User talk:Od Mishehu/Archive11

Any reason for this?
Since you used rollback rather than give a summary, I thought I'd ask... Pcap ping  10:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This template is intended to populate . In general, any changes to stub categories and their templates should go through WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals or Stub types for deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read Talk:Computer language? Would you really want me to take the stub to deletion and have someone retag a few hundred pages? Do you actually have a content argument here rather than behaving like a bot with a mop? Pcap ping  10:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As in general with Deletion discussions, redirect is a potential outcome. Additionally, your action would mean deleting . If you think such action is appropriate, bring it to Stub types for deletion, proposing to redirect the stub template and delete the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ani
There is something about you on ANI....[] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible your recent vandal has anything to do with your ANI thread? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Led Eleven Deletion
07:56, 10 September 2009 Od Mishehu (talk | contribs) deleted "Led eleven" ‎ (Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7))

Hi Od Mishehu, I am new to Wikipedia and tried to include an article about a local "Band" in the Rhein-Main area around Frankfurt in Germany. They are a tongue in cheek-performance act and somewhat well-known to the locals here. They have been around for about 2 years and do regular performances.

Is it possible to include a description of them in Wikipedia?

Thanks for your help,

freakbrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakbrother (talk • contribs) 08:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read our notability guide, and the sub-guide on bands, and decide for yourself. Please note that if you doo write an article, you should make it clear why they are important/significant, and cite a source for your claims. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you
Thank you for your help at Edit filter/False positives. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This was not a favor for you. I believe that it will reduce the amount of false positives, while still catch nearly all bad removal of all categories (whether by accident or vandalism). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hello Od Mishehu, I come to you because I urgently need admin help to protect two film articles: Veer-Zaara and Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega, and my request on WP:RFPP has not been taken care of for almost a day (in addition you cannot request protection for two pages). One individual with different IP accounts strangely keeps messing up the credits order in these two articles, swapping places between the film's supporting actor and leading actor (he is clearly a fan of this particular actress and thus gives her higher billing in both articles). He does that continuously through different accounts and now he did that again. I thought to follow WP:RBI or something, but it's impossible. Could you please protect these two articles? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  13:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks to me like there's an edit war going on, and that if you keep up you could be blocked for edit waring. We definitely don't need semi-protection here, ass this would give you an unfair advantage in what seems like an edit war where both sides are acting on equally good faith. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Edit war? In fact, I did not revert him again because I expected an admin to observe this. Please assume good faith on me instead of sending me warnings. I frankly feel very offended at your reaction. I've been on Wikipedia enough time to understand what I'm doing and what an edit war is. There's no edit warring here and no good faith from his part, and as you see, the anon uses different IP accounts to swap places between the film's leading actor and supporting actor. This is definitely sneaky vandalism. This is as simple as anything can be. Would you like this to remain this way? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this can be categorized as obvious vandalism. There may be some reason this anon is re-ordering the list (note that the content of the list isn't being modified) from multiple IPs. In fact, the exception to 3RR which mentions vandalism (bold is in the original; parts I want to emphasize are underline) says:
 * Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt.
 * It seems to me that what you've been reverting isn't what's described here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this user is changing the order into a new and quite ridiculous one, considering the fact that he places the film's leading actor below the film's supporting actor. Just imagine someone placing Olivia de Havilland ahead of Vivien Leigh in Gone With The Wind. There's no logic here. Vandalism or not, their edits are totally incorrect and biased, however "well-intentioned" they may be. It clearly is against any possible consensus. So would you be indifferent to the cast being organised in this order? It's inexplicable. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To take your example, if some user believes in putting these people (Olivia de Havilland and Vivien Leigh) in alphabetical order, is that vandalism? And if a user biased towards some actor places him/her higher than his/her proper ranking, that is conflict of interests, but not vandalism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, vandalism or not, this is not how it should be. And it is not at all an alphabetical order. This user clearly gives a certain actor higher billing over another certain actor, who is the leading actor. See the poster of the film and the order. Do you really suggest to leave it that way? Now this anon may change every film article the way he wants to and this will be accepted by admins like you? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is really against consensus, some other user is likely to agree with you and revert to your version. For now, I see one registered user edit waring with an anon (yes, I agree it's likely to be one person), and I won't use my admin powers to take sides. This request is still open, and I'm not touching it; some other admin may agree with you and semi-protect the page, or may decide to block you for edit waring. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that any other admin would do that, but I just am very disappointed at you as an admin who should know his responsibility. There's no misuse of admin power. The film is called Veer-Zaara - the main characters are Veer and Zaara. Shahrukh Khan plays Veer and Preity Zinta plays Zaara. Rani Mukerji plays Saamiya. See the Filmfare nominations for this film, she got a nomination for Best Supporting Actress. So how come this new order where the film's supporting actor is placed ahead of the leading actor is accepted by you? I don't understand that. There probably is a dispute, but one side is going against the most simple consensus. The most proper act to avoid edit warring and violation of consensus is page protection. I don't think there can be anything more clear than this case, which you insist to leave untouched. I was doing correct editing, I was accused of edit warring, I was warned by you like a vandal, and you do not even understand the simplicity of this situation. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Uncategorized stub
