User talk:Mz7/March–May 2016

Re-direct
Hello, Re: the recent creation of a re-direct for the Fittipaldi F8D F1 car here. This request was made by an IP-hopping massively-disruptive editor well-known to the Wiki F1 project and who has recently begun asking for re-directs for cars which will never pass notability. He can then create poor quality articles from the re-directs. The target page here (Fittipaldi F8) is already a re-direct as it was sub-standard. It has also had to be protected as a result of the IP's edit-warring over the re-direct. See also discussions here and here. The F8D is never going to merit an article and as noted in the discussion re the March 87P (a car never raced and for which an extremely poor page was created), it would be better if the re-direct were deleted. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the tip. I noticed the history of the Fittipaldi F8 redirect, but I didn't realize how extensive the issue was. I think functionally, the redirect is a valid search term that readers might be looking for—it would also compliment existing redirects at Fittipaldi F8 and Fittipaldi F8C. Thus, I'm not sure if deletion is correct solution. We don't preemptively protect pages, so perhaps keeping an eye on it and reverting might be the best solution. I just saw the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One, and I would encourage you to file an extensive report at WP:ANI. In terms of administrative response, a ban would potentially be helpful, as that means edits by the user can be reverted on sight even if they seem good. However, while it's possible to ban the user, it's complicated because the user (to our knowledge) hasn't edited under a username. WP:CBAN states that bans of editors using only IP addresses are rare. Mz7 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. We are in the process of compiling a submission to ANI, but it's time consuming as this problem has existed for six months or more. He's been blocked three times already, but lengthy blocks are tricky because other people are using the ranges and his IP changes daily (sometimes more than once). He's up to around 100 IPs now. There's several other threads like the one you saw and many other editors have been dragged into it over time. I wonder if it possible to keep an eye out for re-direct requests for F1 cars from ranges 92.21.240.0/20 and 88.106.224.0/20? Probably impractical. However I think he knows we've spotted this ruse of his so might not try it again. Thanks again. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP has recently had a page deleted for Wolf Williams as it was a copy-vio. It was also not notable as it was a minor re-name of the original Williams Formula One team. He has now asked for a re-direct in the name of Wolf Williams Racing here. Don't know if there's anything you can do but the F1 project would appreciate it if the re-direct were not created if possible. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've declined the redirect. If in the future the F1 project feels that the redirect would be helpful, feel free to create it. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and for posting at ANI. I don't think a re-direct would ever be useful. I'm not sure if the team ever being called 'Racing'. Eagleash (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, a re-direct for Wolf Williams Racing did eventually get created due to a misunderstanding on the part of a member of the F1 project. The IP then went on a massively disruptive 2-day editing spree changing every conceivable page and creating useless templates. It seems there's little that can be done to curb his activities. Eagleash (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP has recently created and immediately had re-directed, an article for Merzario A1. They have now requested a re-direct for Merzario A1B here. Commented at request page as, once again, the car has no notability. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies – I somehow did not see this message until now. I have now added the redirect to my watchlist. Please let me know of further requests by this user. Mz7 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem...there's no reason really why you should be dragged into our minor dramas! Coincidentally the IP has today requested re-directs for Williams FW01, FW02 and FW03. (Different models of the same car). All three designations are already noted in the Williams FW article and in his reason for the re-direct the ed has basically copied and pasted part of the lead (crafted carefully by one of my colleagues) from that article. Having said that, a re-dir is not entirely unreasonable as currently a search for any or all designations does not automatically go to the FW page. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor is requesting categories for various Williams and Wolf-Williams related items here, here and here. All these cars (would) fall into pre-existing category Category: Williams Formula One cars and of the articles mentioned in the requests many are re-directs to Frank Williams Racing Cars or Williams FW. Personally I don't see any use for these categories. Would mention that the history of Williams racing is very complicated in the mid-1970s (to which this relates) and even experienced watchers of the sport can have difficulty following it. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kalasha Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital FM. 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) 15:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

22:17:47, 7 March 2016 review of submission by Labrodorite
Thank you Mz7! I was able to merge the pages through copying and pasting just as you suggest. I appreciate your help. Labrodorite (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Labrodorite. Face-smile.svg You're welcome! Mz7 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Undone your close
I'm not saying your close was wrong but the proposal A1 was a policy clarification statement. At the time of closing, it had 15 opposes which is not the ideal to confirm a stance. So, I've reopened it. --QEDK ( T &#9749;  C ) 03:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's alright, if you feel additional discussion would be necessary. Thanks for letting me know. Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Next Class
Hello, I have a question regarding season 2 of Next Class and also the list of episodes page. Is it now alright to create both pages now that we have an airdate for season 2 on Netflix? Source:


