Jump to content

User talk:Mufka/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Patrollbot

Hey there, I thought (because of your participation in the conversation here) that you would like to know that I coded a bot to mark CSDed AFDed and PRODed new-pages as patrolled. See the bot's discussion for approval here. I would appreciate your comment. NOTE: I am not trying to canvas you, I just wanted some input. Tim1357 (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Namepsace Deletion

Thank you for the deletion of those pages a moment ago, I was unsure of what template to use at first. Erwin Springer [talk] 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

primarysources tag

Back in 2008 you put one of these stupid tags on the Jamboree 2008 (Ireland) page. Frankly if you have time to go around adding these tags, you have the time to go and do some refs like I did. It took me about five minutes all up and it would take even the most anally fixated intellectually challenged admin about the same time. Nobody with a life takes much notice of such tags so why bother?

I would concede that the article which has obviously been mainly compiled by a scouting enthusiast needs a tidy by an experienced editor with some knowledge of the topic (ie. not me) but adding a ref or two is easy and can be done by anyone including yourself. Silent Billy (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. If you feel that maintenance tags that point out issues with articles are not useful, feel free to make a case at WP:VP but please don't call those who post the tags idiots or suggest that they are anally fixated or intellectually challenged. Community consensus suggests that the tags are useful in helping keep the content of the encyclopedia of high quality. Adding the tag takes literally less than two seconds and researching a topic in which I have no interest would certainly take a bit longer. All editors have their purpose. Some are janitors and some are authors. Additionally, I would encourage you to try to remain civil in your comments. Please comment on content, not on other editors. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

date page edit

you're no fun ;) wanted a bit of birthday fun, i would have removed it myself on the 12th. take care. leigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldastey (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User that makes lots of vandalism

I see this user with IP 12.239.87.132 always blanking random pages in the dates of the years pages, the first case I found is february 11 - Holiday and Observances. It seems that you are having a war with him trying to revert the page again and again? I will revert the holiday and observance page back again. Can you deal with this user please? because I have no idea how to report a vandalism... tell me if you replied my comment please --Rochelimit (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DOUBT !

--Delaywire (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)A CERTAIN BAND PAGE THAT WAS CREATED WAS DELETED BY YOU ( REASON - U DIDN'T SEE THE IMPORTANCE THEN, WHICH IS JUSTIFIED ).. AND NOW, SINCE THE BAND IS SLOWLY GAINING MOMENTUM AND ALL SET TO RELEASE THEIR DEBUT ALBUM THIS YEAR WE WISH TO UPDATE HERE FOR THE GROWING FANS. THEY HAVE BEEN HEADLINING MUSIC FEST ( THAT ARE ENTERED IN HERE ). I AM CONSULTING YOU, BEFORE ENTERING THE DETAILS OF THE BAND AGAIN.

DOUBT :- WHEN ACCORDING TO YOU A BAND/ MUSICIAN/ ARTIST CAN ENTER ITS DETAILS DURING THE JOURNEY ?. THANKS.

