User talk:Mazca/Archive 2010

190fordhouse

Thank you for your help. The user usually doesn't explain their edits and harbors(also creates) several profiles to do this. Is WP:ANI still the correct place to report them?Carmaker1 (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes - any issue that's more complicated than simple vandalism generally should be reported to WP:ANI rather than WP:AIV, AIV is mostly for fast blocks of obvious vandalism. ~ mazca ^talk 07:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A recent AfD

It appears you forgot to remove a AfD template.--Rockfang (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Now removed, thanks for letting me know. ~ mazca ^talk 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Page re-creation

Hi, due to better reliable sources, I have recreated the Alec Powers article previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alec_Powers. Considering his body of work, it seems odd to me that it was thought at the time that sources could not be found. Hopefully further reliable sources can be found to substantiate the article. Ash (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me; notability seems to be fairly clear now. The article that was deleted was pretty bad and didn't show any of the awards or coverage your new version does; so it doesn't surprise me it did get deleted - perhaps nobody with knowledge of the subject matter happened to notice the AfD. Nice work, anyway. ~ mazca ^talk 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it appears I was wasting my time as it has been deleted within 12 hours of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Powers (2nd nomination) being raised leaving no time for discussion about the differences. There seems to be a distinct drive for WP:PORNBIO's guidance for proving notability by use of acting awards to override all other guidance (such as ARTIST or ENT) and to ignore significance of a body of work. I'm rather disheartened at what appears to me to be a bias against sexual articles when common-sense should apply. Ash (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got time to look into this much at the moment, but I can't say I particularly appreciate it getting G4ed rapidly despite you doing what you're supposed to do - notifying the previous deleting admin. On my brief review it seemed to be an improvement, so I think the AfD should have at least run for the normal time. I'd suggest deletion review; I will however have a closer look at the two versions side by side tomorrow. I'm far from an expert on this topic! ~ mazca ^talk 13:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

After discussion with the deleting admin I have raised Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Alec_Powers, hopefully the rationale is clear. As a previously involved party your comments either way are welcome. I feel my fingers have been burnt rather quickly on this one. As arguing is not my favourite pass-time I'll probably be retiring from contributing on pornography related articles for a while. Cheers Ash (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Oops, I just collided with you on semi-protecting that page. I gave it a week instead of a day since they have been disrupting for a while, but no worries if you think it would be better to change it back. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed. Absolutely no objection to the different time, I'm not particularly familiar with the situation and just protected for an arbitrary 24h to stop the immediate disruption. A week is perfectly reasonable if it's been ongoing. :) ~ mazca ^talk 19:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi there. Why does it take wiki-admins several hours to delete obvious hoax articles that have been csd-tagged more than an hour ago? Leaving such articles on wiki for too long only increases the chance for other websites to mirror these hoax articles. Amsaim (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because we never have enough admins! All admins are volunteers and csd-tagged articles can pile up very quickly - i've deleted those now, and I do try and do my part to keep the tagged articles clear. Ultimately, having a silly article like that hanging around for a few hours doesn't really hurt anything. ~ mazca ^talk 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I didn't want to send a big spam thank you but since you supported me twice and noted my comment in that AfD I will give you an extra note of thanks. Thank you J04n(talk page) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

98.80.162.195 on AIV

Could you take a look at this AIV post? Seems everyone is overlooking it. Thank you. Take Care. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP now - I was having a look around to see if it was feasible to range-block him, as it's a rather annoying vandal. Looks like the IP range may be a little large, though. Thanks for the report. ~ mazca ^talk 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure if a rangeblock was possible. Since the user uses the same "thank you bye" edit summary when blanking, could that be made into a filter? Like when blanking and "thank you bye" is used as an edit summary, it would block the edit? Just an idea :) Not sure how those filters work. Thanks for blocking that user, I greatly appreciate it :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Daryl D. Green

How frustrating to find out the article author was blatently dishonest -- I spent some time AGF and helping along what I thought was a new editor to find out that Green was paying him as ThemFromSpace proved. I've gone through and removed all links to the article that Yedogawa sprinkled around the project. I would recommend that his picture from the commons be removed also. [1] I've no experience in doing that, so I thought maybe you could do it. A google search brings this pic up and I think the project would be best served scrubbing (and salting -- yeah, yeah, I am kinda mad ;) ) all references to this guy. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the feeling - just in closing the AfD I had to spend about 15 minutes wading through the huge amounts of stuff he'd said. Who knows to what extent any of it was well-intentioned or genuine. Thanks for your work clearing up - looks like there were a fair few links sprinkled around.

