough so that we can keep enough new articles cycling on the Main Page. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I tried a couple of times to do reviews myself but I'd always get another viewer to point out a mistake when I had passed an article. I guess I have to look more into the rules... :p ComputerJA (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you need any help, I'd be happy to offer my assistance. I've worked with DYK since 2008 so I have a pretty good idea of what is needed for verifying hooks.  Best, Mifter (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll give the guidelines another look and stick around watching other reviewers. I'll contact you if I need help. Happy editing! ComputerJA (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Barrett Firearms Manufacturing
Can you explain to me why you made the logo a thumb? I have NEVER seen an infobox image as a thumb before... --Zackmann08 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, i see the issue. The image was HUGE. The solution here is to limit it to 300px though, not to make it a thumb. --Zackmann08 (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I made the image a thumb because the way it was previously, it stretched across the entirety of my screen and distorted the article considerably (see here). Therefore I switched the image to a thumbnail so that it would scale properly. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely fine with me, so long as it isn't gigantic I have no issue ;). Best, Mifter (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Some pavlova for you!

 * Happy to oblige, be sure to make good use of the tools :). Best, Mifter (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


The J J  J unk ( say hello ) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thank you for the kind wishes :). Best, Mifter (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Mifter


&mdash; иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Same to you. Merry Christmas, Mifter (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK reviews
Mifter, I noticed that you did a large number of DYK reviews tonight. I'm always glad when reviews get done, but it was worrying to see 8 posted in 20 minutes, followed an hour later by 12 in 30 minutes.

DYK reviews take a good deal of time, as they involve reading the complete article to make sure there aren't prose issues, looking over the sources to make sure they're all reliable, running DYKcheck, comparing the hook text to the article and the given sources, and do close paraphrasing checks, either directly against the sources or with something like Duplication detector to help.

I did a single spotcheck: Template:Did you know nominations/Owen Ray Skelton‎. You can see my comment there: the article has definite prose issues that should be fixed before it's approved and makes questionable use of census data, which contradicts other sources. The geocities source, which is one of those cited for the hook facts, is unlikely to be considered a reliable one.

