User talk:Mz7/Archive 12

Sheepshead (card game)
I notice you closed the move discussion at Sheepshead (card game). The proposal was to Sheepshead (game), which was explicitly supported by one editor. Two editors supported the move with "card game", while three editors gave unspecified support. That hardly seems to be a consensus for "card game" rather than "game" - would you care to explain your rationale? StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for letting me know about this. I thought that the consensus was strong for a move to (card game). Obviously, I was wrong. I've requested a move to Sheepshead (game). Thanks again, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

fernet branca
hi, i added a comment about fernet branca earlier that you have deleted. May i politely request that you reinstate it? My comment was based on years as a national sales rep for the chief importer of the drink and was in good faith. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.206.153 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I replied on your talk page. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Need clarification on newly created article
Hello Michael, I have created an article and moved to real page yesterday. I see a warning set by you that it contains weasel words. May I know what lines you are referring to in specific please? I am referring to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Vishnu_Teertharu Anil Desai 15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anildesaiit (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Anil. Reading this article, the tone being used doesn't sound very encyclopedic. For example, "Mother was so righteous in nature.", "Jayateerthacharya was all wealthy by God’s grace. At the same time he was so kind in nature...", and "One fine noon...". This sounds more like a piece that would be used for a religious website rather than an encyclopedia. Do you think you could rewrite it to conform with our policy on neutral point of view? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

I understand however, as we know that religious topics are linked with sub topics like incarnation of monks, great personalities, miracles of God etc, these are going to remain with what happened in reality of history and thus required to explain it. If they are neutralized then probably we will loose the link of understanding what happened with incarnation of such monks and why is it storied like that in history, or may be hiding it?

So let me rephrase and ask you again that if you are only concerned about words that am additionally using that seem to be promoting or subjective? OR you are concerned with believing in stories written like "Miracles", "Eternal knowledge", "Blessings" etc?Anil Desai 07:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anildesaiit (talk • contribs)


 * Not at all. I'm saying that Wikipedia probably isn't the place to write about it. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document and inform readers of information about a wide variety of subjects. We do not lean the articles into promoting a certain religion, etc. Create your own website, Wikipedia just isn't the place. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/University of Georgia College of Education
I have undone your non-admin close which quite clearly did not meet the criteria of WP:NAC. In particular whether this should be a straight redirect or a merge was still open to debate. TerriersFan (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mistake acknowledged and stored for future non-admin closures. Thanks! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

School PRODs / AfD
Hi there. Please consider not PRODing  or not  AfDing non  notable primary (elementary) and middle schools. Instead, in order to  save time and user resources, please consider redirecting  them yourself according  to  the long standing  precedent  documented at  WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (100s of schools). To do this, please ensure that  the school  is at  least  listed on  the target  page which  should generally  be the article about  the school district (in the USA) or the article about  the school's location. Please remember to include the  on  the redirect page as it automatically populates an important  category, and if you need any  help, don't  hesitate to  ask  me on  my  talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Kudpung, thank you for the advice. I will boldly redirect non-notable primary school articles the next time I see one. However, I do not remember PRODing or sending to AfD a school for a while now. I AfDed Ann Simpson Davis Middle School and PRODed Worthington Estates, but those were over a year ago, and I am well aware now of the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES precedent. Perhaps I'm suffering from temporary short-term memory loss... Thanks again, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy Warhol
Thank you for fixing that. I messed up the first rejection and then undid my rejection to correct my mistake, and then I thought I went through and removed the unsourced information, but the edit must not have gone through. So thanks for catching that. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Close
Hello. I responded to a close where the closer said he did not understand you, saying what I thought you might have had in mind when you re-listed an AfD. I may, of course, be incorrect, in which case you may wish to correct me on that talkpage. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Epeefleche. When I was reading the discussion, I was confused with what the editors who !voted to merge actually wanted. I apologize for being a bit unclear, but I wanted to make sure there was a consensus for merging content or redirecting without merging anything. Reading over your discussion, there seems to be an understanding (or misunderstanding, for that matter) that a "merge" close can go in many directions. You can merge all the content, some of the content, or maybe even none of the content. The latter option is worth questioning. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. And I don't believe there is support for the notion that a merge includes merging zero content.  Clearly, "some or all of the content" must be copied and pasted into that page.  Per wp:merge.  Feel free to add your thoughts to the talkpage discussion, if you like.  (And, as you can tell, the lack of clarity bled over ... the merger merged in a manner that the closer did not contemplate).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
 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 13:51, 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) 01:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yikes!
Sorry about that; I couldn't help but think I'd done something wrong, and it turns out my suspicions were well-founded! :)  dci  &#124;  TALK   15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)