Good catch. That was my error, in the end. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotecting Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Lopez is a target of prolific sockpuppeteer Brexx (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive). If I had seen the request for unprotection, I would have strenuously objected. Brexx is known to use anonymous proxies, so the odds are good that the unprotection request came from Brexx. Please reconsider.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that there was a parallel request to undo protection on another one of his targets, Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the details of the protection log of the page, I found 2 entries - 1 from January 2008, for "Recent vandalism" (at that time, not all admins used expiring protection - see, for example, the protection of Attack on Pearl Harbor a couple hours earlier); and an entry adding move protection about half a year later (at the time, it was impossible to set separate expiry for edit protection and move protection). Neither of these seems to imply that the protection is intended to be forever. In fact, were sockpuppet vandalism a major problem on some page, I would think that the reason wouldn't be recent vandalism.
 * If Brexx continues to attack this page, feel free to re-protect it (with a better reason than "recent vandalism", as to make it clear to any admin reviewing it later). I still think that it is time to give the article a chance - I don't see any reason otherwise in the protection log. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of multiple categories including stub categories
Hi OM - though i can see why you've suggested "streamlining" this process, it's not a good idea and has been rejected in the past. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_discussions for my comments, which include a couple of the reasons why it actually makes more work in the long run. Grutness...wha?  00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of Template:Empty category
Hi, hopefully I wasn't too hasty at reverting your edit to WPFILMS Category. I removed empty category because (as stated in my edit summary) WPFILMS Category already carries an explicit message not to delete the category just because it is empty, hence I see the extra template as being superfluous. However, if empty category carries some extra utility of which I am not aware then I shall gladly concede the matter, though I do feel that that template requires improvement. Regards. PC78 (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also used to prevent the page from appearing in Database reports/Empty categories. If you think it's unnecessary to have this tag on pages which use the WPFILMS Category tag, feel free to request that categories which contain this template be excluded from the report - either at Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Empty categories or at its parent page (Wikipedia talk:Database reports). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Request made. Thanks! PC78 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Excavated
Hi- The first time I nominated this page for deletion, I put as a reason that the page had no content, but another editor reminded me that there were numerous pages that linked to it. So this time I updated all those links, eliminating the need for the page. I think the criteria for speedy deletion may have changed since I first nominated the page--I didn't re-read them until just now. What route would you suggest I use for proposing deletion in this case? Eric talk 15:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the reason for wanting the redirect deleted is because some page should be moved to there, that's covered by CSD G6 - see db-move. Otherwise, I recommend that you go to Redirects for deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Eric talk 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
... for deleting all those mammal categories! Ucucha 11:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:72.29.65.254
Od Mishehu, I don't know if you saw zzuuzz's reply at WP:OP/U here before it was archived. Looks like that ip isn't a proxy, but I couldn't easily tell from your contributions if you had taken any further action on it. Let me know if you're going forward on it, or I can pick it up and ask Dominic.

Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the subject of open proxies. I report such requests to the WikiProject, inform the requesting user that I did so, and then take no further action, letting users who understand the issues better handle the case. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, me either really. It just seems there's now a disconnect for this particular case.  One I reported there around the same time was unblocked by zzuuzz.  I don't know if he's taken it any further himself, so I guess thats the next step.  I'll go check with him.  Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Garbage / Garbage (band)
Hi there. I reverted you move to Garbage (band) discography. I understand the moves of categories (obviously), but the discography doesn't need it in its title. There is only one band named "Garbage", and no other article with the title "Garbage discography" and I think it's safe to say that the average reader would not be confused into thinking that garbage/trash/rubbish would have a discography. Thoughts? - eo (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Od Mishehu,
I hope this reaches you, I have not really been able to figure out the Wikipedia maze. My name is Tim Story, subject of a page you deleted back in 2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Story_(composer)