Who is "we"? And please DON'T YELL. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

````Hi Mufka,We is Band plus the management.Name of the Band is LOW RHYDERZ. And I am not yelling at u - delaywire( LOW RHYDERZ ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaywire (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't edit on a topic that you are directly connected with. You can't use Wikipedia to promote yourself. Have a look at WP:COI. You also cannot edit as "we" because it is against the rules to share an account. If your band meets WP:BAND, you could leave a note at WP:AFC. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Delaywire (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Thanks for the update and time. Much appreciated. After reading the links that were suggested by you, I have understood that WP needs solid links which supports the article content. LOW RHYDERZ were on Rolling Stone ( India ) magazine in NOV 2009. And unfortunately, there is no online version of the same available. Hence how to prove the fact?( A picture of the page can b provided ). However, I got the following links ( is this good enough ? ):- 1) LOW RHYDERZ on NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC website http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/bangalore-hip-hop/ 2) LOW RHYDERZ on Deccan Chronicle http://www.deccanchronicle.com/node/94729/print

  • Now I understand that no account should be shared and I shall oblige
Those links only provide trivial coverage. You'd need to show multiple published works from reliable sources. I guess the easy way to determine if this band is notable is do they have two albums on a major label? Do they have a single that charted on a national chart? Have they won a major award? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Delaywire (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)ok.. Cool... I shall wait for the Band to meet any of the above mentioned requirements to enter WP. thanks.. Bless up !

Not sure how to warn

Ifore2010 wrote "u cunt" on my userpage because I reversed his edit on recent deaths but I'm not sure what you're meant to say to warn them; however I'm glad to see he has anyhow been blocked.Eugene-elgato (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There was once a set of templates for warning users about editing another editor's user page. I think the only one left is {{uw-upv}}. The other ones ({{uw-upv2}}, etc.) now just redirect to the vandalism templates. The consensus was that user page vandalism should just be treated as vandalism. In the case of the edit to your user page, it is clearly just vandalism and could be treated as such. I blocked the user because that edit came after a last warning, so there is no need to warn now. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I kept one of the old ones because it has language that tells the user to login as the correct user if they are editing their own user page from another account. See User:Mufka/uw-upv1. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks very much for this; it happens relatively rarely but clearly there are always new people who don't want to edit in a productive way.Eugene-elgato (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Evangelisch-reformierte Kirche‎

Hi Mufka,

Thanks for fixing this. But Evangelisch-reformierte Kirche‎ was supposed to be deleted to redirect from Evangelical Reformed Church to there. Contributors felt that the name "Evangelical Church" is not an adequate translation and not used widely in the English speaking world. See the RfC [[talk:Talk:Evangelische_Kirche_in_Deutschland]]. Mootros (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw a circular redirect and tried to sort it out. My mistake. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Still Holding On

Good day, I just logged on this morning, less than 24 hours after I created the entry of the album "STill Holing On" and it was deleted already before I could follow the instructions to request a hold on it. The album exists, I have it, and it should be included due to it being significant to Michael Bormann's career starting as well as for the start of the career for Jurgen Richard Blackmore, son of Ritchie Blackmore. Why wasn't I given a chance to respond? Thanks. Bonfire34 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was about an album that was put out by a band that does not have an article. It appears that Michael Bormann is only marginally notable and all of his side projects wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion. Have a look at WP:BAND to see what it takes to meet the notability requirements. If an article does not meet notability requirements, we can't just leave them waiting for the author to come back and comment. How could we know that you'd ever come back? After you review the relevant policies, you can recreate the article if you feel that it meets notability requirements. But be aware, that the community will ultimately decide if the article should stay. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Manzie Johnson

Johnson passed WP:MUSIC, and this article was not eligible for A7 deletion. Please have a second look. Chubbles (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

On review it does not appear that this individual meets any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. If you disagree, please make a case at WP:DRV. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What about criterion 6, since the article (correctly) reported participation in two significant ensembles/orchestras? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Mufka. You have new messages at Hercule's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Candidate for user block

Hello! Yesterday you speedy-deleted and salted the page iHlebis because it was the second time the exact same article has been recreated after being AfD'd. That was a wise decision, but you may need to go further and user-block the creator, User:Hlebz. He just created the exact same page again, this time calling it Hlebis. Someone has nominated it for speedy deletion but apparently they didn't realize it was a third recreation of an AfD'd page. Besides the constant recreation of this page, all the information in it is demonstrably fraudulent, as proven at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IHlebis. The user is actually a 13-year-old middle school student in Canada, inventing a persona for himself. His blog is called Hlebis; his real name appears to be (bleep! I guess I shouldn't post his real name here, but he's posted it all over the internet.) He seems to have some kind of obsession with iJustine; he claims to be married to her, and his article is copied from hers even though it doesn't apply to him at all. The infobox claims he was born in 1980 but the categories indicate he was born in 1996, which is confirmed by his blog and by photos of him posted there [1]. He is clearly trying to make a mockery of Wikipedia and I propose him for a user block. Thanks for looking into this. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Mufka :D --Rochelimit (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

accidentally saved page

hello mufka, you recently deleted my page because it did not show significance. i apologize for this as i accidently saved the page, but just wanted to save my progress. i am still editing the page. can you please help me re-open the page so i can finish working on it? thanks and sorry for the inconvenience.