I'm not sure if there's anything we can or should do about that picture on Commons - as an English Wikipedia administrator I don't actually have the power to delete it on Wikimedia Commons, and as it's appropriately licensed I don't think it actually breaks any rules over there. ~ mazca ^talk 21:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you AGF more than I -- not after ThemFromSpace posted Will Pay $500 to Develop Author Bio on Wikipedia for Daryl D. Green and the author created an account shortly thereafter. That is what upset me. But I'm OK now. ;) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had incidents before where an article has been created by a paid editor in a promotional style, but the subject has been indisputably notable and the article could therefore be salvaged by a rewrite. I wanted to make sure this wasn't the case here, but this definitely does seem to be a subject who really wouldn't warrant an article in normal circumstances. ~ mazca ^talk 11:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea FC editing

Hi, i think you put the Chelsea FC page under protection and i would like to let you know that the foundation date on the current page is wrong. It should be the 10th of March http://www.chelseafc.com/page/TeamHistory/0,,10268~1800325,00.html Are you able to edit it? Thanks --Chelsea barca (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the pointer - the page is only semi protected, so once you've made 10 edits and had an account for 4 days you will be able to edit it. ~ mazca ^talk 09:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, (i'm a new user, didn't realise i could edit after 4 days) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelsea barca (talk • contribs) 11:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

send copy of EOS (company) deleted article?

Could you send me a copy of the following article that I created that was deleted about EOS, a company? [2] that would be much appreciated :) NittyG (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done, see your talk page. ~ mazca ^talk 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dream Theater Vandal

Sorry bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.203.219 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.203.219 (talk • contribs)

No problem, provided you stop doing it it's all good! ~ mazca ^talk 21:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

2010-11 A1 Grand Prix season AfD

Read in you keep arguement that the 2010-11 season should be kept becua it's a reasonable search request. However I ask if you were aware that the cancelled season was the 2009-10 season and that 2010-11 was an imaginary future season that no-one ever began preparation for. A parralell would be if Formula One stopped racing at the end of this year the parrallel article would be the 2012 Formula One season, a complete year removed from the season where cancellation would have gained effect. --Falcadore (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly true that the 2010/11 season won't happen, but there's no reason a small number people won't happen to look for it. Redirects do no harm in these situations. ~ mazca ^talk 13:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to know you were sure of the timeline. --Falcadore (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dalton Maag

Could we get this undeleted? I came (for the first time) to read the article, and found it was deleted a mere 5 hours ago! —Sladen (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now undeleted as a contested PROD, though I'll emphasise that the article's unsourced and generally not very good. I'm going to let the person who tagged it for deletion in the first place know, so it may end up at AfD anyway. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that article in question is now at AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust victims and rotating IPs

Thanks for the AIV reports - just letting you know that ultimately I decided there was little point blocking any of the individual IPs because the vandal in question was clearly switching straight away; and I just semi-protected the page. If you run into these types of vandals it may save you some time on multiple reports if you either (a) report one of them to AIV noting that it's obviously switching IPs, or (b) just request page protection at WP:RFPP. Once he's switched off an IP address blocking it doesn't actually help... Cheers for your vigilance, anyway ~ mazca ^talk 17:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to evade RFPP in these cases (At least initially), as the IP's may swarm to other pages if they are unable to edit a articular page. I decided to report them all at once, as one IP seemed to claim this was a school class vandalizing during a college. I figured that if that was true, they would have no permission to change their IP (Or computer) due to insufficient permissions and classroom restrictions. Besides, with a subnet mask of 255.255.???.xxx it might have been difficult to range-block them all. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

