User talk:MuZemike/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:MuZemike. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Administrative hiatus
As of now, I am going on an administrative hiatus for the time being. I'm afraid that I have spent too much time as one and is beginning to burn out as a result. Moreover, I have made virtually no mainspace contributions, and I need to concentrate on that more, especially with the less time that I currently have to do so. In the meantime, please direct any other admin- or CheckUser-related to any of our other admins or CheckUsers that we have. Regards, --MuZemike 20:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
ACE2012
I was wondering if you were planning to create the ACE RFC again this year. Your structure last year seemed to work well. Monty845 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- In about a week or so. We started the RfC at around mid to late September last year, and it looks like that worked out okay. --MuZemike 20:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- In a more perfect world, you could simply have an up-or-down "vote" on the idea of doing everything exactly the way it was done last year, just apply the time frames to this years calendar so everything is the same day of the week, with a package deal including the same voting method (support/(support+oppose)), SecurePoll, 50% threshhold, same handling of voter guides, and whatever else I am leaving out from last year's RfC. I don't see the point of taking all the pieces apart and putting them back together every year, especially when last year's RfC seemed to ratify (and in some cases slightly improve upon) virtually all the elements approved in the previous RfC's. We have a reasonable, working election system, I don't see why we can't just use it again. Of course, I realize that this is not a perfect world, and somebody(s) may insist that we have to re-invent the wheel again, and unfortunately there isn't time for a 30-day "repeat everything" RfC and then, if that fails, a second RfC with all the separate pieces like last year's. At least, I don't think there is. Neutron (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I mean, we can push it up slightly, but that means less time for the RfC, assuming everything went okay structurally last year and assuming roughly the same timeline. Perhaps we could do with less time, perhaps not. Also, there has recently been the discussion of organizing political parties, and while I have already made my stance clear personally on that issue, if they want to discuss about it for the upcoming ArbCom election, we shouldn't stop them from doing so. My concern is giving everybody ample time to discuss how the election should be run.
- With any other issues that arise, such as the couple from last year, note that it's virtually impossible to come up with each and every contigency for every possible situation (such as sudden resignations and new seats); every election is going to have some different twist or turn that we (as a community) need to deal with. --MuZemike 23:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- What I think we should do, and it was suggested in the feedback from last year, (sort of) is have the first topic of discussion at this year's RFC be a codification proposal. If the proposal is approved, last year's rules and structure would be set as the default for this year and future years. RFC proposals could still be made to amend the codified version if they develop consensus, and we would still want to have a yearly RFC to serve as a centralized place to make those proposals. That way we don't need to redo the discussions each year, and can focus on discussing proposed changes, and places for improvement. There are several items that from last year that need to be addressed regardless, such as Meta voter guides and unexpected vacancies. Monty845 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- On balance it probably makes sense to have one RfC rather than two (in succession) at this point. Monty, as for the codification proposal, are you suggesting that the RfC list all the elements that were decided last year, and ALSO have the separate elements as separate RfC questions? If yes, what happens if the "package" proposal gets a consensus but a separate proposal that is contradictory also gets a consensus? If no, what if the "package" proposal does NOT get a consensus? I'd be concerned that people might get confused and think that if they "vote" for the "package" they don't also need to vote on the separate elements, which might skew the results. Or maybe a "vote" for the package is counted as a "vote" for all the separate elements as well? That would need to be spelled out. As for the other issues: Were the "meta guides" listed in the navigation template last year? On the vacancies occurring right before or during the election, in an ideal world we would have a cutoff date before the due date for nominations, but the problem is that we have no vacancy-filling mechanism, so the earlier the cutoff the greater the chance that we end up with a vacant seat for more than a year. On the "parties", I think the "election system" should neither oppose them nor facilitate them, and should basically just ignore them. The examples of "facilitation" that I can think of would both involve the content of the ballot itself: Labeling of candidates by "party", and/or grouping of candidates by party. I would oppose either, and I can't imagine that any such proposals would get a consensus. If someone wants to have a "voter guide" that says "vote for these candidates because they are a member of X party", I don't see an issue with that, and they could be listed in the