Robbrowning (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)robbrowning

You might want to start the article in your user space so that you can work on it for a while without worrying that it will be deleted. Once you think it is ready, use the {{helpme}} template on your talk page to get some opinions on whether it will likely survive as an article. Start the article at User:Robbrowning/Wonder Writers. Good luck. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your suggestions. i am working on it and it should be ready in about an hour. also, how do you add photos to the article? thanks for the help again. Robbrowning (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)robbrowning

Have a look at Wikipedia:Image#Using_images for info on adding images. BTW, the {{helpme}} goes on your talk page at User talk:Robbrowning along with a statement about what type of help you want. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blanking my user talk page

Hey there! I actually meant to speedy my user talk archives, not my user talk page. But thanks for helping :) MJ94 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD - Urethra Gauge - next step

Hi Mufka. What's the next step for the deletion of Urethra_gauge? Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Urethra_gauge peterl (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD's generally go at least 7 days. An admin will come along and close it. Or if they feel that there wasn't enough discussion, they'll relist it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. peterl (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrative Professional Day

Hi Mufka, I don't think you should remove Administrative Professional Day. It was listed in April 19 in the sentence "the earliest possible date". If you remove Administrative Professional Day, that means you have to remove other observances e.g. 'earliest day for Easter Sunday' on March 22, written long before my cleanup, and also the Hindi New Year in April 14 and the quartet of vernal equinox, summer solstice, autumn equinox, and winter solstice on the dates of equinoxes/solstices.

I personally think it is okay to put "earliest possible date", because even though they don't have a fixed date, they do have a fixed period. There are many important observances listed as "second Monday" or "first Thursday of November" or "friday preceding wednesday ash" which I think is unfair for this days not to be listed in the observances.

But I do aware that some observances are impossible to include in the Observances Section because they are constantly moving (not static in date OR in period), e.g. Jewish and Islamic observances which constantly moving backward. That's why I won't include these observances.

So eventhough APDay has a nonstatic date, it has a static period, therefore I think it is okay to include in the Observance Section.

What do you think? --Rochelimit (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea behind the observances listing in the date articles is, like other things that are listed, to show things that happen on a particular date. We should include things that pass the test of "it occurs on this date" not "it could occur on this date". Including observances that occur on a range of dates becomes problematic because if we did, then we would be forced to entertain the argument that we need to include every observance regardless of whether is has a static date or even range. People will (and have) argue that we need to include the Jewish observances, for example. Easter is a perfect example of something that shouldn't be listed. It changes every year and could be a wide range of dates. If we include Easter, it would need to be listed from March 22 to April 25. There is little utility in that except for trivia. (I've removed Easter several times, but it does sneak back in.) IMO, the date articles are for reference to things that occur on that date consistently. That's how WP:DOY was written. Separately, the unofficial US secular observance of Administrative Professionals' Day shouldn't be included either way, even though it passes the first level test of being the subject of an article because it has little relevance outside the US - but that's just my opinion and that doesn't count for much. Some of these other observances might find a home in a Holidays in April type article. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, so what do you think for my next clean up? Should I include this 'second monday-first thursday-equinox' observances or not? I personally think I should include this though... just for the information. --Rochelimit (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I will leave administration professionals day empty, but I think that date is well-established enough though.. it is part of the microsoft outlook calendar reminder!--Rochelimit (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't personally like the earliest date thing. If something can be tied to a particular date, then that should work. I don't know anything about the 'second monday-first thursday-equinox'. I would just put them on the popularly accepted dates. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
ok I will consider this. --Rochelimit (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valleyside show

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valleyside show came back with a fairly ambiguous result. You've been looking at this situation longer than me, and I'd like your input.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've only got about a day's head start on you and you've looked into it a lot more than I have. I thought the SPI would be a slam dunk, but evidently that isn't the case. I'm hoping that the problem might fix itself if the disputed content can be refined to include a higher level of support. If the content is well sourced, removal without discussion can be treated as vandalism and dealt with accordingly. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Busty Heart

As interactions with Busty Heart have shifted to OTRS ticket 2010042010001452 handled by JzG, I've taken the liberty of removing your attempts to communicate with her on her talk page and replacing them with a single standard welcome message.

This doesn't reflect on your good faith actions, but was done by me in an effort to smooth further communications with a person whose biography is featured in our encyclopedia. I hope you understand and agree that this is the best way to move forward. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I had restored the active block message before I received this note. Since my only communication with the user was a block notice, you might have me confused with someone else. I don't see a point in removing the notices left by others because they are relevant to the editing history of the user. Since I can't see the OTRS history, there might be more to it. The editor doesn't hide their identity so a few COI and bad editing notices seem harmless to me and shouldn't garner special treatment. But I'm leaving it alone. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Persistent Spammers...

