User talk:Mazca/Archive 2009

RE: Email

I've replied to your e-mail. :) — Aitias // discussion 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA#Keep's ridiculous questions.

Keepscases made a good point in this thread: "You'll also notice that my talk page is filled with messages from established users who appreciate my questions". Among people who are still left on Wikipedia, you made one of the 4 supporting comments on Keepscases' talk page. Is that still your opinion after reading the other messages on Keep's talk page and in the link above, and if so, would you like to argue this position in the current conversation? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd seen the discussion already and decided I couldn't be bothered to wade through it at the time, but thanks for the reminder. I still pretty much hold the same position as before - I think his questions are actually rather useful - and I've now said as much at WT:RFA. Cheers ~ mazca ^t|c 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Davidwr

Re: "For my personal amusement, I am imagining that you were indef-blocked for being the world president of the Resurrect Hitler By Drowning Kittens in Bleach Society, and uncivilly defending your society's viewpoint across Wikipedia." Um, maybe I was. Maybe the Pope just unexcommunicated me and icanhascheezburger.com made me honorary webmaster. Maybe.  :) P.S. Thanks for injecting some humor, I needed a laugh. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you're welcome. I hope you do consider running for adminship once you think enough of the community will support it - I think you'd make a good one. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are serious, please keep me watchlisted, and every now and then peruse my contributions. It will be awhile before such a thing can happen, but it's nice to know there are people who would support me given what they already know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'll be keeping an eye out. You'll get there if your editing carries on like it is now; there are some people that will probably carry mistrust of you indefinitely, but in time I'm pretty confident that will be a tiny minority. You do, after all, only need the confidence of ~75% of the participants. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Insert clever movie title here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Hadn't noticed your first one, I read Wikipedia at work but I don't check my email til I get home! ~ mazca ^t|c 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: William Pillar

No worries, I'm fine with William Pillar and don't see a need why the middle name should be included in the title. De728631 (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack Canfield

Glad you were able to sneak in between my edits (chuckle). Anazingly, we did not have an EC. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't notice your {{inuse}} template until afterwards... possibly because of the hilarious pile of templates that got piled onto the article. Glad I didn't edit-conflict anything - looks much, much tidier now. ~ mazca ^t|c 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It worked out very well... and I didn't even notice until I was finished. Usually I will do all my edits to an article at one time... reviewing each before moving on to the next, and not hitting "save" until I am all finished. This was a rare case, because of all those ridiculous tags, that I went after them one by one... working my way slowly and carefully through the article... being extremely explcit in my summary of what was being added and why... saving each new minor addition as it was made and and moving on to the next addition. You happened to do a "drive by" at the precise perfect moment. Great timing. And thank you. The closure, while an expected outcome, was a welcome surprise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed the right time... the outcome was obvious and the AfD was possibly impeding progress on improving the article, so it sounded like a good use of WP:SNOW to me. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

I wanted to thank you for your support and (especially) your comments at my RfA, which failed last night. I'm glad that you came to the voting conclusion you did, but I'm also glad that you made it clear why, including your reservations. I hope to run again in the future and have started admin coaching with another user to get to where I need to be. I hope to bump into you more often on the wiki! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam

Dear Mazca, many thanks for your support in my RFAs, Especially your kind words in my first run "I like the attitude, I like the question answers, I like the myriad of small-but-smart contributions." That was one of the comments that kept me here.

Chequers Tree

Chequers Tree fruit - eat when well bletted

Thanks to everyone who participated in either my successful RfA, or the trial run, whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks to I'm Spartacus! and Cyclonenim for nominating me, and for those of you who treated this as a !vote not a vote and reviewed your position as the discussions developed. I am deeply humbled by the trust that the community has put in me. I'd also like to thank my tallybots, the closing crats, the vandalfighters who wiped vandalism from my RFA, the users who initially welcomed me and gave me rollback, everyone whose worked with me here, those who created the various guides and tools for aspirant admins, the Lolcat who nommed me in my first RFA and everyone else who has helped make Wikipedia such a wonderful site. ϢereSpielChequers The lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree.

To copy this elsewhere type {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Ta muchly for RFA}}

PS I see your in Kent, do you ever come to the London Meetups? WereSpielChequers 23:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA Comment

I un-transcluded the RfA right before you commented on it. Would you consider un-doing your comment so the page can be deleted (if the editor agrees) rather than closing it as a NOTNOW? The paperwork... (Seriously, if nobody else contributes, I think it's acceptable to delete it entirely, and if ever there was a case that falls into this category...this is it.) No big deal if you want to leave it as-is.  Frank  |  talk  12:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted my comment, sounds like a good idea to me. Go ahead and delete it. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 12:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Waiting for user approval before actually deleting. Might wind up having to close it as a NOTNOW anyway.  Frank  |  talk  12:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. If you do end up closing rather than deleting it, it's up to you if you want to restore my comment to make it clear it wasn't just you that thought it was a NOTNOW job. Hopefully he'll agree to a deletion though, it's less traumatic for everyone. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what you did was out-of-process and technically incorrect. I also endorse it as a good application of WP:IAR. If brand-new-less-than-20-edit accounts start running for RFA more than once in a blue moon, we might need to formalize this procedure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since nobody had put any comments in when I un-transcluded, I was figuring on it being removed as if it never happened. I've seen that done before, even if I can't put my mouse on a diff at the moment. It was only after I removed it that I saw mazca had commented, hence this thread. The user in question has not responded, however, so I'm not against putting it back in or letting it ride for the moment. One thing I do not intend to do is actually delete it without user request to do so.  Frank  |  talk  16:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is all a fairly academic discussion until the user states a preference one way or another... if we don't hear from him, then I guess a NOTNOW closure is the only logical outcome; but it's a fair thing to do to delete it if he wants to. If he goes on to become a regular editor he'll no doubt find it embarrassing in future. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. See my talk page for details if you're interested. Log includes diff from my talk page showing user request, which I treated as a G7.  Frank  |  talk  00:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicely handled. Best outcome we could have wanted! :) ~ mazca ^t|c 01:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

SiBEAM

Hi - I noticed you changed your mind on SiBEAM. I would propose you give a chance to work through the article. I came in here to help out and the article was just deleted. If the deleting admin had an issue the article was different enough to merit a real AfD. That is all I am saying. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		To mazca for politely pointing out my error J04n (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch

Thank you for catching my erroneous switch of Ozzy->Osbourne on Black Sabbath and thank you for your civility in pointing it out. -J04n (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(replied on J04n's talk page) ~ mazca ^t|c 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex Cooper

I'm sure Alex Cooper has played competative games for Ross County. Dammed if I can find reliable sourcing for it though RicoRichmond —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicoRichmond (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

marijuana

i like your big section talk about marijuana65.58.203.31 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say "Thanks!" but unfortunately I have no idea what you're referring to, could you give me a link? ~ mazca ^t|c 10:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Mazca! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Thanks!

Not just for your support, but more importantly for your spectacular kindness. Take it easy and keep up your own good work! - Vianello (Talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. All the best. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Srsly

Why am I not seeing your name on the RfA report? :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Those people at RfA are scary! ~ mazca ^t|c 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

...well damn, fine, have a decent argument, see if I care!
Seriously though, I think you could breeze right thru it. It's not like RfA is as bad as, say, RfB. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right - I probably ought to give it a go in the near future. I have some vaguely traumatic exams over the next few days in pursuit of my qualification at work; but I'll think about it over the weekend. Tell you what - you get over your fear of nominating people for RfA and we'll talk! :D ~ mazca ^t|c 20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, fair enough. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

re:list indenting

I didn't put the # sign in because I thought that would mess up the numbering :-). It looks like that whole thread was removed from the RfA discussion by one of the 'crats anyway, but thanks for the heads up! - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems counter-intuitive doesn't it? In any case, I think the right decision got made in the end, that thread makes for less trolling if it isn't there at all. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A9 on Signs (Bloc Party song)

I think you may have misread the guideline. I hate quoting things and I'm not trying to throw a quote in your face but I figured that it would be easier to put it here and discuss it than have you go to the guideline to read it.

"Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

That's what I go by for song notability. It's pretty clear in my opinion. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how the article provided any indication on the notability of the specific song (charts, articles, etc.). If you did misunderstand, please re-db the article. If I missed a point for inclusion on WP:MUSIC let me know. Either way, if the article is still there in a week, I'll be taking it to AfD for a discussion. OlYeller^Talktome 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to argue WP:MUSIC with you - it would seem, without doing any further research at least, that you're exactly right there. The single might indeed fail the guideline for the notability of singles; particularly if it doesn't chart. If you want to AfD the article I would not object - though I'd probably suggest waiting a week to see if it makes the singles chart first.

I'm concerned, however, that you might yourself be misunderstanding the criteria for speedy deletion. The notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc) don't really have anything to do with speedy deletion: an article failing the relevant guideline is a great reason to say "delete" at an AfD discussion, but "subject isn't notable" is not a speedy criterion. You should note that A7 and A9 only requires a vaguely credible assertion of why a subject might be significant; which is a lower standard than notability. The speedy criteria are worded so specifically for a reason: they should be unambiguously unsuited to Wikipedia. Things that don't directly fit one of the criteria are by nature things that there isn't a community consensus to delete instantly: that's what WP:PROD and WP:AFD are for. In short: Failing the notability guideline is not, in itself, a valid reason to speedy tag something.

In the case of the A9 criterion you used on the article though, it's even more specific than that - it absolutely only applies if the artist doesn't have an article. The criterion was added to deal with the people who create an article about their obscure garage band, then create an article for their demo tape too. It's not there to deal with singles by notable bands that might fail WP:MUSIC. I hope this makes my point more clear - I'm not necessarily disputing that the article might be worth deleting; I'm just saying it definitely shouldn't be speedy deleted under our guidelines. Thanks ~ mazca ^t|c 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I guess I just don't know where that's written; that a song shouldn't be speedied if the band is notable. It was always my understanding that if notable isn't implied on the page, it's deleted hands-down. I guess I've just never seen anywhere that a song can be notable simply because the band is so I don't see how a song could ever be notable just because the band is. I'll look for it myself and AfD songs by notable artists instead of speedying from now on though. If you have a link for that, I'd be greatful. OlYeller^Talktome 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily the case that a song can be notable just because the band is, it's more that a song can't be speedy deleted because the band is notable. As for a link, I'd point you to Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria, specifically:

1. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant.
2. Failure to assert importance but not an A7 or A9 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 or A9 under those criteria.

More generally, just remember that if it doesn't fit one of the speedy deletion criteria, it shouldn't be speedy deleted. Non-notable singles by notable bands don't fit A9 (band has an article) and don't fit A7 (only applies to groups and bands, companies, people and web content). It's not so much that you should look for a reason something can't be speedy deleted; rather you need to realise the specific situations it can. If in doubt, it's always best to AfD so that a few people can look at the specific situation. Hope this helps. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Word. I'll do that from now on. OlYeller^Talktome 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Surprised

Just discovered that you're not an admin; that's news to me! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bwuhaha. See, you need to run. :) (and I need to write something for you, hush) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's mostly due to a combination of procrastination and general dubiousness about the prospects of an RfA. EVula seems to have backed me into a corner though, so that might change! ~ mazca ^t|c 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I only backed you into a corner because I'm a jackass. Nothing personal. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean you're an impersonal jackass? That's worse, surely? :D ~ mazca ^t|c 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well played my friend, but you just established that you're competent enough at wikilawyering to make an excellent sysop. Congrats, you've done yourself in. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...