List of nu metal bands continued

Sorry to bother you with a issue that I'm sure we all believed, or at least hoped, had been resolved, but "Sugar Bear" continues the edit war against what is a fairly clear consensus. His problem appears to lie with an unwillingness to even accept the term as legitimate (hence his now repeated deleton efforts [3], [4]) and refusal to acknowledge that sources say what they do in fact quite clearly sa, as you have already seen from the plethora of links provided on the article's talk page. In a recent development, they have also gone from using sources to make mutually contrdictory statements... this thread they argue a particular source is not relevant (despite block quotations to the contrary) as it is "about late '90s rock in general, not nu metal in particular", whereas here uses the same source as a reference work specifically on the subject of "nu metal". How do you feel that we, as a community of editors that have reached a consensus, should deal with this single individual that disrupting the ork of everyone else? Rational discussion appears to have thus far failed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that some of his previous efforts in regard of that list have been pretty seriously unhelpful, but as far as I can discern the protection-enforced discussion does seem to have resulted in a helpful consensus. The dispute he's raised now seems far more focused than previously, as it's just focusing on whether the two book sources actually assert that Hed PE and Incubus are "nu metal". This is a direct point that can be settled and has a right and wrong answer, rather than the previous unhelpful detours re: questioning the genre overall, and arguing about sources that state they aren't nu metal. If you have actual copies of the books in question this should be easy to settle one way or another... if not, I've ended up ordering both books anyway because they're cheap and this whole dispute has actually piqued my interest. If continued discussion just results in going round in circles again then we'll have to look into actually getting some kind of action, but I don't think we're quite there yet. ~ mazca ^talk 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please re-visit this discussion at your convenience, most particularly this section, but also the last day or two of discussion. Thanks. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am not "making up additional rules". Everything I have stated goes by our guidelines. These two bands are not founded enough to appear on this list and should be removed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

  I'm watching the talk page, will respond there. ~ mazca ^talk 18:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Repeal Bill listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Repeal Bill. Since you had some involvement with the Great Repeal Bill redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Might weigh in later but no strong opinion either way. ~ mazca ^talk 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:198.140.202.1

Please see this link. Plans to block him indefinitely. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Request (again)

Hello, Mazca! I assume that you remember my (denied) RB request one month ago and that the community would just like me to be stable for the while. Since I'm editing regularly again and fighting vandalism, would it be necessary to re-add rollback to my account? I'll have to say, though, it's heck-of-a-lot faster than patrolling Special:RecentChanges with Twinkle. :-) Schfifty3 04:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

194.225.224.26 (talk)

You blocked this user. I believe this to be the same person who has been vandalising articles with "Arabian Gulf" in them under various different guises. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it probably is - but in this case his actions were just unambiguous vandalism, so there's no need to come up with further justifications! ~ mazca ^talk 18:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mazca, looks like more than a 31 hour block is in order. He's been at it again...--MacRusgail (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like it's a fairly static IP so I've blocked it for a month. Thanks for your vigilance! ~ mazca ^talk 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome; well deserved. ~ mazca ^talk 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

Hi, Mazca. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2, and in my message here I noted that I would ask you if enough time had elapsed for me to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). What are your thoughts about this? Cunard (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no issue with that - it's been about eight months since the last discussion. Any improvements on the article have long since died off, and the sourcing remains very poor - I'm sure a subsequent AfD is likely to turn into another headache as previously, but the continued state of the article is starting to give greater weight to the case that it's fundamentally unsourceable due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources. If you've got the stomach for another AfD on it, then by all means go ahead. ~ mazca ^talk 20:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the insightful feedback. Though another AfD will be messy, I am loath to allow original research to remain on Wikipedia so have renominated the article for deletion. Cunard (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review the current version of the article before drawing conclusions about its sourcing, which has improved remarkably in the last few days. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted. ~ mazca ^talk 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Greyson Michael Chance article

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't feel comfortable making edits to actual articles. I think that you may have locked the Greyson Michael Chance article? I'm concerned because the section on Media and Marketing seems to be biased. I've left some comments on the discussion page for that article which go into some detail about my concerns. Primarily: I think that although the section seems warranted for introducing larger context -- yes, some few handful of individuals have questioned the authenticity of the Greyson Michael Chance viral sensation -- the section omits citations counterbalancing that speculation, and at least one citation there, to the Lefsetz Letter, is extremely weak, perhaps redundant, but is misleadingly worded to accentuate the possibility of a hoax.

One omitted citation would be to the followup article on Christian Science Monitor, by the same author who wrote the included citation, in which the author states upfront, ""Reports so far suggest that the Greyson Chance YouTube video is legit" @ http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0518/Greyson-Chance-What-is-real-in-an-age-of-media-manipulation . I find the omission to be troubling, since the first CSM article is included on the Wikipedia page but the following, back-peddling CSM article by the same author is omitted.