Can you please help me understand what your reviewing criteria are? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi BlueMoonset, when reviewing an article I first use User:Dr pda/prosesize.js to verify the article is over 1500 bytes long, I then take a look at the articles date of creation/expansion to verify that the article was within the 5 day period (as well as a 5x expansion for expanded articles). Afterwards I read the hook and article over to see that they make sense and do not have any major issues within them (I am not too picky about minor issues as these are new articles and Wikipedia is a perpetual state of improving.  Futhermore, DYK is to showcase new articles which inherently won't be at the level of a FA).  Then I take a look at the claim made by the hook to verify that it appears and is supported within the article (either by checking it within its online source or AGFing for offline refs).  Then I finally check to ensure that their is no copyright infringement through spot checks.  If all that is satisfied I then give the article a tick.  I personally believe in a form of the Ninety-ninety rule (itself a subset of the Pareto principle) for DYK in that the majority of our time is spent reviewing a minority of problem hooks while the majority can be relatively quickly approved and pushed through.  Generally I seek to review the "low hanging fruit" noms that can be reviewed quickly and easily in an effort to ensure a steady supply of hooks to go out.  This enables me to quickly review the "easy" hooks in a short period while avoiding the more problematic hooks entirely (which I review later if I have the time to).  I hope this allays your concerns, if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.  Best, Mifter Public (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mifter, I can definitely understand the "low-hanging fruit" methodology, though I like your reason better: to ensure a steady stream of reviewed articles, rather than the usual desire to get an "easy" review to satisfy the quid pro quo requirement. (I did that back when I first had to start reviewing; it was far less daunting to review a short, straight-forward article the first several times.) I confess was worried that you were moving too quickly through those articles when I saw how many had been done and how quickly—we had a recent returnee who had done a similar number of articles in a similarly short period of time, with problematic results. You might consider being pickier about some of the issues regarding prose, sourcing, and what the article covers. The Skelton article I mentioned above used primary source data in odd ways that should, I think, have raised flags: even with new DYK articles, there are standards, and my understanding is that these standards have gone up in the last couple of years after some problems with articles that made it to the front page and really shouldn't have. (In some areas, DYK standards are stricter than GA, such as inline source citation requirements.) However, it's the copyright infringement that seems to have slipped by you, although you looked for it: Template:Did you know nominations/William Dixson had several chunks totaling well over 100 words copied from one source, and Template:Did you know nominations/Rambo: The Video Game had to be removed from a prep area because of close paraphrasing and inaccurate refs (and it also was presenting dated information). The others of yours that have been promoted so far looked fine to me, but perhaps more spot checks in the copyvio department would be useful given what slipped through. (Do you use WP:Duplication detector? I find it quite useful.) Although it's no guarantee, I typically check the refs that are used the most times and/or for the longest stretches of unquoted text; that's how I found the Dixson issues with my first try. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Prior to this, I generally didn't have a great deal of issues with seeing copyright infringement, and as a result I didn't spend a great deal of time with checking for it (I generally used spot checks for copying and pasting and checks for paraphrasing). However after seeing that this now appears to be one of the larger issues facing DYK it appears that a closer look for copyright issues is warranted (I had used the Duplication detector in the past, but only used it for DYK when I was suspicious of something, not so much on a regular basis).  In regards to prose it makes sense that standards have gone up over time (as the encyclopedia becomes more and more complete), and perhaps I need to be a bit more picky with what is acceptable or not (It is hard to make blanket statements due to the differing natures of articles, however having a better written article on the front page is certainly not a bad thing).  Thank you for your time (my apologies for the delay in responding, with the holidays upon us, my commitments to friends and family take precedence as I'm sure you'll understand) if you have anything else you see, please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention.  Thank you and Merry Christmas! Mifter (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Hope you're having very happy holidays, and I absolutely understand about time constraints this time of year. I've found I've had to be pickier lately myself in reviewing and checking DYK submissions, and it's not uncommon for me to have to request further improvements to articles to meet DYK requirements on an article that's already been approved. (It slows down my prep set building quite a bit, unfortunately.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly know that feeling :). Merry Christmas! Mifter (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Schlosskirche (Königsberg)
Gatoclass 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Steindamm Church
Gatoclass 00:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for USS Clifton (IX-184)
( X! ·  talk )  · @269  · 00:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision on Hindu Prayer
You messaged me saying I made an edit to a page about Hindu prayer, which was nonconstructive. I promise I never even went onto such page let alone made an edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.174.197 (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! You are editing from an IP address which means that even though you did not make the edits, the fact that many IP addresses are shared means that you are given warnings that do no apply to you.  The solution to this is to create an account so that the edits you make are only attributed to you and any messages you get are not those meant to go to other.  I hope this helps, if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

184.161.156.94
An ip you blocked, User:184.161.156.94, is blanking his talk page (including his active sanction), and providing nasty messages when he's reverted. Revoking talk page access might be warranted. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and disabled his ability to edit his talk page as well as extending his block for personal attacks. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!
Hello Mifter, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup
Hello, Mifter, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
 * The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
 * Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
 * If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
 * Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
 * Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhett A. Hernandez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Service Medal (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) 11:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Florbetapir (18F)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: DYK for National Intercollegiate Band

 * I have replied on the page. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1)
Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1) has been nominated for renaming to Category:Wikipedia pending changes (level 1) protected pages. Feel free to join the dicussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sali Aga
Will you please be so kind to formally check and approve (w/icon) the ALT1 hook o this nomination?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For future reference, please note my comments on this review (I've passed the ALT1 hook). Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I was a little busy this past week and unable respond to any inquiries and appreciate both your note and passing the alt :). Best, Mifter (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast!