I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I shall have a look when I get a chance. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Download it

I need to gain points on my Rapidshare collector's account.--4teas (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A worthy goal, but please do it somewhere else. Wikipedia is not for linking to your porn downloads. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Admin?

Hello, Mazca! I've seen you around, and I really admire your editing; would you like me to review you as an admin candidate? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I'd be glad to know what your thoughts are. I've been weighing the useful things I could do with admin tools against the unnecessary stress of an RfA. ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 07:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you did forget, I have a nomination statement on my computer waiting for you since a long time already. I'd still be glad to nominate you, – of course, just if you want me to. — Aitias // discussion 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I may be co-nomming with Aitias if this goes through... :) I'll get right on the review (note that I am also reviewing User:Kingpin13). Best, Dylan620 2 _Master 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

EVula's been threatening me with a nom for months too. ;) In any case I won't be able to accept a nom for a week or two - i'm gonna be away on vacation next week - but if multiple people actually want to nominate me I'd have no objections to a co-nom of any kind.

Aitias, I'm entirely happy for you to nominate if you're still up for it; regardless of any drama that's happened since our last conversation about this you're still very much an editor and admin I respect. And Dylan620, I very much welcome any comments you happen to have, positive or negative, whenever you get round to reviewing my edits. Thanks! ~ mazca ^t|c 18:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall create a page on which to take notes at User:Dylan620/Mazca. Best, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that your above statement still stands and you still feel like it, I have created this. In case my assumption was right, you can accept and answer the questions (whenever you have the time). If my assumption was false, just tell me and I will delete that page. Best wishes :), — Aitias // discussion 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Aitias. Your assumption is correct; I plan to answer the questions in the near future and accept it. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that. :) You're very welcome. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 17:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The initial questions are all answered. As before, EVula expressed an interest in writing a co-nom and plans to do it later on. I'll move, accept and transclude it after I'm home from work tomorrow, with any luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally did it, though I'll admit that I'd almost forgotten about it. Ugh, absent-minded professor is a far more accurate descriptor than I'd like.... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the miracle of time-zones you still managed to write it before I got up this morning, so no harm done! Now transcluded. *shivers* ~ mazca ^t|c 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) Good luck, Mazca! :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question

If you had the admin tools, where would you use them? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I wander around most areas; but I suspect a reasonable proportion of my activity as an admin would be clearing out candidates for speedy deletion, with intermittent appearances to close AfD's and keeping an eye on AIV. The admin areas I would most likely not touch would be DYK and arbitration enforcement. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

*psst* Just saying "correctly" would probably have worked, too. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that would have been a correct answer if the question had been "How would you...", but as "correctly" isn't a location... ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Son of a... yeah, when I wrote that I was already thinking "man, I'm tired, I should go to bed." *facepalm* EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mazca/UBX metal specific

Are you sure heavy metal links to the right place? Since this is the only negative thing I've found about your contributions so far, I don't think it's quite enough to oppose your RfA. Might be enough to make it a strong neutral, though... Jafeluv (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, you're right. I spent ages fiddling with that infobox to cram as much information into as little space as possible, but I clearly missed one of the more important parts of it. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Input requested

... at Talk:Perineum#Slang and piercing. Whatever404 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Responded there. ~ mazca ^t|c 06:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

your RfA

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm glad it went down so undramatically! ~ mazca ^t|c 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mazca, congrats on your successful RfA! ϢereSpielChequers 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! :) My condolences on your successful RfA. :( –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA candidacy, and the very impressive affirmation of your work here, with overwhelming support in your favor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Phew, what a lame first admin action. I'd expected something better from you. Seriously though: Congratulations, Mazca! I'm very glad you're an admin now, and I'm sure you'll do very well. My best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As you demonstrated, people are looking at my admin actions at the moment! I must lie low before I start blocking admins! ;) ~ mazca ^t/c 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Hell, enjoy the lack of ice water. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for your support and/or advice throughout the process. :) ~ mazca ^t/c 16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Astro_channelsTalk to Magibon 17:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect...

FMA's edits are disruptive, and he has been called on to provide sources for his information several times and refuses to do so. His indignance for Wiki policy, as far as I'm concerned, makes him a vandal and I don't appreciate getting yelled at for trying to combat his disruptiveness. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(replied on your talk page - feel free to carry on the conversation there if you have anything else to add.) ~ mazca ^t/c 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the shiny star! Abce2|AccessDenied 22:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from Pubdog

Thanks very much for the licensing tag on File:1832johnson.jpeg. This really helps me with the correct inclusion of these images on Wikipedia. Best wishes ... --Pubdog (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I know how unnecessarily confusing choosing those can be with the upload form. ~ mazca ^t/c 23:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WAOPKKPOWKOAKPW

Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gilles Villeneuve

I see you extended my semiprot for this page. No worries. :) Cirt (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, so I did. Wasn't intentional, we must have hit it at about the same time. If you think the shorter duration's more appropriate feel free to drop it back down. ~ mazca ^talk 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your action. :) Cirt (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the block

Thanks for the block.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) ~ mazca ^talk 07:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Lmcquillan

Was there a particular reason you didn't wait for him to vandalize after his final warning? ÷seresin 20:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He was clearly a vandalism-only account, with no constructive contributions. He went vandalising three times, then resorted to personal attacks against someone who reverted him - it's clear this guy is not here to help. ~ mazca ^talk 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. ÷seresin 20:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you do disagree I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on this - I've not been doing this all that long! It makes sense to me, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily right. :) ~ mazca ^talk 20:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No no, I just wondered why. Personally, I find the current must-have-four-warnings-to-be-blocked system to be silly. So good on you. ÷seresin 05:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I evidently read a tone of indignation in your original message that wasn't there! Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 12:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reaction

with this problem. -- Minvogt (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. ~ mazca ^talk 12:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My WP:PROD on Dimag

Sure, no problem. The page creator doesn't seem that bothered about it (not having removed the prod, or replied). Also, thanks for the encouragement :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

William Michael Rooke

Ta muchly.--Smerus (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded! --GuillaumeTell 16:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. May it be the first of many block conflicts :) (ok hopefully not). Cool3 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

delete?

I saw that you make administrative decisions in AFD so I would like to ask you a question. I am not a troublemaker. I don't try to have articles deleted to make people mad. However, I can't figure out if this article is worthy of deletion. Essentially, the person is a wife. That's it. The rules seems to say that a wife is not notable. See Lisa Niemi. If you think it should be deleted, please form an AFD request and I will study it to see how a nicely done and nicely written AFD is done and what eventually happens to it. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look at it; I do agree with you - it's really in Wikipedia's interest to crack down on unsourced articles about very dubiously-notable people. I have taken it to AfD - I would have normally simply redirected it to Patrick Swayze's article, but it seems efforts to do that in the past have been reverted, so a discussion seems reasonable. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 21:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis. I will study the arguments carefully and watch the dynamics of interactions between users. Hopefully, the suggestions given by other users will be carefully thought out. I think it is a delete. User F203 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about political or historical articles where a user seems to hold a particular political opinion. I can't think of specifics now but Israel or Macedonia may be one of them. Anyway, those users may be for delete when the article shows their beliefs in a bad light and may be for keep when the article is about their opponents' bad traits. They then try to quote WP policies or guidelines.

Hypothethically, what if someone is anti-Finland? I am for Finland. That's the "F" in my user name. The anti-Finnish users might be for deletion of the Lisa Niemi article and the pro-Finnish users may for keep. Since pro-Finnish people may be a slightly left of center, those users may be against the war in Iraq and for the Finnish practice of adjusting traffic ticket fines to income (so that a CEO may have to pay $1 million if they drive too fast on the highway). So when ever there is an Iraqi edit, they take the more common Finnish viewpoint, yet try to cite WP practices. What is the solution to this? (Note that I don't do this as I am completely neutral, despite liking Finland). Again, the question is how does one prevent POV pushing by biased editors? User F203 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Happily, that problem is rarer than you think - like yourself, the vast majority of our editors appreciate how important it is to keep Wikipedia neutral. While obviously everyone does have their own viewpoints, most of our articles try and include all the various viewpoints that major, reliable sources have held. In most situations, if a disagreement erupts then a discussion can reveal where consensus lies, and most editors are reasonable enough to stand down if it's clear most people disagree with them. When it comes to real, dedicated POV pushing, there's always the arbitration committee that exists pretty much to pull apart that kind of serious disagreement and sanction editors who are not working cooperatively to reach a neutral result. You can see from some of the cases (I'm particularly thinking of the recent one on the Macedonia naming dispute) that these things can get rather complicated and involve a lot of editors - but the people who really do exist to push a particular viewpoint usually do eventually get pulled up and prevented from continuing. ~ mazca ^talk 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:4thisiscool

Can you see what User_talk:Poison12346 contained which was deleted under "WP:DENY"? Triplestop x3 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a little angry rant that basically told the admin that blocked him for vandalism a year earlier to "grow up". Not very nice, but it wasn't anything particularly rude or outlandish. ~ mazca ^talk 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Niemi AfD

I've significantly expanded the article on Lisa Niemi that you AfD'd. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Well done. ~ mazca ^talk 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I saw that he was yelling at a user and has been reverted before so I went along and reverted him again. Apparently, he must have had a final warning so he was reported by Huggle, apparently. If this is a mistake, please forgive me. Thanks for getting back at me for your opinion counts more than you think and I wold like to know when I've done something wrong so I can do better next time;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 20:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Higher Heights

Can you see what User created Higher Heights originally, the version that you deleted back in June? AdlaiRallyns (talk · contribs) just now recreated it, obviously a sock of that other User. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Addyjuly who I indef-blocked at the same time for creating WP:BOLLOCKS articles with copyvio images. Apparently it's time for an encore. ~ mazca ^talk 22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for pointing him out to me. ~ mazca ^talk 22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi, is it possible to add Ilse Braun to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gretl Braun? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well-spotted. The same concerns obviously apply, I've added it. ~ mazca ^talk 08:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up ... not sure if I had ever closed a multi-article AfD nom, so I'm not surprised that I missed something - it's all about the learning, isn't it?  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Oakbrook Mall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oakbrook Mall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sebwite (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding conduct of User:Frei Hans

I have requested comment on the conduct of User:Frei Hans. As you have been involved in this dispute to some extent, I would appreciate it if you could comment. Papa November (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm only really tangentially involved, but I do share some of the concerns over this user - I'll take a look at the RfC shortly. ~ mazca ^talk 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been selected

...to be my co-mentor if I wind up mentoring Flameviper. :) Cheers, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 01:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Brace (sports) deleted

How are we supposed to tell people what a brace means now that we can't wikilink to the article? Spiderone (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was completely unsourced and read like original research; and was proposed for deletion by another user via WP:PROD. As it made no real attempt to discuss the subject in an encyclopedic manner or otherwise provide much more than a dubious dictionary definition; I agreed with it and deleted it without opposition at the end of the 7-day waiting period. However, as it was deleted via PROD I'm happy to restore it if you like, and it can be discussed at articles for deletion. Let me know if you'd like me to do this.

