User talk:Mufka/Archive 7

User talk:IchLiebeKasachstan
You removed my editing tests caution from this user's talk page. It's not really your place to do it, especially since the editor in question was indeed screwing around introducing invalid links through their sloppy-cum-too-lazy-to-use-the-preview-button edits. Quaeler (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that the user would have taken the time to fix the typo if you did not jump in and revert the edit as vandalism. The edit clearly was not vandalism and we can't go around biting the noobs who make very minor mistakes. The user's edits appear to be done in good faith and none are vandalism.  There were no invalid links added by the user (except for the one clear typo that you reverted).  Using the Twinkle vandalism rollback function should be used in cases of clear vandalism, which this was not.  Since you have a stated practice of assuming bad faith in cases of vandalism (from your talk page), you should take extra care in identifying what is and is not vandalism.  Looking through your contribs, it seems that you like to use Twinkle to revert things as vandalism and then leave a test note on the user talk page.  These two actions do not go together.  If you are leaving a test note, that means that the edit wasn't vandalism.  Please be more careful.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that the Twinkle modal-panel-less rollback mechanism tags the quick rollback as vandalism, though i consider the revert message left in the history to be secondary to what is specifically said on the editor's discussion page concerning the revert. I suggest that your claim that these actions do not go together does not jive with the reality of the editing-test template which itself generates text that freely uses the word 'vandalism'; if you purport that one has nothing to do with the other, perhaps we should consider changing these templates.. No? (And yes, after having had the opportunity to see the editor in question bumble their way through a handful of editing attempts to fix one line, it is clear that they would have eventually fixed their original poor edits). Quaeler (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, if you're using uw-test2 then it does correlate with assumed vandalism. Personally I think test2 should just be v2 - after all a test after a note about a test is not a test.  You're not alone in wanting a quick way to revert with one click.  But if it isn't vandalism, we're stuck with what we have and must use another method - like the AGF link with a quick edit summary. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, i'll make more of an effort to avoid calling things like that 'vandalism' in my Twinkle usage. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

LUPICIA
I tagged it for spam not notability... They may assert notability, but the article is promotional in my opinion. Peridon (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It didn't appear blatantly spammy to me and the assertion of notability (along with 90,400 ghits) disqualified it from speedy IMO. Take it to AfD and see if I get a good trout slapping there.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:173.79.58.33
Can you prevent this user from editing his talk page for the rest of his block? He has been abusing the page removing unblock and whois templates since the block was issued. Momusufan (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Momusufan (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ルーファス
This may not be a huge problem but should someone check on on User:ルーファス - the editor has made 500 edits to their own user page (many times adding content and then blanking) over the course of 24 hours, and no other edits anywhere else. - Warthog Demon  19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very odd, I'll look at it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, now I see why you want to delete any page dealing with spiritualism, you dont' believe in God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnengrmh (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Course we do. You can talk to him here.  Chzz  ►  21:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you say I don't believe in god? And what do my beliefs have to do with notability?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Danger (musician) page deleted
You deleted the page because it was "dependent" on another. What page did it depend on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.50.117 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted Danger (Musician) which was a broken redirect to Danger (musician). The latter was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection - Article Shugo Chara Egg!
I was wondering why it was being protected from creation. The Shugo Chara Egg! article's protection may prevent actual data (or datum)from being added to it, such as the members of the group. I believe you protected it because some people were repeatedly recreating the article with only one line of text, such as "Shugo Chara Egg! is a J-pop group made for recording Shugo Chara!'s openings for S2 Shugo Chara Doki!". --&lt;The Integer Conundrum&gt; (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article about a non-notable band was repeatedly recreated. If you feel that you can write an article about this band that establishes notability, please do so within your user space (e.g. at User:The Integer Conundrum/Shugo Chara Egg!) and then use the helpme tag on your talk page to get input as to whether it meets notability requirements.  If it does, you can then ask an administrator to move the page into the article space.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV report for User:Wyman1
The user was given a final warning shortly before he blanked his own talk page. While blanking is not vandalism at all, users who post warnings on his page will assume he has not been given a warning. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On another note, I rolled back his changes and reinstated the warnings on the talk page for consistency. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand and completely agree. But WP:BLANKING dictates that removing warnings is not in and of itself vandalism and shouldn't be treated as such and you need to be careful of WP:DRC (an essay, I know).  If the edit was in the article space, I would have blocked him. If his edits were gross, blatant vandalism I might lean toward the block but they were basically test edits.   If we assume good faith, we'll assume that the editor got the message, and went away. He hasn't edited for a few hours so maybe that's true.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject
It is a new one. Wikiproject Three Days Grace-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