Another potentially valuable citation which offers a counter-argument to the hoax theory is the widely linked article at Advertising Age by Simon Dumenco, "Greyson Chance, 12-year-old YouTube and Twitter Superstar: How He Really Happened" @ http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=143964 . Given the fact that the section is about Media and Marketing, such a citation would give adequate counterbalance to what otherwise is mere speculation from one biased point of view.

Sorry for taking up your time with this. Being a noob at Wikipedia, I thought I would turn to someone with more experiece! Cgweeks (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While you may be new to Wikipedia; you're certainly a lot more knowledgeable about Greyson Chance than I am - I was just an uninvolved administrator that responded to someone's request to lock the article due to vandalism. I'm not really familiar with the subject or the background here, so I suggest you make these suggestions on the article's talk page as you've already been doing. Best of luck and thanks for your contributions so far. ~ mazca ^talk 15:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the 'Anabel Kutay' page?

It had references from different sites including the BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.108.24 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

117.192.172.25

Hi Mazca. First thank you for blocking 117.192.172.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I would like to also mention that this editor has a penchant for personal attacks. Please keep an eye on this IP and its socks. I can give you more details if you wish. Thank you very much. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. To be honest, his behaviour is generally sufficiently blatant that each IP gets blocked on its own merits without having to resort to a sockpuppetry issue - but yes, I shall keep an eye on him. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Mazca. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello from Rufus Philpot.

Hi I have received some emails from people curious to know why my entire entry in Wikipedia has been deleted. To be frank, I never read such things generally, but today decided to do some homework. Apparently you took it upon yourself to delete said entry. I am curious as to why? I seem to remember there was more to my entry than just Planet X. A band I am happily not part of anymore. As I continue to play with many musicians I am happy to have that fact known to interested parties. Can I assume that any future page I create will not be summarily erased? I have worked hard to achieve some degree of ability and standing as a musician and must say I am surprised you erased everything. I suspect you may have been acting on a request from Planet X sources, yet my bio was not based solely on that. I am hoping that you will be able to answer these questions, Yours Respectfully Rufus PhilpotRufusbass1 (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rufus - your Wikipedia page was deleted because all the text in it was basically a word-for-word copy of the bio at [5]. All other issues aside, it was a copyright infringement and hence it needed to be removed. No request from Planet X was received, it is simply standard Wikipedia policy to remove such content.

Assuming, as a musician, you've received significant coverage in reliable sources then a future article on yourself is quite welcome and will not be summarily deleted. But please be aware that Wikipedia is trying to be a neutral encyclopedia rather than a PR tool, so be very careful when writing about yourself - I'd make sure, in particular, that you read this page about writing autobiographical content here - it's discouraged. I hope this helps. ~ mazca ^talk 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Deletion

Hi thanks for the reply- I feel i need to clarify-the only copyright infringement would be Planet X using my bio-the text in Question was ORIGINALLY taken from MY own personal website, www.rufusbass.com -and therefore as I own that website, I cannot infringe on my own copyright? If this is correct, I would appreciate said text being restored. I will , however, be sure to check guidelines when adding any info, but i am surprised that it is so easy for an entire entry to be remove, without warning. R. Rufusbass1 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Biographical Details

..Additionally, I assume there can be no danger adding FACTUAL details as to who a musician has played with, and in what band etc??-surely this is beyond dispute if there is youtube footage, album credits etc to support? Whilst I understand a forum such as this is -as I have clearly experienced-open to interpretation/abuse, if I -or a fan- care to add biographical details, i.e. I play with Scott Henderson,guitar player in Los Angeles,and tour with Mitch Forman etc, this surely does not constitute an infringement of any policies??? Thanking you again' R Philpot Rufusbass1 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

After noticing a request at WP:AN, I have responded to these questions at User talk:Rufusbass1#Article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq - as I mentioned, I've been extremely busy at work these last few days and it's likely to continue for the immediate future. Rufus, I see you've received some advice on this whole situation and have pursued it elsewhere. Let me know if I can be of further assistance, but be aware I might not be able to respond for a few days. ~ mazca ^talk 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :D

Thanks Mazca !! James'ööders 09:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! ~ mazca ^talk 09:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Romatille has been re-created, presumably by a sockpuppet. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the report. Page deleted and user blocked! ~ mazca ^talk 16:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted both articles. Keeping track of European political alliances is difficult enough already. Thanks again, and have a great weekend. JNW (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You too. If he carries on we can protect the relevant pages from creation - let me know if I can be of any further assistance. :) ~ mazca ^talk 16:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Kurd1