To answer your direct question, I would suggest linking them to List of cricket terms#B; and possibly expanding the definition of brace there. The term does not seem to warrant a separate article in my view; but that's up to you. ~ mazca ^talk 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Flameviper

Flameviper's been unblocked as Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just dropping a courtesy notice, since you're my backup and co-mentor. :) Best, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 15:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded on your talk page and I'm watchlisting both Ziggy and your talkpages, so feel free to respond elsewhere. ~ mazca ^talk 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to Ziggy picking up our messages. :) Meanwhile, User:Flameviper is fully protected from editing, but the banned template should be removed now that the community has lifted Flameviper's ban. Could you please remove the ban template, and add a notation regarding his unblock and mentorship under the alias "Ziggy Sawdust?" I felt comfortable coming to you since you're my assistant in mentoring Flameviper/Ziggy, though I do apologize if I am executing this request incorrectly; I have never made an editprotected request before. Cheers, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, User:SoWhy got to it just one minute after I made the request. Best, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, fair enough. All sorted now, anyway. :) ~ mazca ^talk 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Perpustakaan Alam dan Tamadun Melayu

Hi, it was tagged for expansion and translation, thus it should not be speedied. I'll send to ProD. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

I'm so glad it's not just me! ;) — Ched :  ?  01:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah. I've never been the biggest article-builder to start with; but I realized that since I've had all these shiny buttons I've barely done anything in the mainspace beyond deleting things. Already thinking about what I might write next week. :) ~ mazca ^talk 06:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

About "I haven't made any substantial edits to any articles since my successful RfA a month or so ago. This is an excellent opportunity to correct that.", that's a good analysis and self reflection! Good luck!User F203 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Michael Jackson

They were notable. I included a couple reliable non-trivial independent sources in the discussion. BLP says the article must follow NPOV, OR, and V, which it did, and to improve if it doesn't. I'll admit there were a lot votes to delete or merge, but none of them were backed by our policies and guidelines. Basically, they were "Delete not-notable" and "Delete BLP". Here are two sources[1][2] that prove the subject is notable, so the first argument is clearly wrong. BLP calls for improvement and not deletion, so that argument is used incorrectly. I was going to take this to DRV, but it says to contact you first, as the closing admin. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I really do think the weight of the arguments remained in favour of deletion - even those sources you've pointed me to still discuss those children in the context of MJ's death; and I don't think any of them have actually established independent notability. I personally remain somewhat on the fence as to whether this article was a good idea to keep or not; but I attempted to close the discussion in line with where consensus appeared to lie, and I feel that was pretty decisively on the 'delete' or 'delete and redirect' side.

I'm pretty sure that given the strong feelings on both sides this close was going to end up at DRV regardless of how I closed it - if I felt there was a keep consensus or no consensus, I think I'd have a different person here telling me otherwise. I will have absolutely no bad feelings if you wish bring it to deletion review - and I do appreciate you asking me first anyway. All the best. ~ mazca ^talk 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't exactly disagree with your close. It depends on how you look at it. I just think DRV is a good idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it isn't, because it will just result in another week-long drama party. If there's disagreement with the close though, it's the way it's done. ~ mazca ^talk 19:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's at DRV now, in any case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Arjun Ayyangar

Hello Mazca, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Arjun Ayyangar has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - subject has been on a couple TV shows and has other notable accomplishment (and corresponding RS coverage) - rewrite article into proper stub; add external link & stub tag)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Sweet

Thanks for the reverts and not bothering to warn. Always pisses me off when people assume too much good faith. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had bizarrely good timing at happening to check my watchlist as someone vandalises your userpage (even if you do in fact have a sandy vagina). That second guy was 100% obviously the same person you'd blocked, so he really didn't need further warning! ~ mazca ^talk 16:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my vagina has more sand than the Sahara, but that doesn't mean that I need to mention it on my userpage three times.[3] Good call. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary states indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Drama Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout 2009, avoiding drama for a full 5 days!--The LegendarySky Attacker 04:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Aitias

As you participated in the first RFC, I am informing you there is a second RFC on Aitias currently open. Majorly talk 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. ~ mazca ^talk 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

re: NAC

You're right - I overlooked the COI admonition ("Non-admin closure is not appropriate ... [if t]he non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate"). Sorry! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

user talk:98.247.78.228

Could you possibly lock him out of his talk page? He continues to abuse it. Thanks, →javért ^stargaze 10:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. That guy really needs a new hobby - thanks for letting me know. ~ mazca ^talk 10:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. :) Thanks much, and you're quite welcome. Best, →javért ^stargaze 10:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Small request

Hey, I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look over my recent blocks and see if any of them should be blocked longer as open proxies. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a look through and have reblocked a few. Honestly, I suspect nearly all the ones that were doing that anon-talk spamming earlier are probably open proxies; but for a lot I can't see much evidence one way or another, so your 72h vandalism blocks seem just right - we can always reblock if they come back later. Generally I'm going by whether they've (a) previously been blocked as an open proxy and/or (b) they show up in a list of open proxies via Google. Nice work, by the way, it looks like you caught an awful lot of them very quickly. ~ mazca ^talk 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

RFD Closures

When closing RFD nominations, please remember to remove the {{rfd}} template from ones that you don't delete. I've just cleaned up quite a few that you closed in the past few days. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that; didn't notice I'd missed those. I've closed quite a lot of them recently as nobody else seems to be doing it, glad you're keeping a look out. ~ mazca ^talk 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Partial Unbirthing

Hi, you deleted unbirthing as part of a redirect for discussion (here). I turned up Partial Unbirthing, another redirect. Should I re-discuss it, or would it be OK to just ask you to delete it as if it were part of the previous discussion? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Strictly, it probably ought to be discussed again; but the same recent consensus very blatantly applies. Therefore, I've just deleted it based on that in the interest of not wasting everyone's time. Thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 13:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UCS FTW! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to archive Willis Tower talk topic

I hope you have a moment to look at the thread between myself and 81.110.104.91 at Talk:Willis Tower#Archive? and agree with me that the entire "Archive?" section can be moved off the page and into the "Move" archive to end the discussion and free up visual space. Please either move it yourself and notify 81.110.104.91 it's gone to the archives or leave me a message and I will do so upon your agreement. Thank you – Sswonk (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved, with a little message left in its place in the article. I concur that the discussion was over and wasn't going anywhere. Thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bullet for My Valentine

Hi. Your comment is requested at Talk:Bullet for My Valentine in order to finally end all this lead genre ridiculousness. Timmeh (review me) 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded, thanks for the note. That article's always going to be contentious for some reason; but it does look like we have consensus on that genre with only one editor disagreeing. ~ mazca ^talk 08:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag must remain

This is in context to the article Possessions (film 2009), someone placed an Afd tag, I removed the tag and you reverted my edit saying that the tag shall remain till the afd is open. Please englighten me about this, cause I am naive. Nefirious (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The articles for deletion process basically works as such:

• Someone nominates an article for deletion, and creates a page detailing why. A tag is placed on the article to point people to the discussion. In this case, the discussion in question is here.
• The discussion runs for seven days, with people stating their opinions. During this time, the tag must remain on the article.
• At the end of seven days, an uninvolved administrator will close the discussion, and decide whether the consensus was to keep or delete the article. ~ mazca ^talk 14:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with the deletion of the page, you should say so at the discussion, not remove the tag. Thanks, I hope this helps. ~ mazca ^talk 14:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Digital Architecture

Hi Mazca. Would you or one of you rtalk page stalkers be so kind as to move the deleted article into my userspace? I'd like to have a closer look at it and see if there's anything salvageable. It seemed interesting, and I didn't have a chance to look into it much. Thanks in advance to whoever takes the time to assist! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC) The dead horse picture looks like an Iguana to me that's leaning and turning its head to the right while showing the skin under its neck. It doesn't look healthy, but could be alive. Clicking on the photo I see that it is a dead horse though. Reminds me of fractals. Seeing is believing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - see User:ChildofMidnight/Digital Architecture. Interested to see if you do find anything to salvage it - it's the kind of article that sounds like it might have some potential, but nobody could find any decent sources at the AfD. It mostly sounds like some slightly wafty prose you'd find in an architect's advertising. ~ mazca ^talk 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the dead horse, I can see the 'iguana' now that you mention it - the picture's slightly unclear at that size. Who'd have thought there'd be such a shortage of clear, free-content images of dead horses? Scandalous. ~ mazca ^talk 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The horse's teeth and a couple of white rocks happen to be in just the rights place to look like claws/ nails. And the branch behind the horse looks like the Iguana's comb. Fascinating! Thanks very much for setting the article up for me. I just read it. Yikes. I'm going to ask Giano what he thinks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't make heads or tails of the deleted article. But I threw something together (I like to say "threw up something") at digital architecture. Thanks again for your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicely thrown up. Certainly makes a lot more sense than the undeleted article, though it seems to be a fairly bizarre concept even when written in a vaguely coherent way! ~ mazca ^talk 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The subject is a bit theoretical for me. But I thought there were a few interesting concepts involved. And there is something called digital architecture that refers to computer and software design (or something like that anyway). So the article may need to be disambiguated at some point. I always hold out hope that someone will come along and cleanup entries I've created and fix them. Surely some computer guru will come upon the article before too long? But often times it seems as if I'm the expert, which may or may not be a good thing, and articles stay largely as written by me. Gulp. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but hopefully the urge to fix something that's wrong is stronger than the urge to create something from scratch - it's better to have a slightly inexpert article than none at all. ~ mazca ^talk 17:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We shall see. :) I agree. And I tried to stick closely to the sources, so hopefully the article makes some sense. The sources didn't. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

This template series {uw-tdel4} seems to indicate that repeated removal of clean up templates, as was the case at House of Khater, is vandalism. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 18th Newtownabbey Old Boys F.C.

I have added this page as it meets the notability standards set for football clubs. For a club to be notable it must be eligible for the national cup competition, in this case the Irish Cup. The Irish Cup is open to all senior and intermediate teams. All teams is the Northern Amateur Football League Premier Division to Division 1C are intermediate teams and therefore qualify for the Irish Cup.

A similar deletion request was added to my page on Bangor Swifts F.C. and was subsequently removed. If you agree with my reasons, could you please restore the page. Thank-you. DarthJoeyJoJo (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, restored it. I'm deeply dubious about the advisability of calling all teams vaguely eligible for a national cup automatically notable; but that does seem to be the way this works at the moment so I'll leave it there. Happy editing. ~ mazca ^talk 09:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya

You deleted a page I tagged and was keeping an eye one waiting for it to be deleted. I was nosey and had a look at your profile and noticed you like Dream Theatre. Just wanted to pop in and say hi and let you know that I am wearing a Dream Theatre t-shirt as we type :) - Good day to you sir! -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet ya - I have one too, hehe. In fact I'm going to see them live at Wembley in October, looking forward to it very much. ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BFMV improvement

Hi Mazca. I see you did some rewording and cleaning up at Bullet for My Valentine. I've been doing the same in an attempt to save it from being delisted. The last thing I plan on doing is checking all the references to make sure the sources are reliable. Do you think there's anything else that needs to be done to get it up to GA quality? If not, I'll ask for a reassessment as soon as I'm done, and hopefully we can get it confirmed once again as a good article. Timmeh (review me) 21:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice to see you were doing it for the same reason as me - some of the prose really was quite awful before the recent improvements, I was also quite keen to see it remain a GA. I agree with checking the references - I had a quick scan through and nothing stuck out as obviously unreliable, but it's worth a look. Beyond that, as far as I can tell it looks like it's roughly up to GA standards.