IP
Further review I missed the date transition between warnings and edits, clearly still removing content, now blocked. Jeepday (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that was it. I tried to clarify, but I saw you caught it.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

dispute
Hello, this is about the article moors. Mufka you almost had it. I think you mis-read the comments. No one is claiming the moors as a whole were considered negro neither is the article. The whole point is that certain editors want to Specifically state that the moors where not negro in the article. My point is that the moors did not go by ANY racial classification at all, they weren’t Negros nor Arabs they were MOORS, like you said they were made up of VARIOUS backgrounds so why specifically state in the article that the "moors were not negro? If you do that then you have to say they weren't arabs and either. That is the point of this dispute. why purposely discredit one part of the entire populations ancestry and leave the other parts. There is no way the article can state that the moors were not negro. And if the editor the orge continues to put that the edit wars will never stop 69.126.251.101 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it appears that my suggestion should satisfy both parties. Please make your comments on the respective talk page rather than spreading the discussion out to user talk pages. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

misinterpreting the other party's argument is the last thing I want to do, I'm honestly going by the claims they are making anyway I've said my part so I'll leave the rest to them69.126.251.101 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there is no progress, can this "discussion" be reported somewhere so others can intervene? I don't see how it can be revolve when the issue is being dodged 69.126.251.101 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

moors
Hey, I was gonna participate when I saw that someone else is saying we are all puppets, you are the 2nd person who intervened that have said that the discussion page was not the place to talk about sock puppets and it should be reported to WP:SPI, how come they  haven’t done anything about it.

I think they are just doing this to cover up the edits they made to the article. I am not going to say anything because it annoys me and I don't want to lose my cool so someone else can say I'm attacking them Seensawsee (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Coshocton High School Football
While I go agree that this team has no notable alumni or championships, I do not agree with the decision to have the article deleted. It is my belief that Wikipedia should serve as a general information website, and that all information should be permitted.

I am taking some time to complete and link my pages to other more "high-traffic" links, and for this, I am sorry. But I do not agree that any information should be censored. If someone is willing to put it on the site, it should be accepted. Of course, this is provided a few rules are followed. I have not posted inaccurate information, therefore, I see no problem with these pages staying on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwolfga (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have guidelines to ensure that the content of the encyclopedia is notable and verifiable. If we did not have standards for inclusion, then Wikipedia would have a reputation as an indiscriminate collection of information and no one would take it seriously.  Your belief that "Wikipedia should serve as a general information website, and that all information should be permitted" is not shared by the greater community.  You are welcome to argue for more inclusiveness and I encourage you to make your case for keeping the articles here.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry Perry
Hey, Mufka. I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I want to edit properly. I noticed that you replaced my edit in the Harry Perry (musician) article. I'd like to know why so that any future edits I attempt will have a better shot at sticking.

Thanks, Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert R. Robertson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition that you made seemed to be based on your own experience. We can't allow original research because everything that gets added must be supported by verifiable reliable sources.  If you can find the information that you provided in a published source, you can add it and reference the source.   -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony and Tanya
why did you delete this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_and_Tanya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwardsri (talk • contribs) 01:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that the subject meets notability requirements. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

how do i edit it so that it doesnt get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwardsri (talk • contribs) 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading the welcome message on your talk page and all of the links is a good place to start. You could try creating your article here and then ask for input on it by placing the helpme tag on your talk page with a question.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

--

ok cheers mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwardsri (talk • contribs) 01:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jonny
JonnyEnt1989 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Oi, why did you delete my article? Char_Duncker. Bit out of order dont you think. Who are you anyway, and what gives you the authority to delete my page? eh?
 * The article subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

2013
ok please understand i aint angey i would add a source please please please dont delete it it means a lot it is on wtc.com or any thing about it i just dont know how 2 source things yet please allow it 2 be on there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westmc9th (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Accurately predicting an event such as this so far in the future would require the use of a crystal ball. Let's wait until there are confirmed reports as the completion time draws nearer.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Brindala UserPage Deleted
Dear Mufka,

Please let me know why my userpage was deleted. I would like to post a new one, but the reason listed for deletion is not specific enough for me to assure that my new page is appropriate.