Hi Mazca,

You may notice that I have gutted the Kurd1 Channel article and might wonder why I am being so hard-ass on this particular article, which seems so inoffensive at a casual glance. I am afraid that there is a nasty backstory here. The author of the article is a long term propagandist who has more blocked sockpuppets (57 inc IPs) than I own actual socks. He is currently subject to a IP rangeblock. Unfortunately this is not entirely effective and a load of articles have had to be protected just to keep him out of them. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarzanPDK18/Archive for all the sordid details. He is not the sort of propagandist who just tries to spin the facts. He simply makes stuff up. Anybody who has such a record of bad faith editing deserves no assumption of good faith, as any normal editor, even a problematic one, does.

Normally I would agree with you that an article with content is better than a one line stub but in this case I don't think it was. He made it look like his content was referenced but most of it wasn't. Instead he put spam links to his favourite Kurdish TV stations in ref tags, as if they were references, when they did not actually support the content, which I expect to be exaggerated (at best). It looks quite convincing until you dig into it. This time, I have kept a little more of his text compared to when I gutted it last time but I removed the unreferenced claims of deals with other broadcasters.

Anyway, now that you have the article on your watchlist, you may well see him pop up again with a new sockpuppet account or a Canadian IP address. You can always tell when it is him because he pretends that Kurdistan is a sovereign country, is obsessed with Kurdish TV stations and keeps adding the category Yazidi to Kurdish related articles even though not all Kurds are Yazidi and the articles are not relevant to Yazidi. For some reason he also hates the SVG version of the Kurdish flag and changes it to PNG whenever he can. If you do spot him then please report him for sockpuppetry. It might be fun if somebody other than me files the report next time. ;-)

Regards. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What a strange sockpuppeteer. Thanks for the information, I'll keep an eye out in future! ~ mazca ^talk 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

'John Roco' deleted

Hi Mazca, I am John Roco and was recently deleted on print- though I still am in my present flesh and blood state. I was wondering something, as am pretty new to all the wiki stuff. First, yes, I did the 'John Roco' article as 'John Roco.' Saw the Hawaii Senate Election page, and no link, so put the website link, then did the small paragraph blurb, of course deleted. Here is my question.

Article read and reviewed for deletion was prior to myself discovering the link to 'roco family' (not done by me; already existent in wikipedia) as prominent Filipino political family from Camines Sur, though only 'Raul Roco' is listed. Also, on search for 'American Psychological Association' and 'Nuremberg defense,' was only one other mention of this defending the APA's position that it did not take a 'Nuremberg defense,' as the two references under the 'John Roco' article spoke of from my public TV episode.

These weren't present at time of other reviewers, voting 'delete' or 'keep.' Would these warrant a 're-review' for 'delete' or 'keep' since were not even part of article they had reviewed for consensus? As to my own notability or not, hard to explain, but among Filipinos, as in the 'Filipino political families' page, large percentage expect me to be in government position, as being 'John Roco' of the 'Roco family.' Is a different political system. Hard to explain. Thanks!----John Roco 10:42pm Hawaii time 7/12/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Roco (talk • contribs) 08:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi John. I'd suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:POLITICIAN, which is our general guideline for when a political figure is considered notable enough for an article. I see your point about the Roco family having some name recognition in the region, but I don't think that alone is enough to warrant an article. If you think that John Roco, as a specific person, has received significant coverage in multiple sources that weren't considered in that discussion, let me know and point me to them - we can certainly reconsider the decision if there was genuinely some information missed. ~ mazca ^talk 22:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Impersonator

Thanks for spotting that. I have only one alternate account, Acroterion2 (hardly used) and I always manually log in. I was just visited by I am the shepard (talk · contribs) as well, now blocked, who's obviously the same person. Acroterion _(talk) 23:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. His initial behaviour left at least a vague possibility it could be a legitimate alternate account, but the moment he got called on it it was clearly deeply dodgy! ~ mazca ^talk 00:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate link

Hi Mazca, I think you were indeed right here. Someone pointed me to this. I have restored the links and apologized to the IP on their talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. Those terms and conditions certainly struck me as very strange - nice to know there's a lot of case law backing up that thought! Looks like you've sorted it out fine. ~ mazca ^talk 17:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

YGM...