That said, is asking for GA reassessment the right thing to do here? From what I can tell from reading the page; GAR is primarily intended for articles that you believe do not meet the criteria any more - from what I can see, BFMV is still listed as a GA and as far as we can see meets the standards, so no action should be necessary. I'm far from an expert on these article review procedures, though, please correct me if I missed something. ~ mazca ^talk 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It turns out you're right. I'll get someone I know to be a good reviewer to look over it anyway just to make sure we haven't missed anything. I'd prefer having an uninvolved editor determining whether it meets the criteria to make sure we're staying away from a possible conflict of interest. Timmeh (review me) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, getting an uninvolved editor in is a good idea - no arguments there, it'll help us notice anything else we've missed. Nice work on it, anyway. :) ~ mazca ^talk 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you did some great work yourself with the Scream Aim Fire section. I'll finish checking the references tomorrow, and I'll ask Rafablu88 to take a look at the article, if that's okay with you. Timmeh (review me) 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help again

Please see: Talk:Willis_Tower#Request_automatic_archiving. I am not going to be able to continue dealing with 81.110.104.91 (talk · contribs), it has become an unpleasant situation. I have reported the latest unilateral, unnecessary actions to AN/I here. Sswonk (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestions at the talk page, I am serious: I need to stay away from dealing with this guy. His style and pattern of edits is highly irritating: few if any edit summaries, unilateral actions, imperious responses in the past. Nothing there suggests I will be able to expect a change in behavior. You suggest I was making a mountain out of a molehill, but the past history combined with the fact that "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance" is stated in the tag he supplied to change a redirect back to a reverse move was not just a cosmetic change. In my view it is controversial to change things around to suit your own purposes after a proposal that was not objected to was placed on the talk page. The intent, whether malicious or not, was to move /Archive 2 back to /Move which would still have caused the {{Archivebox}} and {{talk page}} to list the page as Archive 2, pointless other than to get his own way, all without discussion. Thank you for moderating, I do not have any need to be personally involved there, but 81.110.104.91 has caused unequaled stress, physical literal stress, I have not experienced before on Wikipedia, due to his pattern of equivocal pointless edits. Sswonk (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that his actions aren't particularly helpful - but I think you've realised that Wikipedia really shouldn't be stressing you out, so you'd probably have a more enjoyable time doing some other editing. I am keeping an eye on 81.xxx, if he carries on doing things like this I'll make sure he gets dealt with. For now, I don't think much else needs doing. All the best. ~ mazca ^talk 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A.D.A.M.

Please restore, it does not meet G11, because it is not primarily descriptive. There's just a little advertising, and their virtual human was a very notable product. I know I can just do restore it myself, but I like to ask first. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean A.D.A.M., Inc. - I've restored it per your request. Basically read like a press-release to me, but by all means go ahead if you can salvage it. Thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 06:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed it for deletion - I have left a more detailed reason on the article's talk page. In a nutshell: I couldn't find any references (well ijn the first 200 or so on Google) which weren't based on the company's own press releases. I'll leave a message for DGG too -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Alpha MOS - Perichrom discussion

Why did you delete my company page, whereas there many other companies that created their own page or their products page, for example in our business area: Agilent, Shimadzu, etc? Do you have any link with this area? Could you please let me create it without interefering with my business? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonnefille (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend you read our FAQ for organisations - it's generally discouraged for people to write articles about themselves and their own companies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view, and your article was written in a highly promotional way, with no references to coverage in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 08:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IP block

Hello Mazca, you blocked an IP for their behavior at Meadville, Pennsylvania. That user, 76.166.222.254, has now gotten an account and is doing the same ole thing, now with a smidgen of Wikilawyering. Please have a look at the article history and tell me how to proceed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the user's talk page. I suggest ceasing your edit warring, Drmies, as it looks like both he and you have broken the 3RR. Hopefully, we can reason with this guy, but if he continues to remove these people as long as they still have articles, he'll have to be blocked for edit warring and disruption. Timmeh (review me) 00:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this; got posted just after I went to bed. Looks like he's been blocked for now for further edit-warring - I do agree with Timmeh, however, that you should watch out for 3RR yourself here. Let me know if I can be of assistance if this starts up again. Thanks to both of you ~ mazca ^talk 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Mazca, you might want to block 99.48.92.202, as it is obviously the same person as the blocked account. He has made the exact same edits to the Meadville article as the other IP and the blocked account. Also, see here and here. Both IPs originate in Los Angeles. It seems we have someone circumventing a block. Timmeh (review me) 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked that one, and decided just semi-protecting the article for a week was probably going to be easier for all involved. ~ mazca ^talk 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call. :) Timmeh (review me) 18:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you both. Thanks also for pointing out that I fell foul of 3RR--I guess I just got carried away by my own sense of rightness. But while I'm here, and while I have your attention, wouldn't this fall under Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions_to_3RR, "Exception--Obvious vandalism"? I mean, the Bulldog and their IPs are arguing that this is a matter of content, not of policy, whereas I would maintain that removing notable people from a list of notable people is automatically vandalism. So--was this obvious vandalism, and would that plead me free of a 3RR charge? (I think I reverted five times? maybe six. Mea culpa.) I'm not trying to say that I was right (and in fact, if you block me I'll have time to get some work done, haha), but I am wondering about this, also because I figured that I want to run for admin when I hit 100,000 edits (I have plenty of time to learn). Thanks again to both of you, Drmies (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would fall under that exception. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and that person thought he was abiding by Wikipedia's policies. He even took my advice and started AfDs instead of continuing his edit warring. If you want to run for adminship, you definitely don't need 100,000 edits. Most people view the threshold at 3,000-5,000 edits to be acceptable. I ran when I had less edits than you do, and I didn't receive any opposes based on my number of edits. If you plan on running, though, you should make sure you haven't done anything controversial in the last three or four months. The recent incident at Meadville, Pennsylvania would probably get you a few opposes. Timmeh (review me) 03:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I offered him the same advice, here and here. You have shown a lot more patience and good faith than I have, though. Thanks for the advice, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I passed RfA with barely 4,500 edits! I think waiting for 100k is getting a bit over the top . Either way though, I think I agree with Tim that this wasn't quite "obvious vandalism", though it was rather unconstructive. However, normally the 3RR blocks where both parties to an edit-war get blocked are when neither is talking - in this case, I could see that you were trying to take it to the talk page while he was just edit-warring without communication. Edit-warring's still worth avoiding, but I didn't think it was blockable when that kind of thing doesn't happen very often. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 11:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV notes

Sorry if my comments at AIV look like they are duplicating yours. While processing the block request for Xellas (talk · contribs) my kids asked me for something after I had left him the 3rr warning, but before I could save my decline note on AIV. By the time I could save, I got an edit-conflict with your decline note. Anyway, just wanted to give you the heads up in case you were wondering why I was re-inventing the wheel here. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, no problem - AIV had quite a pile of unaddressed borderline reports like that, so I was going through responding to everything. Looks like this discussion's fairly academic at this point as he just got blocked anyway after starting the edit war again. Don't you just love these people? :) ~ mazca ^talk 00:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi there. I found your name on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests.

I've used Vandal Proof in the past, and just today decided to give Huggle a go. However, it says I need rollback rights to use it on en. So I was wondering if you could grant me said rights. I'm a long time editor in good standing (as far as I'm aware! ;)). If there's anything else you'd like to know, just hit me up. Thanks! --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me! Replied on your talk page. ~ mazca ^talk 20:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Jonasbrotherareterrible

I don't see why I can't edit my old posts. That account was banned without a good reason and I edited my old post. I did the same on Avenged sevenfold's talk page. KezianAvenger (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Scott Feldman

Somehow in changing "Scott Feldman (baseball)" to "Scott Feldman", someone deleted the "Scott Feldman (baseball) talk page." I can't find it.

Can you? If you can, can you deleted what is now on the Scott Feldman talk page with that material? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I may have botched something while moving the page; though I can't see any obvious missing content right now. I will investigate further when I get home from work later today. ~ mazca ^talk 09:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the content was split over multiple talk pages by assorted incomplete moves over time - it seems Juliancolton (talk · contribs) has merged the histories which should solve the problem. Let me know if I can be of further assistance - thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 17:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

VandaI from hell block

Just to let you know that I think that User:VandaI from hell, who you just blocked, is a sock puppet of User:Lolsuper7am (based on similar editing terms and vandalism targets). I'm not sure what the process is with this – or even if one is necessary – but thought I'd give you a heads-up. Cheers, Fribbulus Xax (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but but I don't think it's worth worrying about. Tracking sockpuppets is worthwhile if their vandalism is subtle or insidious, but in this case it's just an idiot creating nonsense pages. Any further accounts are just going to get blocked indefinitely straightaway because they're vandalism-only accounts, regardless of any sockpuppetry. Every time he gets blocked the autoblock disables editing from his IP address, so unless we really note a long-term pattern of abuse then it's best to just revert, block, ignore. Thanks for your efforts, anyway. :) ~ mazca ^talk 10:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem AN/I vandal

The AN/I vandal that you've just stopped by protecting the page is a BIG problem. Just in case you don't already know he did the same thing only a while ago (before the page was protected for a few hours). When it was unprotected again, he came back to make those edits. I believe it is the same person but how on earth can someone have so many IP Adresses?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 08:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a few possibilities. They may simply be using open proxies, or another occasional tactic is to post a diff link of a vandalised version of the page to a web-board that would find it funny, then just ask whoever reads it to go to the link and press "save page". Both of those things result in lots of completely different IPs doing the same edit - it may or may not all be the same person. That kind of thing is hard to stop permanently, but semi-protection stops their fun pretty easily. ~ mazca ^talk 08:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But since they've just come back for a second go, is there anything you can do to stop them coming back for a third go once the protection is lifted? After all, even if you block all those IP Adresses think of how many more there could be! --^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 08:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact about 99% of vandals is that they're easily bored. It's quite likely that by the time that semi-protection expires in five or six hours, the vandal(s) in question will have gone to bed or found something else diverting to do. They may be back tomorrow, but by protecting the page without a fuss (see WP:DENY they generally lose interest. It's a lot easier to protect a page than it is to repeatedly switch your IP address to vandalise, so if the vandal isn't getting the attention they crave then they rapidly tend to go away. ~ mazca ^talk 08:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. The reason I asked was because I am a rollbacker, so it's always good for editors like me to know exactly how vandals are thinking and seeing 8 different IPs attack the AN/I page over 16 minutes was something new for me. Again, thank you for your time.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 08:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Do let me know if there's anything else you need help with, I've seen your anti-vandal work and appreciate the effort you put in. Thanks :) ~ mazca ^talk 08:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

209.36.244.253 (talk · contribs)

I think you forgot to uncheck "Allow this user to edit his own talk page while blocked" as he still has access. Best, →javért ^breakaway 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Touché! Now corrected - thanks. That's what I get for doing things right before bed time... ~ mazca ^talk 23:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rjd0060 does have a point though, that wasn't worth an edit war and he probably is within his rights to blank the page. I'm going to sleep, if I've cocked anything further up with this block I give any other admin permission to fiddle with it as much as necessary! ~ mazca ^talk 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Christian rock bands

Hello mazca, thank you for your message. I actually have no particular interest in, or knowledge of article List of Christian rock bands... It was just a random article I stumbled upon, that looked to be in need of a little help. I hadn't realised it was a recently created article, or that it had been deleted twice before, til after I performed a rather lengthily copy-edit and page-move to solve the title CAPS issue. As I mentioned to PMDrive1061, my biggest concern was with the vast amount of ambiguous overlinking... and now, the fact that I believe the list should perhaps be displayed in a single column. I should mention however, that while copy-editing, I removed a number of textual items that clearly indicated that the list of bands had indeed been copied and pasted from an existing category. I think maybe I should just back away from that article until the admins decide whether it's a keeper or not. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance, I'm always willing to help out around here :) -- WikHead (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page "List of Christian rock bands??"