Thanks, Brindala —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindala (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The page, in its previous form, did not comply with WP:USERPAGE the content guideline that governs what is appropriate for a user page. In general, the userpage is for Wikipedia related information about you.  If you read WP:UP I think you will get an idea of what the userpage is not supposed to be.  The way the page was written, it looks like it belongs in the main space (not as a userpage) but it is unclear whether the subject meets the notability requirements for an article.  I guess the best route to go is to find out what your intentions are here.  Then perhaps I can point you in the right direction. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore
I'm not sure why you deleted something in my userspace, but please restore User:Aboutmovies/MIDNME as I doubt User:EncMstr‎ requested deletion since I asked him to restore the content as part of a sock investigation. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When he restored it, he left a speedy tag on it. Looked odd, but legit.  My mistake.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kristen McNamara
I want you to tell me why Kristen isn't notable enough Facha93 (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you before, you will find a very clear answer to your question here. If you have further questions, please ask.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already read it but I still think she is notable enough to have an article. And if you don't agree with me I would like to make a votaition. Facha93 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "votaition" here. I'm not sure what part of "only finalists should qualify for their own article" is unclear, and she also does not meet the requirements at WP:MUSICBIO.  If you wish to make a case for her notability and inclusion in a article, please do so at WP:DRV.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note the DrV is closed as it's the wrong place for the discussion. The article talk page is the right place. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was entirely my mistake. I was sure that the article was part of a group AfD.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Arthur Kade
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arthur Kade. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY
Thanks for the advice. Best wishes,   Badgernet    ₪    13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

on this day
Thanks for fixing my edits at Template:ThisDateInRecentYears. Unfortunately, it would be much easier (and nicer) if someone parsed all the month/year pages and fixed them to use the same format (a common pattern for section links, each day on a separate page, etc). It shouln't be too hard to be done with a bot and some regex-fu. I'm feeling lazy, though... :) --Waldir talk 00:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what you're saying, but I'm curious. The date pages are all standard format (January 1, etc.)  You don't mean those, do you?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a deeper look. For 2006, you'll have individual pages for each day (the current model) since May; before that, you'll have one page per each month with a "section" for each day. In 2005, you can find some individual pages from August to December; before that, the same thing: one per month, with "sections" for each day. And then the id for the "div" tags (which allow the section linking, since the sections are not really marked with mediawiki section headers -- the equal signs) at some point starts including the weekday (so, instead of "July 1, 2005" you'd have "July 1, 2005 (Wednesday)" (this is just an example, I didn't verify that it was so for this specific date). And even when you don't have the weekday included, there are variants with the day first, or the year first... well, it's a nightmare. Thant's why I just gave up and changed the links for 2005 and before to not include the section link part, since these would fail most of the time. But if someone set up to do it, it could be standardized without (too) much effort. --Waldir talk 09:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. There have been many discussions on whether there should be individual date pages for each full date and no lasting consensus has really formed.  This is what happens when we can't get consensus.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Why? What could be wrong with having each day with its own page? I realize that some specific days for older years don't have content right now, but these could be created with the basic template inside an html comment, in order to avoid red links (or a bunch of ifexist calls) when including ~30 of them in the month pages. They eventually could be filled with data from old news archives and stuff, which might be a very interesting and rewarding investigative challenge :) In any case, what harm could it do? --Waldir talk 00:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest arguments against having individual date articles are redundancy and lack of content specific to one date. Have a look at some of the arguments here and here and here.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I've read them carefully. Here are my thoughts:
 * 1) If it helps at anything, the day pages won't stay in the main namespace, but rather as subpages of portal:current events
 * 2) Why having separate pages transcluded into the months instead of directly including the content in the month pages? Well, apart from what I said above, that practice (separate pages, transcluded) will standardize them and allow consistent linking (while section links in months pages demand manual maintenance, and bring problems when something changes, as I mentioned above, regarding the Template:ThisDateInRecentYears)
 * 3) Currently all recent days have a page. So it makes sense to standardize backwards, especially since the content already exists. It might seem a lot to have a page for each day, but we must remember that our mission is to achieve a global coverage (as opposed to a bias towards western/English-speaking countries) and important stuff likely happen everyday across the world.
 * 4) Ohconfucius said here: "(...) this article is just that - an article about a random set of events which occurred on this day". To this allegation, Everyking's argument is very pertinent:
 * 5) It's obviously preferable to avoid a recent history bias by adding under-represented content than removing over-represented content. That is, achieving balance of information should never be more important than the information itself. Once again, I agree with Everyking:

So, my proposal is to convert everything into the format that's being used today, which was what I suggested previously, but with a small change: instead of empty pages with html comments containing the template, a bot could transclude to the month pages all the day pages that already exist, and use an ifexist check to those that don't (and then these could be checked periodically by the bot, and the ifexist test would be removed for those that are created).