...thanks! I thought I'd got them all, but apparently not... TFOWR 12:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ah, the endless joy of fiddly wikipedia templates... ~ mazca ^talk 12:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fabianski edit

Hi, I noticed you reverted a change I made on Lukasz Fabianski's page. Why is this? It's common knowledge that he is known as Flappyhandski (can provide citation if required - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2937341/Flappyhandski-not-to-blame.html). Many footballers pages have their nicknames (ex. Júlio César Baptista (born 1 October 1981) is a Brazilian footballer and plays as an attacking midfielder. Baptista is often nicknamed "The Beast" due to his physique.) I don't recall there being a rule that only "positive" nicknames being permitted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.194.18 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit essentially added unsourced negative information, which tends to get removed. If you've got a citation, feel free to add the sentence back with the reference. ~ mazca ^talk 17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Consider it done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.194.18 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

message at MATHEUS HS's talk page

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

from Lerdthenerd--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied on your talk page. ~ mazca ^talk 21:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

tb

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

- Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bacetti

A nom to delete and three deletes and one keep is not no consensus. What a pile of crap, hes a dirt track racer on no notability, what crap, utter crapOff2riorob (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well feel free to DRV it, or renominate it as I explicitly suggested in the closing statement. The sourcing of the article had clearly changed substantially and if you still dispute the validity or significance of it, either of those options is more likely to resolve the issue than just saying it's utter crap. I am not a fan of closing a debate as 'delete' after it has received substantial improvement followed by no further delete votes. ~ mazca ^talk 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There were still comments after the cites were added, those cites and the mentions of the subject in them made imo no difference at all, there was only one keep comment from the user that spend ten minutes searching and adding anything with his name on, did you read the citations and the link to the discussion at the policy page? Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A single keep comment ferom the user that added the badly formatted citations, one. I makes user feel it is a waste of time even bothering to take your time and investigate, a dirt track racer. RubbishOff2riorob (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the discussion on the policy page and as far as I could discern it reached no particularly useful conclusions as far as this article goes. Given that I don't think there was a great deal of discussion of the sources added late in the debate, I basically felt I had two options here: Relist the debate for a third time (specifically discouraged by WP:RELIST) or close it as no consensus with leave to renominate it if the sources were still in dispute. Clearly you do indeed dispute their validity, so I suggest you renominate it as I suggested, or take the closure to DRV.

Seriously, I understand if you resent spending your time investigating an article like this - but surely you can understand that I also resent taking my time to properly investigate the situation around the debate when closing it, only for you to come here and call it crap and rubbish repeatedly. I think the closure I made was reasonable, and there are several options available if you disagree. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have told you what I think about your closure and that is enough for me, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre warrior at it again

Hi there. It appears as if the IP editor who enjoys removing valid genres and references from music related articles is back again doing his stuff. Your intervention is needed. Is there any possibility to semi-protect these pages? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the same guy on the same IP address - I've just re-blocked it for a month this time. Unless he starts switching addresses I don't think we need to semi-protect the articles, but he is indeed very tiresome - do let me know if he comes back again! Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mazca. The IP editor is back with the same edits on the same article. Amsaim (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I was away at the time, but it looks like he stopped again of his own accord. Please do let me know if/when he continues, we can continue blocking and/or protecting as necessary. Thanks for your continued vigilance here! ~ mazca ^talk 19:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar

Argh. I opened this before you placed the On Hold template, and because I used the script to close it, didn't get an edit conflict. How were you going to close it? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, typical timing. I was having a real ponder as to how best to close it, but I had ultimately come to the same conclusion as you - currently all the coverage does seem to be in the context of the proof, rather than significant coverage of the individual. I was going to close it in the same way - the correct way to cover this is either as a section in the P = NP article, or, possibly, a spin-off article covering the event itself. So yeah, I have absolutely no issue with your close. ~ mazca ^talk 20:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, no harm done then, at least I've got the satisfaction of knowing someone else will Endorse the inevitable DRV :) Black Kite (t) (c) 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - I suspect it's the kind of close that will end up there, but I rather suspect it'll be endorsed comfortably. Oh, and I just edit-conflicted with you again attempting to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Pentagon shooting - fortunately, I agreed with the close once more! I'm going to stop trying now. :P ~ mazca ^talk 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BFMV: The Last Fight