You say that this page was "redundant" and repeated itself several times. First of all, this page was a LIST of music, that stated the bands name, country, and genre. The only thing that repeated itself several times was the genre, and country. Also, I hadn't finished creating it, which was the reason that not all bands had their country and genre beside them. I would like the actual reason why you deleted this page, and would like you too undo the deletion of this page. Darchaf (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Previously, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian rock bands, a consensus formed that a previous version of that page, very similar to the one you've created, was not necessary. The page did not contain any information that was not already basically covered by the existing Category:Christian rock groups, which is why it was redundant - at no point did I say the page "repeated itself". If you're planning on adding more information that will solve the problems raised there, I shall now undelete the page and give you some time to finish it. ~ mazca ^talk 22:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Now undeleted - List of Christian rock bands. ~ mazca ^talk 22:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add more information than the last article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darchaf (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for WP:USERFY

Hi. You seem to be onwiki at the moment and I would like to request that David Orr (British businessman) be placed in the mainspace. I think it is ready. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I agree that it's a good start. A Telegraph obituary is good; but I'd suggest you may wish to include a few other reliable sources in the article to properly demonstrate his notability. In any case, I've moved it to mainspace at David Orr (businessman) -the "British" qualifier seemed unnecessary, as he's the only David Orr of that type on Wikipedia. All the best. ~ mazca ^talk 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Can you perhaps help me with another disambig issue on another page? There was a band in the 50's called The Shells (which has a wikipedia article -- The Shells), and now there is a modern day band by the same name (up for an MTV award). As a first step, I wanted to set up a disambiguation page mentioning both. I did ... see [4] but can't figure out how to make that be the "go-to" page when someone enters "The Shells" (rather than the band that is not playing these days). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The way to do it is this:

1. Move The Shells to a new title with a disambiguator, such as The Shells (doo-wop band)
2. Move The Shells (disambiguation) to The Shells - it should allow you to do this, as there will just be a redirect with no history there. If it doesn't, let me know - an admin will be able to perform the move.

Hi -- I did step one (thanks!). Tried step two, before even creating the new page (that will take a little time, and I may ask someone else if they want to do it) -- but it would not allow step two (message was "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."). Thoughts? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was obviously wrong when I said a non-admin would be able to move over that redirect - in any case, I've done the second move for you, so The Shells now contains your disambiguation page. I'd suggest you may wish to create a stub article for the new band soon, as disambiguation pages with only one actual target tend to cause disagreement. Best of luck, hopefully this is all sorted out now. :) ~ mazca ^talk 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're the best! I run into so many people on Wikipedia who only like to fight, not help, that it has been tremendously refreshing to receive your excellent assistance. Thanks so much. Will do.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, you're welcome. Let me know if you need any help in future. :) ~ mazca ^talk 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

However, before you move the disambiguation page as above, I'd suggest you actually create the article on the new band. If you take a look at WP:DISAMBIG, you'll see that a disambiguation page should generally just contain the minimum information, rather than the list of members and sources you've got on it at the moment. All that should be in the article on the band instead. Hope this helps, let me know if I can be of more assistance. ~ mazca ^talk 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Just one more question (I hope). How do I move a page? Thanks again for your help.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be as simple as clicking the "move" tab that appears at the top (near the edit tab) when you're viewing the page. A page will then show up asking where you want to move it to, it should be fairly self-explanatory. Take a look at Help:Moving a page for a rather exhaustive guide to it if you're confused. Hope this helps. ~ mazca ^talk 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- I believe I may need an admin help at this point (at least that is what another editor more expert on this than I am said, and he sent me your way). I think that it would be best for us to changed matters so that a search "The Shells" brings one to what is now the page "The Shells (band)". That's because that is the page of the modern band up for an MTV award, while the other is "The Shells (doo wop band)" is a page about a 1950s band that no one (but me, largely, it would appear by the paltry # of views) seems to search for much half a century later. Can you help me? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 1950s band does look rather obscure - I agree, and have done the move for you. Let me know if anything else needs doing! ~ mazca ^talk 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bret Hart

Hello, there is no way this Darren is going to do the right thing here. he is just trolling now. As an admin, why don't you see what is best? I think its clear to see what's going on. Arthur Cutz (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here is that you, Darren, and McJeff are all edit-warring on that page. I have hence protected it from editing at the version it was on when I arrived, as per the protection policy, to encourage discussion rather than blind reverting. I have little knowledge or interest in wrestling, so I don't readily see which side of the debate is "right" - what does need to happen is for a consensus on the page to develop without further edit warring. If you feel that isn't going to happen, you might want to look at some of the methods of dispute resolution that are available. ~ mazca ^talk 20:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mazca, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Commoncase. Arthur Cutz, if you didn't check his contribution history, has returned from 5 months of inactivity to devote himself to continuing Commoncase's edit war. The article isn't a three way edit war, it's everyone except for Commoncase/Arthur Cutz trying to defend the article against pov vandalism McJEFF ^(talk) 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you'd unprotect the article now that the sockpuppetry/vandalism has been dealt with? McJEFF ^(talk) 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to mess you about but could it be left as semi-pp as there is a history of IPs making the same edits as Commoncase/Arthur Cutz Darrenhusted (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I think for now it's best to leave it unprotected. If he starts his crap again it can easily be semi-protected (ask me, or WP:RFPP) but I'd rather not do it pre-emptively. We'll see what happens. Thanks to both of you - hopefully this is cleared up for now. ~ mazca ^talk 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No probs, thanks for your help. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi Mazca. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there's a person that has been vandalizing the articles The Network and 21st Century Breakdown for months, repeatedly rearranging band members despite an edit note and clear consensus and warnings. He's been switching IPs every few weeks, and now he's using 217.44.65.71. I've brought the issue up at ANI and was advised to request protection of the articles if the disruption continued. It did, I requested protection, and my request was denied. The person has since been making personal attacks every time I revert his edits. I'm wondering if you could block this IP for a few days, as I really don't have the time to be filing report after report just for the result to be something that won't stop the disruption and personal attacks. Timmeh (review me) 21:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours (though it's probably dynamic and can be switched easily); I also semi-protected The Network for 2 weeks as pretty much every IP contribution in the last couple of weeks has been vandalism - it got worse since you requested protection back in July, I think it's very reasonable to do so now. We'll see if that helps. ~ mazca ^talk 22:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll let you know if the guy reappears under a new IP and moves his vandalism back to 21st Century Breakdown. Timmeh (review me) 22:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure - no problem. ~ mazca ^talk 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Heroes character box

Template:Heroes character box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I just wake up. My comments in TfD were the last before going to sleep. I reread them just now and the nomination may give the impression I have something against you. It's not that at all. I am only a bit annoyed with T3, because it needs 7 days, it's not clear if the template must be completely orphan and usually admins delete the template several days after the date expires. I think you did well and we have tie opportunity to clear the situation with T3 a bit now in the TfD. Thanks! Magioladitis (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem :). It was one of the last things I did before I went to sleep too, so I probably took it worse than I could have. I generally agree with you on T3 - it's not a very well-written criterion, and it's very vague and subjective. "Not employed in any useful fashion" has a lot of room for interpretation. Thanks for the message. ~ mazca ^talk 11:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for all of your comments on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding my Rollback rights. I really appreciate it. Regards.--David | ^Talk 18:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope it was helpful. ~ mazca ^talk 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Mazca! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, September 8, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTD/UBX|September 8, 2009}} to your userpage.

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Mazca! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Very well deserved. :) Javért  |  ^Talk 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mazca. You've been working hard, and you definitely deserve the recognition. Timmeh (review me) 00:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) This is a pleasant surprise. ~ mazca ^talk 06:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well deserved -- for a Wikipedian who is both knowledgeable and helpful!--Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Silly me

Talk:72.94.80.43 lol ;) --^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that redlinked article was very grateful for the ANI notification. ;) ~ mazca ^talk 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?

Sorry to bother you, but I am having a problem with an editor (Psantora) relating to an article that you touched today, and I thought that rather than go through a cumbersome complaint process I would see if you might intervene.

This started over a dispute that I had with the editor because he was deleting brackets in (admittedly half-way there) inline citations. To be good in-lines, they needed a) square brackets, and b) text within the square brackets. He deleted the square brackets, which I suggested to him (I chose not to revert, so as not to edit war) was moving backward rather than forward. He disagreed. The coversation is at [5].

He followed that immediately by wikistalking me disruptively. Most of his subsequent edits were to pages I had touched (though he was touching them for the first time (see below for a sampling).

Extended content

23:36, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads album cover1 .jpg ‎ (remove rationale for article where it is no longer used) 23:34, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads Album Cover 3.jpg ‎ (remove rationale, no longer listed in any article, add {{db-unfree}}) (top) 23:33, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads Album cover 2.jpg ‎ (remove rationale, no longer listed in any article, add {{db-unfree}}) (top) 23:32, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) Written Roads ‎ (removing non-free images) (top) 23:31, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Shells ‎ (removing non-free images) 21:37, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads album cover1 .jpg ‎ (fix rationale) 21:35, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads album cover1 .jpg ‎ (add rationale for Written Roads) 21:07, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Talk:The Shells (disambiguation) ‎ (moved Talk:The Shells to Talk:The Shells (disambiguation): to prepare for eventual move of The Shells (band) to The Shells) (top) 21:07, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) N Talk:The Shells ‎ (moved Talk:The Shells to Talk:The Shells (disambiguation): to prepare for eventual move of The Shells (band) to The Shells) 21:07, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) m The Shells (disambiguation) ‎ (moved The Shells to The Shells (disambiguation) over redirect: to prepare for eventual move of The Shells (band) to The Shells) (top) 21:05, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Shells ‎ (Undid revision 312549780 by ImageTagBot (talk) this image has an appropriate rationale for this page) 06:52, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Shells (disambiguation) ‎ (fix redirect) 06:50, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Shells (disambiguation) ‎ (fix formatting to comply with WP:DISAMBIG and MOS:DAB) 06:46, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Cutting Room ‎ (fix duplicate reference) 06:44, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Best Breakout New York City Artist Award ‎ (→External link: fix category, remove unneeded default sort) 06:44, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Best Breakout New York City Artist Award ‎ (→External link: fix category) 06:43, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) Template:MTV Video Music Awards ‎ (add award) (top) 06:28, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Shells ‎ (add tags) 06:27, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads album cover1 .jpg ‎ (no rationale for Written Roads) 06:26, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) Written Roads ‎ (cleanup, add tags) 06:23, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads Album cover 2.jpg ‎ (add rationale) 06:23, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads Album Cover 3.jpg ‎ (no rationale for Written Roads) 06:22, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads Album cover 2.jpg ‎ (no rationale for Written Roads) 06:21, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads Album Cover 3.jpg ‎(this is not an album cover image) 06:21, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads Album cover 2.jpg ‎ (add additional template) 06:18, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:The Shells Written Roads Album cover 2.jpg ‎ ({{di-replaceable fair use}}this is not an album cover) 06:14, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Shells ‎ (major cleanup, remove duplicate references) 05:51, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Shells ‎ (→External links: fix links) 04:21, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Cutting Room ‎ (Undid revision 312527417 by VMAsNYC see WP:CITE expanded urls are preferred to empty brackets, of course a full citation with a title etc... is ideal) 04:15, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Bitter End ‎ (→External links: cleanup, minor formatting, remove redundant category) (top) 04:11, September 8, 2009 (hist) (diff) The Cutting Room ‎ (cleanup, minor formatting)

He took special interest in the two articles I had created and photos I had added.