~TheGeneralUser (talk)  — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you Mifter! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser  (talk)  23:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind wishes, a happy 2013 to you as well. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Inner Eye
Hi. Would you be able to take a look at the DYK nomination of The Inner Eye here? I have made some changes per your suggestions. Also, I have suggested another hook. - Vivvt &bull;&#32; (Talk ) 16:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Time permitting I will happily take a look, however I have been very busy as of late and consequently may not be able to review the hook in any meaningful frame of time. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John M. Richardson (admiral)
 Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 16:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William G. Webster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Service Medal (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) 11:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Koenig
I wonder if you can review ALT1 that I added. --George Ho (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been handled by another reviewer. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the nominator who thought that original is better than ALT1. --George Ho (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't think the original is better; it is better. The DYK reviewing guide clearly states that the reviewer "can also suggest an alternate (ALT) hook that is shorter".  The ALT1 hook proposed is longer, so it completely goes against the spirit of what a DYK hook is suppose to be (short, succinct and interesting).  Also, from past experience, hooks that have dry, boring facts that are explained within the hook tend to get the least number of hits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there is no 2nd review yet, I wonder if you Mifter can review it again. Please? --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind that. I crossed out ALT1, and reserve it for Celebration Day. So 2nd review is unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rhett A. Hernandez
( X! ·  talk )  · @224  · 16:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Spam and vandalism from ip 118.70.182.212
Dear Mifter, I need your help. I see you have done correction on "Visa policy for Vietnam". I am trying to build up this page, but at the same time struggling with spam from some ip adr, especially from 118.70.182.212 (talk). This one doesn't ever contribute anything at all. Look at its historical edits. Instead the ip-adr only delete and add their own links. Can you block this ip adr as spam or what can we do? In advance, Thank you. Mickyred (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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) 00:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William G. Webster
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a confession to make
Hello Mifter,

I have a confession to make, today myself and a friend (05/02/2012) briefly vandalised the JJ72 wikipedia page and distorted it with a load of childish nonsense about a friend of ours. I realise that it was childish and I apologise. Our thinking was that we would change the page for a couple of minutes take a screenshot and change it back (which we did). Unfortunately, we were not familiar with how wikipedia works and we didn't realise that there would be a record left of the nonsense which we wrote that would be recorded electronically on the history page forever.

I apologise profusely for any damage I have caused as I realise you must be extremely busy. Would it be possible to remove the all entries on the history page for today the 5th February 2012? You can block my account from now on if you like. I assure you I have learned a valuable lesson. It was just supposed to be a small joke among friends. I don't want any record of what we wrote to be publicly available as I am afraid it would tarnish the person's reputation, even though what was written was complete nonsense.

I would really appreciate any assistance which you could offer on the matter 05/02/12

Orkface1 (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Mifter, I have already deleted the revisions from the history of the article. Regards, James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for handling this and the heads up :). Best, Mifter Public (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Message from Joebev
Hello,

I just spent hours updating my bio to reflect the current facts. I also added true things that are documented suxh as lady Bird, etc. This is not promotion. This is all true and should be reflected in my bio.

Please add back of that material. If you think it needs editing, please tell me how you would write it.

Thank you.

Joe Bev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebev (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! First off I apologize for the delay in answering your question as I have been extremely busy and have not had a chance to edit actively for some time.  Secondly, Wikipedia has a policy about writing about yourself as you have an intrinsic conflict of interest on topics concerning yourself.  As an encyclopedia we strive to maintain editorial neutrality above all else and subsequent to that, writing about yourself is heavily discouraged.  I would recommend suggesting the changes you want made on the article's talk page and then hearing what other editors have to say before adding the new material to help ensure it is not removed as promotional.  Once again Welcome to Wikipedia if you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask.  All the Best, Mifter Public (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged, even through I simply created an image page so that I could protect it as a highly used image. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for a Review
I was wondering if you can give me a review so I can seek an WP:RfA nomination. If you don't think I am ready for a RfA nomination, then I accept your decision. And try to do better. As I know what you say I need to improve in, will not just help in RfA nomination, but even if I don't get nominated, the areas that you say I need to improve in, will help me become a better editor, to make Wikipedia a better wiki, to benefit us all as editors. If you have any questions, let me know and I will try to answer your questions that you may have. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I would be happy to review you :). However, I have been extremely busy as of late and so cannot make any promises as to the timeframe of that review, so long as you are ok with that I will start the review when I get some spare time.  All the Best, Mifter Public (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be okay. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#98FB98; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 90%"> WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin needed within 4 hours
You are listed as an actively involved adminiatrator at Did you know. There are about four hours left to correct a DYK scheduling request that was messed up by manual updating. See Wikipedia_talk:Did you know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It appear that Daniel Case managed to take care of it. But thanks for the heads up :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Word Network request for deletion
Hello Mifter,

I wanted to send you a quick message and ask you why you submitted for deletion? You cited that The Word Network's Wiki Page was "Unambiguous copyright infringement." This is actually untrue as the article had many verified resources from The Word Network as well as references from outside of The Word Network. To my knowledge there were no instances of "Unambiguous copyright infringement." The Word Network's Wiki page was a great resource to many who enjoy religious programming and a great source of verified information. Will you please consider revoking your request for deletion and get the page back up and active?