apparently for possible copyright infringement issues. I don't know who wrote the original entry, but it was factually correct, and no elements infringed on any copyrights of mine or others. It would be great to have the entry reinstated, but I have no idea how to monitor this process, or really contact you, but if you would like to contact me, please feel free to at lunzmusic (at) aol.com  Thanks very much, Tim Story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.70.228 (talk • contribs) 08:12, October 29, 2009
 * I have looked back at the deleted version of the article, and the site which is claimed to be the source is currently labeled as having a license which allows us to use it. However, it appears to be covered by an other criterion for speedy deletion - namely, it's an article about a real person, not indicating why its subject is important or significant. I would also recommend that you read our conflict of interests guide and our autobiography guide. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A. Chowdhury
Hi there. Sorry for the situation regarding this article. There are two cricketers with this name, and I had intended to write articles about both, but never got around to the second article. As I said to User:Boleyn, I had done this nine months ago and have yet to do anything about the situation... which I would agree is slightly illogical of me.

If I end up writing the second article in the near future, I should probably move the pages back. I will see if that's possible in the future. Bobo. 10:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

KalkiTech
hi, i created a page named KalkiTech and i was a bit late to add enough content,proof and reference to the article. now the page is deleted. can i create it again ? Kalki communication technologies is a company empannelled by power finance corporation of india for providing consultancy service to the state power distribution utilities, according to a person close to the development. This company is famous for its industrial protocol convertors link1, and IEC61850 protocol gateways link2. i think the article would posses only informational content rather than an advertisement. i dont have much experience in creating pages in wiki and if i am moving in a wrong direction please correct me. cheers Anee jose (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, if a page is deleted under the speedy deletion criteria, then creating a new page, which is about the same subject, is judged by the quality of the new page, and not by the old page. If you create a new page about KalkiTech, which does explain why it's important/significant, then it won't be deleted. Please also note that I personally will almost never delete a recreation of a page I deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

HunsV
Thanks for letting me edit through the IP block. I've been trying to get the blocking admin to let me edit for a year but I never heard back from him (presumably because he thinks I am his undying Nemesis-with-two-thousand-hands, or perhaps doesn't care about collateral damage.) It is nice to know someone cares, even though he does not. :) HunsV (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who actually allowed you to edit. As you can see here, it was on October 10th. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your second question for arb candidates
Dear OM, the rules clearly state that only one question per user is permitted, and we are desperately trying to reduce the number of questions, which all candidates are required to answer and which will multiply by their number (last year 28, which will present more than a thousand responses for voters to read).

Will you please consider withdrawing your second question? It is, as well, unclear why an arb candidate's vote for another arb candidate is relevant.

"An arbitor C is discovered to have known about Example's true identity and his/her successful RFA, but had made no statement publicly, or to ArbCom. Should C resign from ArbCom? If C runs for ArbCom in some future elections, would this incident make you less likely to vote for him/her?"

Tony  (talk)  14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

PS I've been trimming questions where it appears to focus the reader on the nub of the issue. Please re-add if you think the impact or key meaning has been lost; I can only make suggestions, but in the light of the one-question rule, it's now important to rationalise within questions. I've done this with one of yours, and I think it's more effective in its shorter form. Template:ACEQuestions. In addition, I still recommend that "Do you feel that it is important the community tries to resolve issues before arbcom step in?" could be dropped, since ArbCom's rules already spell out the answer, and no one, instinctively, would answer otherwise even if they hadn't looked at the policy page. Tony  (talk)  01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Category suppression-supporting templates without notice
Hi. It sure would have been nice if you had left me a note on my talk page about this discussion. I was the person who created the category years ago (back when category suppression was still in its infancy). Upon deletion of the category, it caused a ripple effect that messed up quite a bit of documentation (WP:CATSUP, which is the unofficial official guidelines for the practice, for one). Because of the category deletion, a bot went through and mangled the page--a page which is referenced on more than just the English Wikipedia by the way.