He took such steps as changing most dates in them from the perfectly acceptable (and consistent) form that I had them in, to another form -- which I understand is clearly wrong.

He also seemed to take great interest in seeking to delete photos that I had put in the article -- despite the fact that they clearly fell within the language and rationale of the "album cover" exception. He claimed that only front album covers qualified, rather than inside covers and back covers --even though the exception does not limit itself to front covers, and there are litereally hundreds of back cover and inside cover photos on Wikipedia under the album cover exception.

He first put up a "may be deleted in 7 days" notice, but as our conversation progressed (see [6]) he deleted all photos completely from the article on The Shells.

I think that his actions are both incorrect, and that they clearly come from a bad place as he clearly wikistalked me and then sought to disrupt my appropriate edits -- just because I had expressed a contrary view about his edits on another matter (and not even reverted them!).

I've tried conversation. It only led to him increasing his disruptive activity, as is plain from the above. I'm not looking to punish him in any way, but would appreciate it if he would stop wikistalking me and cease his disruptive activity on the Shells article and pictures (and any other articles that he lights upon by wikistalking me in search of a tussle). Can you help?

Many thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had time to investigate this properly as yet (I will have a look tonight) but I have to say initially that a lot of the things he has done to the images you've uploaded seem correct to me. Under our Non-free content criteria there are quite heavy restrictions on the use of copyrighted, non-free images - and it really looks like many of the things you've uploaded are copyrighted publicity photos that could reasonably be replaced by free equivalents, such as photos taken by people attending concerts. As such, it appears that Psantoro probably was reasonably entitled to tag them for deletion and remove them from the article, though it maybe hasn't been handled as well as it could be.

That said, I'll look into it more tonight and see if there's anything I can do to settle this dispute - there may be more to it than I'm seeing at the moment. ~ mazca ^talk 06:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note that I'm using the album cover photos to illustrate the album (which is both an article unto itself and a significant portion of The Shells article). From what I've seen, that's consistent with hundreds of photos now on Wikipedia articles. And that is not something that could be replaced by concert pix (though those would be great too ... I will look for them).

And btw--I had thought that the Shells article had material on its discussion page (that it was a member of some Wikiprojects), but can't seem to find that any longer. Might you know where it went? Thank you. VMAsNYC (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've looked into this more comprehensively. In my view, there are two issues here: the conduct dispute between you and Psantora over editing behaviour, and the content dispute over the article itself, and the non-free images used in it. So that we're not spreading this dispute over more pages than necessary, I'm going to post my views on the article itself on Talk:The Shells.

As far as the wikistalking accusations: I am not convinced there's malice involved. There are some issues that he's correctly identified that were shared by a few articles you'd worked on, and fixing them is not wikistalking - the articles are, after all, related. I don't really see him doing anything disruptive; and I really don't think you've reached the end of productive discussion with him over them. The original issue (square brackets on links) really wasn't worth arguing over - both formats are fairly sub-optimal, as I'm sure you're both aware. The citations have now been replaced with proper titled citations, which is the obvious solution anyway. Basically, I don't think any behaviour is going on (from either of you) that warrants action or counts as "disruptive" - this is purely a content dispute, and I think you should treat it as such.

I'd also like to clarify the difference between "deleting" and "removing". An image viewed as unnecessary and non-free will be tagged for deletion (ie actual removal of the image from availability on the server) by an administrator in seven days, but it can freely be removed from the article immediately by any editor - though obviously if disputed it should be discussed. By tagging them, then removing them, Psantora did nothing improper - now you've reverted the removals, and discussion can continue to reach a consensus. The bold, revert, discuss cycle is a key part of Wikipedia collaboration, and that's all that happened here. As I stated above, I'll post my own views on the images on the article's talk page - I hope this has helped in some way. ~ mazca ^talk 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks for taking the time to look at the general issues here. I do fear that my fellow editor has singled out articles on which I've made entries -- and specifically the entries that I have made -- because I disagreed with him as to edits he was making. The record is fairly clear. 1) I disagreed with a point of his editing; 2) his next 2 dozen edits were primarily edits of articles that I had edited -- which he had never edited previously; 3) those edits were primarily the deletion or revision of my edits; and 4) many of those edits were matters where I was either correct or where there at least was nothing more with my edits (even the deletion of exisiting date formats, the revision of existing formatting in discography and deletion of the word "label", the moving around of the order of external links, the changing of external links to sites from a consistent format to an inconsistent format, etc. The more I discussed issues with him, rather than reverting him, the more exercised he became in his deletion/revision efforts. I think that the facts are plain as to what triggered his wikistalking, and the nature of it as aforementioned (a list I could add to if need be) show clearly that his efforts were reflective of a desire to delete or revise my specific edits -- which in all aforementioned cases I would suggest were fine -- with his interest triggered by my earlier criticisms of his editing.--VMAsNYC (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I might add that even today he continued to change my edits (on new articles he followed me to) in completely unnecessary ways, where my initial entries were fine. Given the context, it is difficult to imagine that he did it for any other reason that to be disruptive by being annoying.

For example, is there any reason (as he did today) to:

1. change my edit Trio to Trio? It made no substantive change. Given that I voiced a different opinion on an issue and he followed me to that page, and undid my edit in that fashion with no substantive effect, it is difficult to imagine him doing it for any other reason than to annoy me.
2. He then changed my entry of all-female to all-female. Same point.
3. He then changed the date format of every entry in the article, which had been consistent and the same from the beginning, to a different format that he seems to prefer. My understanding is that that is innapropriate (and I had already communicated that to him to no avail on his similar revisions in other articles that I created). As I have communicated to him to no avail, my understanding is that given that the articles in which he was changing the dates evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it (there being no reason for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic), and here the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. All, to no avail -- he just keeps on scouring articles I've edited, and changing my edits.
4. He then changed "publisher= Seventeen Magazine" to "work= Seventeen Magazine". Same point as above.
5. And separately today, he responded to my request at [7] that he "pls stop edit warring; if you want to explain why your edits are mandatory please continue the discussion on your talk pg where we have been discussing, leaving the article as-is" by plastering a WP:3RR warning on my page at [8], and writing (incorrectly) "Note, you are in violation of the there revert rule on The Shells. You might want to revert your own last revert on that page lest you be blocked from editing."

While some of these changes of course have no substantive effect, given the context it appears to me that they are calculated to annoy, and I would appreciate some guidance as to how to better suggest to this editor that he stop revising perfectly good edits where no reason can be attributed to his actions other than an effort to annoy.--VMAsNYC (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If the changes are as insubstantive as you say, why are they annoying you? The little link capitalisation changes are trivial in the extreme - I wouldn't have bothered to make them myself, but equally it makes no difference whatsoever if someone else does. It certainly never would have occurred to me to use them to annoy someone, given how insubstantial they are. I suggest you try not to attribute things to malice when they're that minor.

As for the date formats, unfortunately I think you're misinterpreting WP:MOSDATE. Switching between two accepted formats (ie September 9, 2004 to 9 September 2004) is indeed discouraged, but the slash dates you're using (4/9/04) are simply ambiguous and not accepted. Another user has made a fairly good explanation of this on Talk:The Shells, and I suggest you follow it.

I remain unconvinced that anyone is doing anything malicious here - by my interpretation, some of the edits you've made are incorrect as far as our policies go, and I don't view people making good-faith changes to them to be in any way stalking or harrassing you. ~ mazca ^talk 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to entertain suggestions as to any conceivable good faith reasons for him to be following all my edits and making such changes. Believe me, if you found yourself chasing daily dozens of edits that someone happened to make to your edits (and primarily to your edits -- seems like he has devoted his week to this and almost nothing else), and check to see if he is doing damage, you would after some time fine his behavior annoying. It's much as the concept that you shouldn't go to someone elses's edits and revise their typo's -- behavior can be annoying, even if less than substantively damaging. But today...

He has now today extended his activity to more substantive edits -- deleting mentions of the band The Shells in other articles ... see, for example, [9] and [10].--VMAsNYC (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfD

Thanks! Be sure to tell me if I do something wrong. Thanks for your support, by the way :) Jafeluv (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR

Hi Mazaca,

I know you are on wikibreak and I'm sorry to bring you back into this, but I thought you might want to look into a recent posting by VMAsNYC on WP:AN. I would appreciate it if you could provide some commentary there when you are available. Thanks. ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Both appear to have been resolved, it looks like the necessary information was made clear. We'll see where this goes next. ~ mazca ^talk 21:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to drag you back into this, but VMAsNYC/Epeefleche is trying to open an arbitration case against the admin who opened the AFD on The Shells. I mentioned you in my comment and I would appreciate it if you could weigh in on your experience with VMAsNYC/Epeefleche. Thanks, ~ Paul^T+/_C 14:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This dispute just doesn't seem to go away, does it? I've made a statement - if a case does end up being opened I'll elaborate further, but I'm not sure that will happen as yet. Thanks for letting me know, anyway! ~ mazca ^talk 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Belated Wikipedian of the Week

Congratulations, Mazca! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for last week! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month!
If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTW/UBX|<first day of this weekly cycle>|<last day of this weekly cycle>}} to your userpage.

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That's definitely going on my userpage. ~ mazca ^talk 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kaimeng

Hi Mazca, while I was checking out shortpages, I encountered Kaimeng, which was nominated for deletion 25 August 2009. The RfD discussion appears to have been closed by you as delete, but the redirect was not deleted... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, evidently the delete didn't go through or I forgot to do it! It's now deleted. Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 21:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lionel Messi page

Hi Mazca, i've seen you've changed the protection level for Lionel Messi's profile, however the person who keeps vandalising it now has the wrong details locked in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi#Club_statistics

Under Messi's career statistics for 2009-10 he should have 2 league assists and 3 assists in total as of 19th September 2009, these being:

1) Set up Pedro's goal in Super Cup 2) Won Alves free kick for his goal against Atletico Madrid 3) Set up Keita against Atletico Madrid

He's also made 5 appearances this season, not 4. The 5 being against:

1)Getafe 2)Inter Milan 3)Atheltic Bilbao 4)Shakhtar Donetsk 5)Ateltico Madrid

Please change it to it's correct details. Thank you.