 * Hi . July 22 is still pretty far away. I would personally hold back just a little bit longer until we get a bit more information about season 2. However, as long as there is information about multiple seasons at the standalone list, I can see the purpose for having one. If you feel it would be helpful to readers, then go for it. Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Saw you got reverted. Sorry about that. The goal here is to make sure that the content at an episode list wouldn't be entirely duplicative of the content at the season 1 article—such an arrangement wouldn't be that helpful to our readers (it would be better if all the content were in one place). When more information about season 2 episodes does get released, I would consider cutting the episode list at Degrassi: Next Class (season 1) and pasting it at the episode list (so that way all of the episode content is not duplicated and is in one place). For the moment, if we have a release date for season 2, I would make note of that date at Degrassi: Next Class, but if that's all we have, I would hold back on a standalone episode list a little longer. Once we get a list of season 2 episodes, we can create the consolidated episode list for both seasons. Mz7 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine. I feel like that guy has a personal vendetta for me because he always reverts my stuff, even when it's sourced or not lol. But I understand what you're saying. Also, the show was renewed for another two seasons of 10 episodes each (airing in 2017). Do I just put that on the main page as well and wait for more info for season 2 to create the separate episode list page?Source: Anyways, thank you for always responding to me and helping me find solutions! Greatly appreciated.Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would put whatever information you have on season 2 at the main series page for now. Mz7 (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

regarding on the request redirect page of 73-9
Hello, earlier today I saw that someone actually ended up creating a redirect page after I requested one(last night, and I saw it eventually after this morning or something).

If there's a thing for this, could you edit it and change it to accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.25.247 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I've changed it so that it now reads as accepted. My decline was more procedural than anything, so don't take it as reflecting anything negative on your request. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was surprised someone actually did that. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.25.247 (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Peer review/Wings for My Flight/archive1
Hi- apologies for the delay. All I meant about quotes being "a bit journalistic" was that they read more like something from a newspaper article than like something from an encyclopedia article. So, for instance, you write:

"'I felt more comfortable changing the names because I worked for so long with those people, it was impossible to be honest about them if I named them,' Houle explained in a 1991 interview with the Rocky Mountain News."

Perhaps you could change that to:

"Houle explained this choice by saying: 'I felt more comfortable changing the names because I worked for so long with those people, it was impossible to be honest about them if I named them'."

It's certainly not a big deal, just something that jumped out at me. Best of luck with the article if you choose to take it further. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think I will implement your suggest. Thank you for all your help! Mz7 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerning "Birdie Sanders"
Mz7:

I was adding that last paragraph (tongue-in-cheek of course, as I am a Trump supporter) in an effort to point out the absurdity of putting a subarticle so opinionated and opportunistic on a page completely unrelated to its allusion. As a student of Middle Eastern history and culture, I do not appreciate seeing overtly political material on a page such as the Huma bird's page. I engage in such studies to get away from the political circus I see in the news every day, for I enjoy the contributions of mankind to posterity much more. I bet there are many figures that have been blessed with this phenomenon who are conveniently not listed on that page. The fact that the contributor is or is quoting a professor from an Ivy League university should not constitute validity in posting something so equally nonconstructive as my lampoon. Thus, I am taking the offending subarticle off the page in order to avoid more strife; if it is added again, I will take heed of the source of your consternation and I will remove the paragraph again, in order to insure proportionality. Thank you honestly for your consideration.

24.214.100.122 (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to be offending to you or the website; this is the first time I have tried to make a major edit on Wikipedia, and I was not sufficiently acquainted with the etiquette. I would like to know on what basis the "Birdie Sanders & Huma" subarticle is relevant to the ultimate subject of the article. It seems to me that the contributor used a tangential reference to the subject of the article in order to further a political agenda from current affairs. I would be just as offended (for aforementioned reasons) if the other side used the same method.

Other reasons I find with the subarticle irrelevant to the main subject: -Unacademic, noncited use of a pun in the name of the subarticle -A blatant attempt to aggrandize a certain professor, including a citation from his Facebook page -Improper grammar throughout the article

Now that I have shown some valid reasons to take down the subarticle, I would like to do so.