What do you think? Btw, I hope you don't mind me asking Everyking to express his opinion here, since he seems to have similar intentions, and thus probably has thought some more about this, making him able to point possible drawbacks to my proposal. Cheers, --Waldir talk 12:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with this so long as we don't have any empty pages and pages with less than a certain number of events should be considered empty. I like the idea of transcluding to prevent duplication.  Going forward this shouldn't be a problem.  Going backward seems like a lot of work.  Will a bot be able to clean up all of the old month pages?  Accurately?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, a few quick questions, before diving into the technical details / feasibility of such an operation:
 * "pages with less than a certain number of events should be considered empty" -- what should happen to these, if we choose to transclude the days' pages into the months'? I don't think it'd be a practical model to have some days' pages transcluded and others directly written into the page. Neither I think it's a good idea to simply delete the content. What are your thoughts?
 * "Going forward" -- what exactly do you mean by that? things are alrady being made this was as far as I know, so there would only be a need to standardize backwards. Unless I misunderstood you.
 * --Waldir talk 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the technical how-to's will have to be worked out somewhere. We need some mechanism to deal with dates that currently have nothing listed.  By "going forward" I mean all the forthcoming dates will be created in the current format.  All of the existing dates that are in some other format will have to be dealt with and that could be a lot of work.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there will be much trouble dealing with unexistant pages (I assume that's what you mean by "dates that currently have nothing listed"). I was instead more concerned with what you intend to do about dates "with less than a certain number of events".
 * Well, the "going forward" part doesn't seem like an issue to me. I might be wrong, but I believe all day pages are already being created in that format (as subpages of portal:current events). If there are still people creating them in the main namespace, perhaps a guideline could be proposed. But by standardizing the past pages, future editors will certainly have a hint at what format they should use, anyway.
 * As for current pages not in the portal:current events/date format, I wasn't aware there were any recent ones; as far as I know, when the events of one day warrant their own article, its title includes the event(s), such as September 11 attacks, instead of only the date. Perhaps you meant pages like this from older dates, such as November 1, 2003. But for what I've seen, these usually have the list format that makes it easy to convert to the portal:current events format. as you say yourself, "the technical how-to's will have to be worked out somewhere".
 * Please let me know if I misunderstood something. Cheers, Waldir talk 07:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, putting them as subpages of portal:current events is good. The task is dealing with all of the pages like November 1, 2003 and the dates on which nothing really happens.  If, as a random example, it is found that only two things of note happen on August 3, 2009, what happens in that case?  A whole page dedicated to two events is not good.  Without some guideline, we'll end up with empty pages or pages full of useless trivia.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Maritza Davila
I need a deletion review for Maritza Davila. The page was a biography of her political and community leadership career.

Anthony.grajales07 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Anthony Grajales
 * It does not appear that this person meets the notability requirements for inclusion set forth by WP:POLITICIAN. If you feel that this is not the case, feel free to make your case at WP:DRV.  I also see that you have created a copy of the page at User:Anthony.grajales07/Maritza davila.  If you place the helpme tag on your talk page here you can ask others for input on whether the article meets notability requirements.  In summary, you have two options - make a case at WP:DRV or ask for input on your talk page.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Birthday List of April 19
I just saw your comment about the removal of my edition on the birthday section of April 19 category. I still don't get the idea of the guideline. The person I inserted there have been very famous and popular in South Korea for last 15 years and now he even hosts a nationwide TV talkshow which is one of the most popular TV program in the entire nation. I'm definitely sure he's more famous in South Korea than any of other people listed in that birthday list. I know that his name doesn't have the link to the article about himself so maybe I should translate the Korean wiki article that already exists to English, but still I think this is nonsense to simply delete somebody's contribution just because you guys don't know about it and you think it's 'unhelpful'. To make it clear, I am not his fan or anything related to him, I'm just worried that the contributions based on the facts and ideas of the people from not-worldwidely-wellknown contries and provinces such as Korea seems to be easily neglected in wikipedia these days. Thank you. I will look forward to see your response. --Theromeokid (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The guideline is very simple. To be included, an individual must be the subject of their own Wikipedia article.  You can certainly create an article about this person so long as he meets the notability guidelines.  There are three reasons why we can't have redlinks in the date articles.  First is that without an article, there is no way to confirm that the event, birth, or death occurred on the specific date.  Second is that the date articles are really just disambiguation pages which provide links to other articles for relevant content.  Without articles to link to, the date pages would just be lists of unconfirmed items with links to nowhere.  Third, if we did not have some standard for inclusion, we'd have no basis for excluding anyone and we'd end up with a list of thousands of names of people who happened to be born on a particular date.   We'd always be left taking everyone's word for it that an individual is famous somewhere.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for helping me clear the autoblock - as you can see it is lifted. However, I do want to know why I was blocked, what I did wrong, and how to avoid these problems in the future. Thank you Rkr1991 (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

BlackBatrusJapanHero
There is no need to warn this user. An indefinite block for only adding spam links is what is needed.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I dropped the note to be nice. Then looking more closely at the username and the edits, I did indeed block the account. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had previously blocked in March and right now I'm getting the websites on the spam blacklist.— Ryūlóng  ( 竜龙 ) 21:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)