I'm not sure if I agree with the reasons for the deletion. I do agree that including some of the most commonly used meta templates that support the feature would flood the category. And, in practicality, all templates that auto-categorize probably should use one of the category suppression methods currently in use. Thus, IF all the templates were using the feature properly, the category would become useless. That isn't the case, and the category did have the use of helping novice templaters locate the how-to and why-do instructions so that new non-standard forms of category suppression don't grow out of control (as nearly happened prior to the category, the instructions, and finally the standardized meta templates were developed). Sadly, since I didn't know about the discussion until after I saw the deletion log entry for the category, I didn't get to chime in on the discussion and bring up the truly pertinent points before it was deleted after only 3 people weighed in--none of whom, I think, were involved with the project in the beginning.

Your thoughts after hearing mine? Please respond on my page or leave me a talkback notice there. Thanks! &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was deleted per discussion; the discussion can be found at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 31. To the best of my understanding, it's the job of the nominator (in this case, ), not the closing admin, to notify the creater of the page about the deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I misread the discussion. I thought you were the nominator, not the closing admin. With that in mind, I see nothing wrong at all in your actions. I'd still be interested in your thoughts though about the categories. And, yes, I did find the nom, but only after it had already closed and showed up in the deletion log in my watchlist. Bummer. Thanks for the reply. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

JME Article
Since this article is protected from being recreated by yourself, I was wondering if you could take a look at my version of the page and give me permission to grant it an individual article. Could you reply with any problems or limitations, thanks. TDW | talk  15:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the original page was deleted due to a deletion discussion, I think you should take this to deletion review. I would strongly recommend that you read the arguments at the discussion, and any policy/guideline linked from there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

((adminbacklog))
I have left a message for you at Template talk:Adminbacklog, regarding a most curious edit you did some time ago.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the addition to the documentation! I couldn't have expressed it as well as you did, I suck at writing short and succinct.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Category change ...
Hi - are you doing these manually? If you want, I can take (say) 'Barking & Dagenham' off your hands and do it with AWB. Let me know if I can help. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, a bots kicked off - and my watchlist has lit up! Good luck, Kbthompson (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Politicians - categories rename
Hi there, regarding the recent renaming, there is one category of Irish politicians called Category:Democratic Left politicians (Ireland) but in line with the other cats, it really should be called Category:Democratic Left (Ireland) politicians, that is '[Party Name] [Country name] politicians' format. Do you think it should be renamed/moved? Tx, Snappy (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea, but I wouldn't do it without a CfR approving it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing
Hi, Mishehu. What was the rationale for closing as keep? Thanks, --Damiens .rf 02:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see 3 votes to keep, while only the nominator and one user have said it should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how FFD closing works and as a admin you should know better. I've put you action under deletion review. Please, don't feel in the need to act overly defensive on the discussion. Recognizing one's own mistakes is a virtue. --Damiens .rf 10:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked sock
Yesterday you refused to lift a block request by User talk:Dubhtail whom User:Alison blocked for block evasion, but now he is evading the block by using an anonIP address. This diff to my talkpage clearly shows it to be him modifying his signature. This diff show him replacing the same anonIP address signature with his own username after the block was imposed. Perhaps you can check it out. Thanks ww2censor (talk)


 * He has also used another anonIP per this diff and this diff to my talk page. ww2censor (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * JohnCD has done some blocking per this post on my talk page. Thanks anyway. ww2censor (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the correct place to report sockpuppetry is at Sockpuppet investigations (shortcut: WP:SPI). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosniak
Bosniak is sometimes rash and intemperate but he has nevertheless contributed a lot of valuable information to articles about Bosnia and in particular the Bosnian war. He does not always behave wisely but I don't think he is being completely unreasonable in considering himself provoked by Psychonaut, who seems disposed to challenge Bosniak's comments in a way and with a frequency that does not seem entirely guided by practical considerations. It seems you have pro tem blocked additions to Bosniak's user page in order to cool things down, which is why I'm posting here. Opbeith (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, what has happened there is:
 * 07:15: Bosniak left an offensive unblock request. This came at the end of a sequence of edits to the page by Bosniak.
 * 07:20: Sandstein rollbacked Bosniak's edits, including the unblock request.
 * 07:20: Sandstein protected the talk page.
 * 07:30: Sandstein rollbacked his/her own edits to the talk page, thereby restoring Bosniak's offensive comments.
 * 07:32: Sandstein leaves a comment explaining his/her actions.
 * 08:59: I decline the unblock request, and my statement justifies 's protection of the page.
 * Given all this, I think I'm the wrong admin to talk to - I would recommend Sandstein is the admin who has taken the action. If he hadn't protected the page, I probably would have declined the unblock request and left the page open for more requests. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)