Hi Mufka. My fingers are bleeding about now undoing 205.174.22.77's spam. You wouldn't know if there is a bot that does such a thing automatically, do you? Save me wearing out my keyboard too... :p Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that the correct IP? I don't see any contribs on that one. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops. I must have copied it wrong. I see it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. No I gave the wrong one. Couldn't see properly for the blood on the keyboard... 205.174.22.27. You blocked it a little while back, so your the first one I thought to ask :-) Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Right. I got the right one from my block log. To answer your question, there are bots that clean up spam links. I'm not sure how they work. Those edits tripped the abuse filter. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah! The abuse filter probably adds to the bots' trawl list. I'll leave well alone next time (what next time...? ;-)) and let the bot do it's thing. Thank you. Best wishes.--Haruth (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Formula One categories

Thanks for that. He has been a little, shall we say, uncommunicative for quite a while. What he did was change the criteria for inclusion in that category, then remove about a hundred articles from that category to fit his new criteria. Basically a driver is included in that category if he's American and took part (at least once) in a Formula One race. That includes the Indy 500, but only during the 1950s, when it was part of the World Drivers Championship. It's a slightly technical point, but it was clear in the category inclusion criteria before he changed it. We'll have a discussion at the Wikiproject, and probably revert him back if the consensus dictates, or take the opportunity to clarify it further. It was just the blatant refusal to communicate that was irritating. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Days of the Year

Where was this made a guideline? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The guideline is at WP:DOY. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Now I see context for your question, so my response is at WT:DOY. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Noinq

I am attempting to get an entry in the site for this concept. What validation do you require to ensure that this is a real concept and may be presented? Thanks! greg@jacobsracing.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobsracing (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The first question that I have to ask is if this Noinq is something that is a product or service of Jacobs Racing? Second, you need to provide reliable sources that support the notability of the topic. Start by reading WP:RS. Then I would suggest that you create the article in your user space at User:Jacobsracing/Noinq so you can get it all cleaned up and ready for publication. Once you think you have it finished, use the {{helpme}} tag on your talk page at User talk:Jacobsracing and ask for input to see if it meets requirements. Not to pile things on, but you should change your username because it doesn't comply with our username policy. If you don't do it voluntarily, you will be forced to. You can go to WP:CHU/S to do that. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy day?

Dear Mufka, there is a new day on September 30 called Blasphemy day (I know these American days are getting more and more uncontrollably "free"). I'm planning to keep it on September 30 (sort out, regular clean up), but maybe you can give your own comment on the talkpage of the article since you are more experienced. What do you think? I have the feeling that it will be another war on freedom of expression thing around September 30.--Rochelimit (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly a low profile observance with no evidence that it is widely observed or that it is widely acknowledged. Notability and evidence of its recurrence is weak. It doesn't belong. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Qotsa37/For All We Know (band)

Seriously? The pages that I create in my userspace are my own business. And I didn't request deletion. I have a bunch or articles that might never meet notability, but that doesn't mean the they should be deleted. My userspace, my pages, my business. qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though you misunderstand the policies that govern your user space. Please read WP:USERPAGE. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
yeah, but for all we know could reunite or something. ya never know dude. draynah (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Judy Roberts albums

Hi, I have just noticed that the three Judy Roberts albums that I created have been deleted on the basis of being 'non-notable music by artist for which no wikipedia article has been created'. I was planning to create an article for the artist, but didnt realise that this was a prerequisite for creating an article about their albums. Both the artist and their albums are reviewed on Allmusic and I was under the impression that this makes them sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. If I create an article for the artist, can the album articles be re-instated? Thanks. Nostalgic34 (talk)

Be sure to read and understand both WP:BAND and WP:NALBUMS. If these criteria are met, then you will be safe but the artist article must come first. A mention on Allmusic alone is not sufficient to support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So if I do create an article for this artist and for Fourth World, will the 4 album articles be re-instated, or will I have to do them all from scratch?Nostalgic34 (talk)

If the artist article meets the notability requirements the albums might be notable enough. But looking at the old album articles, they were light on reliable sources. The best thing would be to create the artist article, see that it meets notability requirements, and they begin work on the album articles. The best place to work on the albums is in your user space. If you want, I will userify the album articles so you can work on them some more. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I userified User:Nostalgic34/Nights in Brazil, User:Nostalgic34/The Other World, User:Nostalgic34/Live at Ronnie Scott's (Fourth World album). I didn't see a fourth album. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you that's great Mufka, I will work on them a bit more and do artist articles for both of them. The fourth one was Nights in Brazil, but I see that is already userified. Thanks.Nostalgic34 (talk)

PAU DO BODE

Why delete PaudoBode article? I know it's far from complete but I was expecting people to give some contributions.. I Guess It's not worth it to do one about PauDaCeleste... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.166.125 (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:FIRST. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Deletion: Hana Podolska

Hi Mufka, I was just wondering if you could provide me the rationale for your deletion of that article? (If you speak Czech, that would, of course, make sense.) Just trying to understand the speedy better. Zelse81 (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A machine translation indicated that it was a bio that didn't sufficiently establish the individual's notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Zelse81 (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mufka/Archive_10&oldid=1190136472"