I'm wholly unfamiliar with the specifics of Messi's stats - I merely protected the page based on another user's request due to various IP vandalism. I'd suggest you either request the change on Talk:Lionel Messi using {{editsemiprotected}} or contact the editor who requested the protection - Spiderone (talk · contribs). I'm not comfortable making fact changes I'm unable to verify myself. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: my RfA.

Hi Mazca, I wanted to take this opportunity to show my sincere gratitude in response to your support on my RfA nomination. Thanks you from the bottom of my heart - I hope we can build a friendship upon this. Kindest regards; Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk)

You're very welcome - RfA can be a rather imposing procedure, and I'm glad you're taking peoples' comments so well. Do let me know if you need help with anything in the future. :) ~ mazca ^talk 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

In your closure of the {{rfd}} to Member of the Taliban, you concluded deletion was in order.

You also concluded the instances should be unlinked, stating: "leaving redlinks would not be useful."

You didn't say why, and I would appreciate an explanation of this decision. I thought I had offered a coherent explanation in this {{rfd}} and in the two earlier, related {{rfd}}. I thought those arguments had generally been accepted by the other participants. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to draw your attention to this discussion with User:Thinking of England and this discussion with User:Benjamin Mako Hill. You might have read their contribution as them voicing unlink. But they both struck their unlink opinions. They both started unlinking these links. Good faith efforts based on a misreading of the two previous related {{rfd}} which did not conclude with a mandate for unlinking. We discussed this unlinking, both on our user pages, and in the {{rfd}}. I think I convinced ToE that there was value in the red-links, to aid in the replacement with a series of articles -- supported by the scholarly articles I have referred to in the various {{rfd}}. I am not so sure I convinced Mako that there was value. But I think both of these contributor decided there was value in letting me try to make use of the redlinks. That is why they struck their comments about unlinking. So, I think it would have been a mistake for you to count them towards a count of those who favored unlinking.

Can you tell me under what circumstances you would roll back all your unlinkings? Geo Swan (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I interpreted based solely on the discussions at the RfD - I was not aware of the further discussions elsewhere, and it does now seem clear that there was less consensus for it than I thought. I will adjust my close statement to remove any decision to unlink.

I've now rolled back all my unlinkings - sorry for the mix-up. I would suggest that something gets done with the redlinks sooner rather than later, as they do appear fairly unsightly in all those articles, but I'll leave that up to you. Best ~ mazca ^talk 06:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

wider context at AfD

Completely agree with what you said on the Anbody RfC. To further A Marshal's idea, possibly we could get an essay promoted that emphasises the importance of good manners and of cooperating in harmony with those holding opposing views? Please edit the draft essay as much as you like if you think the idea has legs. AfD is not a war zone - FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

There's another editor on Chicken tax whose making very constructive edits. But thanks! 842U (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Mazca. I just wanted to thank you again for nominating me for adminship and sticking up for me throughout the process. Even though the request was unsuccessful, it was surely a close call and could have gone either way depending on the 'crat's discretion. Also, it seems the recent admin scandals involving the desysopping and blocking of Law as a sock of a banned editor might have instigated reactions in !voters that involved !voting oppose in the first RfA they found. The RfA very well might have succeeded had it not been for this scandal, and its failure was not your fault or mine, but more likely just the result of bad luck and bad timing.

Like you, I am left with a very bitter taste after experiencing the comments in my RfA, and I'm feeling that I should completely avoid participating in that area for now. Will I run again in the future? I really don't know, but I know I won't even think about it until March or April 2010. For now, I'm going to return to article building and try to forget my bad experiences at RfA. It certainly was a pleasure being nominated by you, and I hope we can continue to collaborate on rock music articles. Timmeh 01:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I think you're thinking this through right. I'd suggest you do consider running for RfA again, but do leave it at least six months this time - I was equally surprised at the sudden goalposts-moving of 3 months suddenly being enough to oppose over on its own. Hopefully you'll eventually get the tools without further unnecessary drama sometime next year, in the mean time I'm sure you'll carry on your excellent work. ~ mazca ^talk 15:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

RfD comments on closing

Hey there Mazca, I wanted to thank you for your style of closing nominations at WP:RFD, where you typically include a short summary note explaining your decision, particularly in disputed cases. I know that this must take more time, but I wanted you to know that the effort was recognized and appreciated. Thanks. -- ToE^T 00:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I generally wish most admins would do that - even on a non-contentious discussion it's a good opportunity to summarise the consensus and/or the relevant policy, and it makes it easier for someone to notice if you've misinterpreted something. Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 15:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2

Thank you providing an insightful rationale in your close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2. Like ToE above, I appreciate when admins explain their closes. You could have said, "No consensus to overturn per the varied comments below" and kept it at that, but you went much further. You summarized the arguments advanced in the debate and added that this close was not an endorsement of the current article - that there was much work to be done. If Bullshido.net is not merged or improved to indicate notability, I will bring the article back to AfD in a few months. Before I do so, I plan to ask you if enough time has elapsed. Again, thanks for reading through this long debate and closing it. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a positive and constructive closure! jmcw (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the kind words. What's effectively a triple-no-consensus is a pretty unpalatable result: I felt it was probably best to make some kind of vaguely decisive statement as to potential ways forward, and there were indeed some sensible suggestions in the discussion. Hopefully, one of those possibilities will lead somewhere as another AfD in the intermediate future could well go the same indecisive route - we'll see! Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 11:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging during live AfD

You are receiving this notification because you commented at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. I have started a follow-up discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Revisiting Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Syed Muhammad Asim Ali Rizvi

Dear Mazca, I have uploaded some information about myself with the same topic as above. I am a researcher and going to publish some of my article in near future. I am a qualified computer engineer and now researching on solid state electronic devices. It is humbly requested that please do the needful to improve our interaction and publishing of my articles. I asure there will nothing commercial or advertised.

Regards, Engr. Asim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasimriz (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Merged St. Joseph Parish, Norwich

The merge of this article into the article of Roman Catholic Diocese of Norwich demonstrates complete ignorance and a brief assessment of all sources.

1. The parish is not the same as the Diocese.
2. This article is part of the project on the history of Polish immigrants in New England Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England and its development.
3. Nobody replied to my comment, and it should be the most important, and not treat my speech in a disrespectful manner.
4. Most of the comments indicated the lack of knowledge on issues of religion and lack of understanding of the meaning of certain names.

--WlaKom (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be any expert on Roman Catholic naming, but there seemed to be a pretty strong consensus that the content was not appropriate for a standalone article; and that it may be better merged into the larger-scale article on the diocese. If you disagree with what I interpreted the consensus at the discussion to be, I'd suggest you take it to deletion review. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Based of your suggestion I posted it to deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Norwich. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WlaKom (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I will comment there in due course. ~ mazca ^talk 12:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

RE

opps! sorry about that, I should have checked the edit summary, it just seemed like he was blanking the page in an act of vandalism...sorry. I am also pretty new to huggle so sometimes I dont realy know what im doing, it can revert vandals fast but I got to use it right. Thanks!--Coldplay Expert 22:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encourgment! and I know it isnt a race. theres plenty of vandals out there to revert! oh and can you sign my signature page?--Coldplay Expert 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. On a related matter, do you know someone who could create an accurate abuse filter that would generate a bot report at AIV on the first trip, to deal with the "Rush is right" sockpuppeteer? Like, if the edit summary contains "Rush" or "Limbaugh", and the edit contains the addition or (usually) outright replacement of content with text accusing Barack Obama of being a communist. This editor has already made a threat to another editor, in which he claims to have access to thousands of IPs.

The modus operandi can be seen [here]. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable use of an edit filter, but I'm not really the person to ask - I'd suggest you make it at WP:AF/R which is generally the central location for requesting these from people who know what they're doing. Cheers. ~ mazca ^talk 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The request has been submitted. I would have written the filter myself, except that I didn't want to take time to learn the proper syntax for it. ;-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaming AfD Drive-by Intervention

Hello~

I was glad see you step in here[11] ... I was just looking through my AfD contributes in history to see how things were progressing on consensus and about screamed when saw what happened here. In any case, I don't need to make a point on anything since there still are plenty of normal opinions from editors there, but I will say if it does get left as a Keep I'll most certainly put it back up if the puppet investigation comes up as confirmed. If it were reposted as a no consensus, is there any way all that spammed text could get cleaned up to it was a readable discussion again? I know there are likely rules about not reverting content done by suspected puppets as there is a chance they are innocent until case results are confirmed. Does a final reviewing admin have a filter tool for canvassing or puppet suspects or similar just cleaner, or is it just a matter of a much slower review of things? ...I'm sorry if it's not my place to ask admin-like questions such as that, but as an aspiring who is finding XfDs most productive and I feel use of my time while I try to show good faith toward revert status, I'm just curious about all the fancy black magic the lot of you have for these things. Thanks again on the intervention! Datheisen (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's strong evidence of active sockpuppetry (i.e. one person making multiple votes with multiple accounts) then often the checkuser tool can be used to prove this. In this case, though, the problem was simple canvassing, and the posts made pointing to it are all any sensible admin is going to need to give them no weight whatsoever. Given the ensuing posts since the semi-protection, I'd be very surprised if the article ends up getting kept. ~ mazca ^talk 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you participated in the prior RfA.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

--Epeefleche (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Battalion Nemesis page- Jesuzfreak777

Why was my battalion nemesis page deleted? it may be in the rules, but what about the halo articles that are on wiki? what about the call of duty articles? what about the roblox articles? and what about the runescape articles? and what about the addicting games article? please review all this and consider letting me create an article about battalion nemesis.

Have a look at our notability page. The other games you mention have all received large amounts of coverage in reliable sources - if you can demonstrate some decent coverage of Battallion Nemesis then I have no problem with you creating an article - but if it's still fairly obscure and no major publications have picked up on it, then it may not be time for an encyclopedia article yet. Thanks! ~ mazca ^talk 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't ban me from editing priviveges but I am just responding to what you said. In google or bing type in "batta." Under suggestions, one of them should be battalion nemesis. And if you type battalion nemesis blog in google or bing, and click enter, a bunch of stuff should pop up. And shouldn't wikipedia be full of information and have a over a millions of articles? (well, it is but shouldn't it expand?) A person should just be able to type "carn" and a bunch of suggestions should pop up. And if you type "bat" a bunch of stuff should pop up like "bat" in baseball "bat" as in the animal, "battalion wars" "battlefield" and its sequals, "battalion wars 2" and Battalion Nemesis. And what if a person types "batta" and clicks battalion nemesis, and says, "What is that?" They click on it and read the article. Then they think I might like it so maybe I should try it out. And when they have a lot of fun playing it(or think the game is hideous, but they'll probably play it if they like strategy games.) They'll thank Wikipedia for introducing it to them. Please really consider about letting me make it, if you say no I won't ask anymore just please, consider. Thanks. (Jesuzfreak777 (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

It's not really my decision - Wikipedia has policies that dictate when something can have an article, and the threshold is coverage in reliable sources. If Battalion Nemesis hasn't had such coverage, then having my permission makes no difference - someone else will just delete it. ~ mazca ^talk 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Response: But, you do admit, it has coverage. You're not giving me a straight answer. Since it has pretty good coverage can make it? --Jesuzfreak777 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't admit it has coverage - you haven't shown any. I am stating that if you create an article like the one you created

Battalion Nemesis is a strategic advanced tactic game available for play on the internet including, ArmorGames.com, AddictingGames.com, and Kongregate.com. You play as various units, all the units names are the Scorpion Tank, Annihilator Tank, :Flak Tank, Strike Commando, Heavy Commando, Raptor(fighter), Condor Bomber, U-Boat (Submarine), Corvette Fighter (similar to battleship), Battlecruiser (similar to battaleship), interpid (similar to patrol boat), Rocket Truck, and Mortar Truck. Battalion Nemesis features a similarity to Halo and a secret Halo mission. The Scorpion Tqnk is

without pointing to any coverage in reliable sources it will be deleted again. I personally don't really mind if you create it again or not - I'm just telling you that someone else will delete it again if it hasn't been covered in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Response: OH! Ok, I will add reliable sources it's just that when you deleted it , it still under construction, and not done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuzfreak777 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

About the Big Cartoon Database...