I understand this might seem petty, but I detest the tolerance of bias on any historical/cultural page by any editor, no matter how seemingly insignificant, on this wonderful site.

Thank you again for your consideration.

24.214.100.122 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for contacting me! I gave the section a read through, and I agree with you! The relevant Wikipedia policy is neutral point of view, which requires that we represent the various viewpoints on a subject fairly and without bias. The entire section appeared to revolve itself around a single Facebook post by a professor—there was no serious coverage in published reliable sources, certainly none that would justify the amount of weight the viewpoint was given. For these reasons, I have removed the section from the article. If you are at all interested in becoming a regular contributor here, check out our welcome page. This is a collaborative project, and as such, we will sometimes disagree on how an article should be written. Communication is key to collaboration, and we resolve disputes by holding discussions in pursuit of consensus, rather than trying to continually reverse other users' edits to preserve your preferred version of an article. Thus, I greatly appreciate you communicating the issue to me. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to let me know. Mz7 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Again
Hey, I know I keep coming to you for this but I was just letting you know that in the following days I'll be adding the season 2 page and episodes page for Degrassi: Next Class. The second season doesn't premiere until July 22 on Netflix, BUT Australia is airing the entire second season immediately after they finish the first season. So I'll have to make notes that it aired before reaching Canada and the US. May 30th is when it's slated to premiere and run for 2 weeks. I have gone through other pages on ABC3's pages and also found the title for episode 2. So yeah, I was just informing you in case you thought something was up. Thanks! Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 15:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . Sorry it took so long to respond. Thanks for letting me know. Mz7 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Wren's Since 1889 Logo.jpg
Dear MZ7,

the company that own this trademark gave permission to use the trademark on Wikipedia only and not for anything else... That's why I ask the designer to create a small one to upload to Wikipedia. I am in the midst of getting the permission email from the trademark owner in writing. Thank you so much for stepping in to advise a NOOB!

21/05/2016Latency23 (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page Mz7 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear MZ7,

I collect old tins and stuff and I like this brand so that is why I am writing on this brand because this brand is making a comeback after 20 years! Its like you know your favourite football team getting promoted to the top tier or making the playoffs.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latency23 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Al Giordano kerfuffle
Hi, Mz7. I saw you're someone who offers help and advice, so I thought I'd reach out. I'm getting a little discouraged over here. I feel that my hard work is being discounted and frankly I feel I'm getting yelled at for no good reason by someone who seems to have some sort of personal vendetta going on. I left Wikipedia before because I didn't want to deal with rude people .... is this sort of thing normal, or perhaps I'm being too sensitive? Mainly, is there anything I can do differently when it comes to the edits I make that would help avoid more conflict? Ricardiana (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . I think what helps is not a change in editing habits, but more a change in one's approach to editing. Realize that because Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, that means that we will inevitably disagree over what the best way forward is. We all have our own opinions on how Wikipedia should be written, and indeed, what subjects it should include. Our principal means of decision-making is the pursuit of consensus through discussion. In other words, the goal shouldn't be to avoid conflict, but to try to resolve conflict respectfully and methodically. Yes, sometimes, the discussion can get heated as passions flare. Sometimes, you might disagree strongly with what the majority of other editors agree on. It can be especially frustrating when you've dedicated a lot of time onto an article or idea, only to have it rejected by other editors. I feel like it's easy to come off as rude on the Internet because subtle things like body language and voice inflection that indicate politeness in the real world are gone. Short, terse, matter-of-fact statements can seem heartless, when they were really made out of concern for the project.


 * At the end of the day, I try to look at things in perspective – it's easy to take things personally and feel like there's some kind of vendetta going on, but I think in the vast majority of cases, the other party is also just interested in making Wikipedia better. No one has attacked you personally, only the content. Of course, that's not to say that abuse of Wikipedia does not exist, but I feel like the spirit of WP:AGF and the fourth pillar is that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt, approaching conflicts with an open mind, perhaps looking at it from a different point of view, and maintaining respect for each other even if we vehemently disagree. The goal is to build a high-quality encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect. Agreement is not a requisite for that atmosphere—in fact, disagreement and successful dispute resolution makes Wikipedia even better.


 * Apologies for the really long post. This is something I've thought a lot about too. I hope it helps. Mz7 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't apologize. Thanks for a thoughtful reply; I appreciate it. Of course you're right; it is hard to gauge tone or intention, so I won't take it personally. Sorry for such a short reply -- but I do really appreciate what you said and will bear it in mind. Thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)