You seem to be the person to talk to about Bullet For My Valentine stuff (if you're not, ah well). I found a different picture than the one used on The Last Fight (Bullet for My Valentine song) article. There's link on the talk page, and a better explanation of what I'm trying to say. :P Skakdi (Talk) 08:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there ~ mazca ^talk 09:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it. And I also found pictures of Josh Todd and Buckcherry, but once again, I don't know what to do. Skakdi (Talk) 05:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cattus vs. Catus

Since the Latin root is catt (as referenced from the article) I checked different translation services and found that 'cattus' produced a response when translated into English whereas 'catus' did not produce a response. Unfortunately, the most commonly used spellings, I have found, are not always the correct ones. AnniesRose (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

rollback

So your saying that Fastily is in charge of the situation of my rollback request. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that I'm not going to overturn his very recent decision given that I think it makes sense. He offered to reconsider, I suggest you raise it with him. ~ mazca ^talk 00:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I did he won't respond Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 01:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started an ANI thread at WP:ANI#Inka 888's Request for Rollback. Feel free to comment if you're interested. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect the discussion

Hi, I would like you to unprotect the discussion for Mansour Jabalameli Deletion case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrodata33 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion open for everyone. I personally searched his name in Google. When I encountred the page in Wikipedia, I registered myself here to edit his page but it seems impossible for me as his student. The page is banned for editing, and the discussion page has been monopolized by certain users. Please respect others as well. How one can add information or is it a closed discussion group.Shahinemadi (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am deeply dubious, but  Done ~ mazca ^talk 18:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Away

Just a note for anyone who happens to be poking around my talk page - I'll be away from Wikipedia entirely until approximately Sept. 26th while I go on holiday to Ireland. Hooray. If you need anything urgent you may wish to poke somebody else. ~ mazca ^talk 16:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Now back. ~ mazca ^talk 19:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i am sorry

[[Template:Unblock on hold|Mazca|I didnt know the rules befor but now i do so can you please unblock my ip adress. thank you for your time|Rsteinhardt (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)]]

This was added by a user who seems to be claiming he's autoblocked but does not show up in any autoblock lookup and has not tried putting the unblock template on his own page. —Soap— 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it (or, correctly not dealing with it...)! :) ~ mazca ^talk 19:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the cat disambiguation page! Chrisrus (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

List of dubstep musicians

Thanks for jumping in there. I left a note for HJ Mitchell as he last set the protection due to my WP:RFP request. I preferred to have an uninvolved admin place a semi-protect to avoid any appearance of me using my admin privileges to suppress article content since I've become more involved in keeping the list clean. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I guessed that was the reason - I did a similar thing at Bullet For My Valentine after I got more involved with the content there. You're very welcome, anyway. ~ mazca ^talk 10:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

IRON MAIDEN

Dude, we are in the middle of discussion for the Iron maiden worlwide selling records. You can join the discussion if you like. Do not edit content until we get a concensus. Please notice Im editing with relaible sources and should NOT be consider it as vandalism --Therein8383 (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on the article talk page, substantially prior to this message. I'm not seeing a discussion, just a wall of text from you. ~ mazca ^talk 23:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Schwyz sock?

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Schwyz as I've added another suspected sock (asking the admin that has just blocked as well). Dpmuk (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'd just noticed him at ANI. I got the orange bar popping up on the block screen! Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 13:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers - The ANI editors did make it pretty obvious. Dpmuk (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Enough}}

Haha. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

It is indeed a handy template; and I really couldn't think of anywhere more deserving of it than that topic. :) ~ mazca ^talk 16:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My Apologies

I did not mean to do that on the Joseph Stella page as vandalism. There was some information at the top of the page that was relevant to the article but I failed to read the bottom part which was the vandalism part which on my part was my fault and I apologize for my wrongdoings. Jpross123 Editor for Wikipedia 02:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the clear explanation you gave when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. George Sandulescu. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

You're very welcome! ~ mazca ^talk 12:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise as to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customary Aboriginal law --Wikiain (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and trust. Thank you for giving me such a considered support. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_glossary

Instead of ignorantly deleting an article that explain a lot about a certain topic, you could instead transfer it to the relevant wikia so people can actually make use of the information, without having someone like you taking the lazy way out and just deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.140.153 (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary, I am happy to undelete the content of the article somewhere if you or someone else has genuine intention to transfer it somewhere useful, such as Wikia. I never intended to do this myself, given that I know very little about the subject matter. Should you wish to take me up on this offer, by all means let me know. ~ mazca ^talk 18:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!

Dear Mazca, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 15:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)