On November 10th you speedied this article as a CSD:G8, "G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page" [12]... but The Big Cartoon Database definitely exists, and many articles within Wikipedia are cited to that database. Might you consider reversing yourself, or userfying the article to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Big Cartoon Database so I might address any concerns? Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I hope you'll look in as it is being cited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad you got a copy of the article you were after - sorry I didn't respond quicker, only just got in from work. Just so you know - I did not delete the article in question, all I deleted was a broken redirect to it (hence the CSD G8). The actual article that Julian's userfied for you was originally at Big Cartoon DataBase (note the caps) - I have no particular interest in the article either way, I was just on broken redirect cleanup. :) ~ mazca ^talk 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. And thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

cats

Hello thank you for helping I found another two pages to edit I had problems with the editor but im gettuing the hang of it. Can you help with the red template on the 'Cats (musical)' page please? Was that my fault? FluffyKittens (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That was nothing to do with you, fortunately - someone else had changed the "infobox musical" template to a nonexistent one called "video" - I've fixed it for you. Hope that helps. :) ~ mazca ^talk 15:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Tnankyou!!!!FluffyKittens (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies (re User:Debunkked

As occasionally happens, I am thinking that I was far too willing to be Pollyanna-ish and take someone at face value. I apologize for meddling in something that it's clear you knew more about than I did (as I said, I was unaware that it had been recreated after I deleted it). Alas, yet another reason why I should stay away from the appeals process, since I am gullible enough to believe anyone will reform. Whatever course of action you think is best is absolutely fine with me. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion that he's operating in good faith and just going off the rails a bit makes plenty of sense - there's really not enough to go on here to decide either way, so absolutely no apology is necessary here. I guess we'll see how he responds to the unblock offer! :) ~ mazca ^talk 23:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Significance" vs "notability"

Regarding our discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George King (Abercrombie)... you aren't comfortable with an A7 speedy, because "some significance is asserted", and then submit a regular delete !vote with a justification that acknowledging that simply being a model carries no inherent significance. I'm not saying I disagree with your findings, I am just trying to educate myself on the nuanced differences between "being notable" and "asserting significance". What's your yardstick? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Notability" is that complicated Wikipedia policy ((WP:N) that governs exactly what's worthy of inclusion and what isn't. The A7 speedy criterion deliberately doesn't mention "notability", and just requires that the page asserts some kind of significance (in this case that he's a model for a well-known brand), even if it doesn't look like it actually reaches the threshold of notability. The idea is for A7 to only apply to really blatant examples of things that clearly don't belong in an encyclopedia, with anything slightly less clear-cut being discussed at AfD. Hope this clarifies... ~ mazca ^talk 15:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm intimately familiar with WP:N and all his children, and I have a pretty good feel for what meets A7 and what doesn't though I'm trying to learn all the nuanced details. In some circumstances I would think that an asserted significance that can not ever meet WP:N would qualify for A7, but in this case I understand for a full PROD or AfD. Thanks for the help! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got no issue with PRODs and snow-closed AfDs for clearly non-notable people like this one; I just prefer to avoid overusing A7 for them. The line is blurry and I'm sure a different admin might find this article to be on the A7 side of it - I certainly don't think you're interpretation of it is far off at all. ~ mazca ^talk 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a very nuanced issue indeed.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! I'm not personally convinced that it met A7, but it obviously deserved deletion so I won't be complaining about the specifics! All the best. ~ mazca ^talk 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

440 South Church

Before starting an article with this title, I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong, since the article was deleted once before. I don't even know what the old article was about.

The sources I planned to start with are [13], [14], [15], and [16]Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous article was a very dodgy promotionally-worded piece that was copy-pasted from [17]. It was tagged as a copyright violation then blanked by its author, so I deleted it - no particular implication over whether the subject was unsuitable, just that particular article. The first source looks good, though the second one is the same link, did you miss one? I've got absolutely no issue with you creating a neutrally-worded article there if you think the coverage warrants it. Hope this helps, all the best. ~ mazca ^talk 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have made a mistake copying and pasting because I think the first two sources were different articles. I put what I believe was the right article in the list. Sometimes I don't hold one of the keys down and I end up pasting the same thing twice.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned about notability for such a small building in such a big city. It isn't a division headquarters but it wll be a major office location for GMAC, supposedly and I believe that's enough. I won't start the article until next week.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the article's done, if you're interested. I may have made a mess of Ally Bank in the process, but that can be improved later.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks decent to me, there seems to be a fairly good supply of coverage. :) ~ mazca ^talk 18:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female stock characters (2nd nomination)

Since you participated in the first AFD, I am letting you know about the second AFD. Ikip (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)

Since you participated in the third AFD, I am letting you know about the 4th AFD. Ikip (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Mazca,
Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;)
Love and best wishes, Meaghan - ^Merry _Christmas! - 00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Merry Christmas!

Once again it is festive season, a time where festive decorations are displayed and gifts are swapped; but what about the true meaning of christmas? The true meaning of christmas is about the fight for freedom and how in times of hardship and misery, one person leads their people to freedom as a great warrior; for those who fight for a cause are warriors and those who fight for a worthy cause are great warriors. Such an act earns respect and honour; but most importantly, brings happiness to their people. So to achieve this as happiness lies in other people's happiness and greatness lies in how you deal with little people, we selflessly think of others in the hope that they will be happy this christmas.

Hi Mazca, have a very Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year 2010!
 Set Sail For The Seven Seas 

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  4° 14' 45" NET   00:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking that user. I totally got him to admit how many accounts he had. Haha.(MDesjardinss (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

No problem. I've failed to establish exactly what and why he's doing what he's doing, but the fact is very clear that it's entirely disruptive and wholly unhelpful. All the best! ~ mazca ^talk 21:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is Ahmedfarhat (talk · contribs). He is requesting unblock and promising good behaviour. He had earlier claimed to have "like 6 other accounts" but now says here that he has only one other, Better As We Go (talk · contribs), which has not edited since 6 November. What do you think about blocking that one and giving him another chance? JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the admission of sockpuppet accounts and the promise of good behaviour I've unblocked him. We'll see if he uses this opportunity to turn around. ~ mazca ^talk 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fast Train

Hello Mazca, perhaps you can help. As I've described at User talk:Daniel.Cardenas#Fast Train, a user has hijacked (proper noun) name-space "Fast Train", only to redirect that name-space to High-speed rail. I believe this move (to "Fast Train (song)") was completely unnecessary as it's unlikely to cause any problems the way it was. I do however, have no idea how to conduct such a revert in a proper manner, but believe you do. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. -- WikHead (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - As discussed at User talk:Daniel.Cardenas#Fast Train, this matter has already been partially dealt with. However, if you could kindly swap the name-space "Fast Train (song)" with "Fast Train", everything would then be put back where it was before all the moving began, and I'd be a much happier camper. Thank you for your time and patience Mazca, and have yourself a happy new year! -- WikHead (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All done. Let me know if I can be of further assistance! ~ mazca ^talk 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow Mazca! Thank you so much for your speedy response and willingness to co-operate in such a courteous and efficient manner. You certainly are a perfect example of what good adminship is all about :). Top o'the season to you once again! -- WikHead (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you Delete information on Shaycarl?

Shaycarl is a very popular You Tube personality. It seems kind of odd that his page and all information about him was deleted. Was this possible at his request because his page had his real name? Just curious as to why you deleted his info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthor50 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He did not make any such request as far as I'm aware. My comments at the articles for deletion discussion basically give the reasoning: while he definitely does seem to be "popular" there hasn't been any kind of in-depth coverage in reliable sources like newspapers and books that allow us to write a verifiable article. When it comes to an article about a real person we have to be very careful about what information Wikipedia publishes about them, and it needs to be traceable to another source. ~ mazca ^talk 12:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking that user. I totally got him to admit how many accounts he had. Haha.(MDesjardinss (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

No problem. I've failed to establish exactly what and why he's doing what he's doing, but the fact is very clear that it's entirely disruptive and wholly unhelpful. All the best! ~ mazca ^talk 21:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is Ahmedfarhat (talk · contribs). He is requesting unblock and promising good behaviour. He had earlier claimed to have "like 6 other accounts" but now says here that he has only one other, Better As We Go (talk · contribs), which has not edited since 6 November. What do you think about blocking that one and giving him another chance? JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the admission of sockpuppet accounts and the promise of good behaviour I've unblocked him. We'll see if he uses this opportunity to turn around. ~ mazca ^talk 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fast Train

Hello Mazca, perhaps you can help. As I've described at User talk:Daniel.Cardenas#Fast Train, a user has hijacked (proper noun) name-space "Fast Train", only to redirect that name-space to High-speed rail. I believe this move (to "Fast Train (song)") was completely unnecessary as it's unlikely to cause any problems the way it was. I do however, have no idea how to conduct such a revert in a proper manner, but believe you do. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. -- WikHead (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - As discussed at User talk:Daniel.Cardenas#Fast Train, this matter has already been partially dealt with. However, if you could kindly swap the name-space "Fast Train (song)" with "Fast Train", everything would then be put back where it was before all the moving began, and I'd be a much happier camper. Thank you for your time and patience Mazca, and have yourself a happy new year! -- WikHead (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All done. Let me know if I can be of further assistance! ~ mazca ^talk 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow Mazca! Thank you so much for your speedy response and willingness to co-operate in such a courteous and efficient manner. You certainly are a perfect example of what good adminship is all about :). Top o'the season to you once again! -- WikHead (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you Delete information on Shaycarl?

Shaycarl is a very popular You Tube personality. It seems kind of odd that his page and all information about him was deleted. Was this possible at his request because his page had his real name? Just curious as to why you deleted his info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthor50 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He did not make any such request as far as I'm aware. My comments at the articles for deletion discussion basically give the reasoning: while he definitely does seem to be "popular" there hasn't been any kind of in-depth coverage in reliable sources like newspapers and books that allow us to write a verifiable article. When it comes to an article about a real person we have to be very careful about what information Wikipedia publishes about them, and it needs to be traceable to another source. ~ mazca ^talk 12:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

My RFA →→→

Dear Mazca, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 20:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)