User talk:Mz7/Archive 11

Re: The Special Barnstar
Thank you! I really appreciate the kudos :)  Th e S te ve

DarkToonLink (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

AMC edit
I changed the Commander because a change of command has happened and General Johns is no longer commander. http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7732 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellomonk (talk • contribs) 04:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Revisions to the Christopher Erb Page
Hi Michael,

I wrote my first page a few months back (subject was Christopher Erb). Thanks for taking the time to review and approve. It was really exciting to see something I contributed be up and live. However, when I went back and checked it, there were a couple notifications at the top of the page. I made revisions based on the notifications, but they're still up. They've been there since August. Is there a process to have the page re-reviewed. The main issues were that the page didn't have other pages linking to it, nor did it link out to other pages. It now has both of those things happening.

Please let me know if there's anything else I can do from an editing standpoint to improve the quality of the page. Thanks!

--Jason.lepore (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter
Delivered 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Semi vs. pending changes
Hi. I just semiprotected Owl City indefinitely in response to your request at WP:RFPP. For me, the key difference when choosing between semi-protection and pending changes is whether or not there are sometimes useful IP contributions. If there are sometimes good non-confirmed additions, then pending changes is a good choice, because it lets those editors still attempt to edit the article, without having to go through the effort to do an edit request on the talk page. At the same time, it stops any vandalism from becoming immediately visible on the article. Pending changes is particularly useful on BLPs, for articles that are regularly edited by IPs but are occassionally victim to terrible attacks that are BLP-harmful. In the case of Owl City, however, looking over the past month or so, I don't see any useful edits by IPs, so I didn't see any reason to put regular editors through the hassle of just rejecting every proposed change. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent death template
You display a fundamental misunderstanding of the recent death template. The purpose of the template has been debated at great length, in appropriate fora (See and, for examples). Many editors have favored simply eliminating the tag altogether, but the majority of us favor keeping it. The caveat? It is to be used with the understanding that it is to be used (for a short time) after a notable person dies, in some cases when the circumstances surrounding the death or the ramifications of their death or other information pertaining to their death are temporarily uncertain. There is almost never a case where someone famous will need to be tagged for more than a few hours, because there are rarely such mysteries in today's press-intensive world. While you did not understand this, fortunately, this editor did.

I strongly recommend that, before you again use that template, that you read those discussions. I think you'll realize that actually, in the majority of our subjects' deaths, the template is not needed at all, and when it is needed, it can be removed quickly. Good day! 76.106.149.108 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael
By the way, there are lots of females with the name "Michael", though not as many today as there were 20 years ago. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and please provide clarification
Thank you for the message you left on my talk page regarding my efforts to prevent vandalism on the Les Twins article. I have reviewed Wikipedia's rules per your suggestion and will refrain from labeling edits as vandalism. Instead, I will assume good faith even if it is necessary to undo a revision. However, I will continue to be diligent in monitoring the article as I do believe some frivolous edits are being made. For example, today (as in previous weeks), the subjects' names and nicknames were rearranged twice by IP users. The first time, the revision was undone by an admin due to the fact that it was an unnecessary change and no reason was provided. The second time, the revisions were accepted by you and a different admin although still no reason was provided. I am unclear as to why. In this one specific instance, I feel the IP users are abusing good faith as well as displaying a lack of regard for the time and effort required to review edits. Moving forward I hope such changes will be consistently discouraged. As a new editor, I really appreciate the guidance and support you are providing. Mizztotal (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mizztotal! Usually, when I see an edit that switches around information without making a huge impact on the page overall, I leave those edits alone, or let them pass. There's really nothing that's wrong, because the result is just as valid as to original. Now, the first edit introduced factual errors, as it is verified in a citation that the respective nicknames were correct prior to the edit. After the edit was made, it was undone by an anonymous user (User:2602:306:242E:E4D9:51F:A2AD:6A61:D8AB), not an administrator. However, the second edit corrected the original edit's mistake. You then reverted it for vandalism. In any case, an edit, while it may appear to have no reasoning behind it, should be assumed to be made in good faith, unless it is obvious that it was made to harm Wikipedia. You're right, the editors can be very time-wasting by their nonsense good-faith edits, but that shouldn't mean that those edits should be discouraged. Minor editing can help the user get used to editing on Wikipedia and make edits in the future that are more constructive. Sure, there's the sandbox, but nothing beats editing real articles. The problems only arise when an editor disagrees with another editor on the look of a page, and begin to constantly revert each other's edits. That's called edit warring and it can get you blocked. However, edit warring isn't vandalism . Cheers, happy holidays, and happy editing! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess you did a mistake about 2013 britney's upcoming album ! cause will.i.am tweeted something about britney's eighth album, he said that he suggest her to name it "It's Britney, Bi**h!!" basing on her song "Gimme More" and will.i.am's last single "Scream & Shout" so ... I'm asking u where did u bring the information of the fact that britney going to name her album "Blackout 2.0" ? maybe I'm wrong .. thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.240.244 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

thank u soooo much and yes I made an account :D keep advising me and teaching me until I get to be one of u guys ! by the way ... I wanted to know how can I upload a picture ?? O.o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.240.244 (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)