I was looking to post a few new verified articles that were highlighting some of the philanthropy that The Word Network has recently done. They also have a new updated about us section that I would like to add and update to this Wiki page.

Thank you for your consideration!

Storyofthebrad (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that the article was deleted was because it consisted primarily of content directly from the The Word Network's about us webpage thus constituting copyright infringement.  Because of that I am unable to restore the page because doing so would violate copyright law as it would mean knowingly restoring copyright infringing content to Wikipedia (the removal of copyrighted material must be immediately carried out upon notification of its existence in order to keep DMCA safe harbor protection for Wikipedia.)  Should you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. 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) 15:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

About your recent edit.
I could be wrong, but your recent edit to the Nichicon page seems more like a troll rather than on facts. It it well known, and has been for some time now that the capacitors in question were cheap knock offs of Nichicon originals. Orcmansoso (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that I reverted your edits to the article is because Wikipedia is not a forum for public service announcements.  If the content were to be reformatted as prose from a neutral point of view with reputable 3rd party sources then it would be suitable for inclusion, but a simple statement about bad capacitors in the form of an announcement is not fit for inclusion.  Also, although I don't think you meant the comment about trolling to be derogatory I should still inform you that personal attacks on other editors are generally not taken kindly on Wikipedia.  If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Map of Harbor Gateway neighborhood, Los Angeles, California.png
Hmm. Last I looked it was completely labeled as CC-by-SA. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I just took a look at the image, and it appears that the reason that my Bot tagged it was because it was missing a CC-by-SA license tag (which an anon appears to have kindly added a few hours after my Bot came through) so now the image should be all set. Thanks for the heads up though, I haven't run my bot for a while now (due to some coding issues I was loath to troubleshoot) and I was concerned that something might have went wrong.  If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter Public (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

 * Thank you very much for the award :). Its hard to believe that I've used Stiki that much over the years.  Best, Mifter Public (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry, at first I gave you the wrong barnstar, now I have fixed it. Sorry for any inconvenience! Fai  zan  13:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, mistakes happen :). Best, Mifter (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Best wishes  Fai  zan  13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Annoying
What must I do to avoid having my stuff mislabeled by the bot, like File:Map of Harbor Gateway neighborhood, Los Angeles, California.png ? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, in order to avoid having your images tagged by a bot, all you must do is add a Copyright Tag to the image describing its license status. After adding the copyright tag, the bot will no longer flag your images.  Best, Mifter (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding File:Map of Harbor Gateway neighborhood, Los Angeles, California.png, the message says to remove the tag from the page, but I don't see any tag there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Map of Harbor Gateway neighborhood, Los Angeles, California.png, all of the required information was submitted along with the image itself. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, concerning your first message, I removed the tag from the image after the Anon added the appropriate image license tag. Concerning your second message, you forgot to add an image license tag to the image when you uploaded it which was why the image was tagged in the first place.  Best, Mifter (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but the instructions for uploading say nothing about an "image license tag," and I didn't know such a thing existed until you informed in a message above. I am now adding such a tag in the space for comments when I do an upload, but in the original upload I followed all the instructions. Oh, well, maybe I won't have to bother you any more. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll look into making sure that notes about copyright tags are appropriately visible on the upload pages so this mistake does not happen again. My apologies for the stress and inconvenience this has caused.  Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Baidyasuman
Dear sir, Thanks for making me aware of my mistake,but what I edited regarding "Nidaya" is true as I have been living in this village since 1985 and I have well knowledge about the village. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baidyasuman (talk • contribs) 12:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that I undid your edits to the article is because you did cite a 3rd party verifiable neutral source to back up your assertions.  On Wikipedia we do not allow for original first party research as that can undermine the factual integrity of the encyclopedia.  If you can find a source in a book or on the internet to back up your claims, then you are welcome to re-add them to the article.  Should you need help formatting a citation to add to the article, you can ask myself or at the help desk where volunteers will be happy to assist you.  Once again Welcome and should  you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask :).  Best, Mifter (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

about right angled triangle
hello hw r you you undid my edit no problem but i added becoz of it is totally new creation in maths and i hope it will help students in future. a particular type of question,s answer within seconds,can solve but it will take 15 to 25 minutes, and i hope you will sure see and do needful.

thnxs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamcreative1000 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that I reverted your edit is because Wikipedia has a policy against original unsupported additions and requires all additions to have a verifiable reliable source.  Should you find a source, then the content can be re-added provided it is correctly cited to its publishing publication.  If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me.  Best, Mifter (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

THC Loadee
Hello. Back in December, you blocked THC Loadee for personal attacks, such as this. Afterwards, I watched his talk for any issues arising afterwards, which then led to this. I probably should've just removed it, but instead made a sarcastic comment, which led to this. I'm wondering if you could perhaps take action if necessary.  <font color="#0000FF">Zappa <font color="#00FF00">O <font color="#FF0000">Mati  23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've warned him again. Should he keep it up, I'll block him again, but I'm hoping this is the end of it. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If these "editors" stop following me around and removing my attempts to remove religious bias,I will leave them alone. THC Loadee 07:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by THC Loadee (talk • contribs)

Bot action
Your bot has replaced an old template from four years ago in my archive here. In doing so, it has duplicated a section heading. This edit wasn't helpful. Axl ¤  [Talk]  01:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, the bot Sub'sted the template because the template was in the Category for welcome template, which are all supposed to be sub'sted as a matter of course. Furthermore, the template heading was already duplicated (as there was a local heading as well as one being pulled in by the template) as can be seen by looking at the old revision here.  All the bot did was sub'st the template, there was no actual change of content except that instead of mirroring live changes to the template it permanently snapshotted it to prevent it from changing drastically and altering the content of the archive.  Should you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask.  Best, Mifter (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK date request hook needing approval
You are currently listed at Did_you_know as an actively involved administrator. Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties is a date request that needs to be reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello :)! I apologize for the delayed response, I was busy yesterday and did not have adequate time to check Wikipedia.  It also appears that in this time that Casliber was able to review and approve the hook in time for its deadline.  Should you need anything else, please feel free to ask :).  Best, Mifter Public (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright
You hit me up for a possible copyright issue with the image Darkeyeshalfmoonrun.jpg. I have copyright permission to use it and I have emailed that permission to the permission email. So how is it that you posted that? What do I put on it so I'm not longer pressed about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.52.170 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! Once you have received permission to use an image and sent the email to OTRS, to prevent image tagging by my bot all you need to do is add a image license tag to the image, and once the permission is confirmed an OTRS tag referencing the case number.  Should you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.  Best, Mifter Public (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Adminship Request
I am asking you to look over my 20-month Wikipedia history to see how far away you think I am from becoming an Administator. I have asked others as well to get different opinions. Myself, I don't exactly think I am ready just yet, but it would be good to get an idea on where I am. I was rewarded Rollback status in November 2012, I have created 36 articles (with the only stubs being TN highway articles that can't be expanded for lack of information), and I have done extensive work for WP:NASCAR, WP:SEVERE, and WP:Tropical Cyclones. I occasionally get into it with others (mostly because of my difficulty adapting to change), but I will calm down and get over it. I try to welcome users, issue warnings, and report them for vandalism when necessary. What do you think? Feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello :). First off, my apologies for the late reply, unfortunately I have been very busy as of late (hence the late reply) and as such, I am not sure if I will be able to get you an adminship review in a timely manner.  Should time crop up, I would happily give you a review, however I cannot make any guarantees and do not wish to waste your time waiting should I be unable to get you a review.  If time does present itself, I will post on your talk page with my review once I have completed it.  Should you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.  Best, Mifter Public (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)