template along with the others. Of course, those are just my opinions. Neutron (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Really, we should have had an RFC on the codification proposal a month or so ago, I imagined it being just a proposal to adopt last year's system, without detailing every part of it, and subject to any other proposals gaining consensus that modify it. As for the problems, the alternatives are that we can have it only apply to future years, which would lead to us re-inventing the wheel one last time, or that the RFC is drafted as if it was already the case, (which was proposed in last year's feedback) which could undermine the legitimacy of the RFC in the eyes of some. The meta guides were included, as for the cutoff date, I intend to propose it be 2 days before the close of voting to provide the maximum opportunity to fill seats, while still allowing those who wish to vote strategically to amend their votes in light of the changes circumstances. (but thats a matter for the RFC proper, not about drafting it) Monty845 15:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the RfC should be the "standard" 30 days in length. Last year it was 45 days and I thought it dragged on interminably. Thirty days also leaves time for a "quick" follow-up RfC if there are any loose threads, but probably not a second full 30-day RfC. So I guess the codification and the separate options all get thrown into one RfC together, which hopefully won't leave too huge a mess for the closers to sort out. MuZeMike does a good job with the format -- unfortunately last year some people tried to create their own "counter-format" within his format, particularly on the issue of which voting system to use, but the closers were able to sort through it. For awhile we had a preference voting procedure going on the issue of whether to use preference voting. As I said last year, I think we could use an elected "Election Commission" to bring more order to the process (MuZeMike for chairman!) but as I also said last year, I know that idea would go over like a led zeppelin. Neutron (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Given how many proposals get added as time goes on, I think the 45 days makes some sense, but I will happily defer to however MuZemike decides to structure things. Monty845 22:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the RfC should be the "standard" 30 days in length. Last year it was 45 days and I thought it dragged on interminably. Thirty days also leaves time for a "quick" follow-up RfC if there are any loose threads, but probably not a second full 30-day RfC. So I guess the codification and the separate options all get thrown into one RfC together, which hopefully won't leave too huge a mess for the closers to sort out. MuZeMike does a good job with the format -- unfortunately last year some people tried to create their own "counter-format" within his format, particularly on the issue of which voting system to use, but the closers were able to sort through it. For awhile we had a preference voting procedure going on the issue of whether to use preference voting. As I said last year, I think we could use an elected "Election Commission" to bring more order to the process (MuZeMike for chairman!) but as I also said last year, I know that idea would go over like a led zeppelin. Neutron (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Really, we should have had an RFC on the codification proposal a month or so ago, I imagined it being just a proposal to adopt last year's system, without detailing every part of it, and subject to any other proposals gaining consensus that modify it. As for the problems, the alternatives are that we can have it only apply to future years, which would lead to us re-inventing the wheel one last time, or that the RFC is drafted as if it was already the case, (which was proposed in last year's feedback) which could undermine the legitimacy of the RFC in the eyes of some. The meta guides were included, as for the cutoff date, I intend to propose it be 2 days before the close of voting to provide the maximum opportunity to fill seats, while still allowing those who wish to vote strategically to amend their votes in light of the changes circumstances. (but thats a matter for the RFC proper, not about drafting it) Monty845 15:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- On balance it probably makes sense to have one RfC rather than two (in succession) at this point. Monty, as for the codification proposal, are you suggesting that the RfC list all the elements that were decided last year, and ALSO have the separate elements as separate RfC questions? If yes, what happens if the "package" proposal gets a consensus but a separate proposal that is contradictory also gets a consensus? If no, what if the "package" proposal does NOT get a consensus? I'd be concerned that people might get confused and think that if they "vote" for the "package" they don't also need to vote on the separate elements, which might skew the results. Or maybe a "vote" for the package is counted as a "vote" for all the separate elements as well? That would need to be spelled out. As for the other issues: Were the "meta guides" listed in the navigation template last year? On the vacancies occurring right before or during the election, in an ideal world we would have a cutoff date before the due date for nominations, but the problem is that we have no vacancy-filling mechanism, so the earlier the cutoff the greater the chance that we end up with a vacant seat for more than a year. On the "parties", I think the "election system" should neither oppose them nor facilitate them, and should basically just ignore them. The examples of "facilitation" that I can think of would both involve the content of the ballot itself: Labeling of candidates by "party", and/or grouping of candidates by party. I would oppose either, and I can't imagine that any such proposals would get a consensus. If someone wants to have a "voter guide" that says "vote for these candidates because they are a member of X party", I don't see an issue with that, and they could be listed in the template along with the others. Of course, those are just my opinions. Neutron (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- What I think we should do, and it was suggested in the feedback from last year, (sort of) is have the first topic of discussion at this year's RFC be a codification proposal. If the proposal is approved, last year's rules and structure would be set as the default for this year and future years. RFC proposals could still be made to amend the codified version if they develop consensus, and we would still want to have a yearly RFC to serve as a centralized place to make those proposals. That way we don't need to redo the discussions each year, and can focus on discussing proposed changes, and places for improvement. There are several items that from last year that need to be addressed regardless, such as Meta voter guides and unexpected vacancies. Monty845 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- In a more perfect world, you could simply have an up-or-down "vote" on the idea of doing everything exactly the way it was done last year, just apply the time frames to this years calendar so everything is the same day of the week, with a package deal including the same voting method (support/(support+oppose)), SecurePoll, 50% threshhold, same handling of voter guides, and whatever else I am leaving out from last year's RfC. I don't see the point of taking all the pieces apart and putting them back together every year, especially when last year's RfC seemed to ratify (and in some cases slightly improve upon) virtually all the elements approved in the previous RfC's. We have a reasonable, working election system, I don't see why we can't just use it again. Of course, I realize that this is not a perfect world, and somebody(s) may insist that we have to re-invent the wheel again, and unfortunately there isn't time for a 30-day "repeat everything" RfC and then, if that fails, a second RfC with all the separate pieces like last year's. At least, I don't think there is. Neutron (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
If we follow the same timeline as last year, here is how I have it all calculated for this year:
- Nominations: Sunday 00:01, 18 November - Tuesday 23:59, 27 November (10 days)
- Fallow period: Wednesday 00:01, 28 November - Sunday 23:59, 2 December (5 days)
- Voting period: Monday 00:01, 3 December - Sunday 23:59, 16 December (14 days)
- Scrutineering: Monday 00:01, 17 December - ??? (whenever the Stewards are finished)
The dates are moved back just a little so that everything starts and ends on the same days of the week as last year's election, (i.e. last day for voting is on a Sunday, like last year). This timeline should stay as it is, or it can be moved back a full week; that decision should be left for ArbCom so that they can determine how much time they feel is enough to get the new Arbitrators settled in by January 1, 2013.
We may not need a 45-day RfC for this if all it comes down to having less stuff to discuss and verify. The RfC could realistically be started in early October, though I'd like to see it ended about 5 days before the nomination period so that everything can get ironed out before that. --MuZemike 21:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- As an inductee of after the last election, my opinion may be useful: the time between the appointment announcements and 1 January was of ideal length. I would recommend you leave the same number of days between when the scrutineers finish and the new arbitrators start. AGK [•] 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
AN#Volunteers needed for ArbCom Elections in December..
Mentioned the discussion that occurred on your talk page (now archived) in response to WP:AN#Volunteers needed for ArbCom Elections in December... Just an FYI. Monty845 04:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Reference Library request
Hi MuZemike, I was wondering if you could supply me with some articles covering the game, Galaga. In particular, I can see that you have:
- An issue of Nintendo Power (Issue 2, September/October 1988) and
- An issue of VideoGames & Computer Entertainment (Issue 3, April 1989)
that cover the NES version. In addition, I would be interested to see material on:
- Road Blasters (from Nintendo Power, Issue 10, January/February 1990),
Gauntlet (from Nintendo Power, Issue 1, July/August 1988),- Gauntlet II (from The Games Machine, Issue 1, October/November 1987), and
- Pac-Mania (from The Games Machine, Issue 4, March 1988).
If you can provide me with scans, text, or possibly even a summary, or anything else then please let me know. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again, I've contacted a few of the other editors who have also agreed to serve as contacts for a few of the above sources at the WP:VG Reference Library project. One of them just got back to me so I've struck the article he provided. I will strike the others as they come in if anyone else gets back to me before you do. Incidentally, if you are too busy to help me then I'd appreciate a response to that effect as well just so that I don't end up wasting my time waiting on you. No rush if you do intend to get around to it eventually, though. Either way, thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
ACERFC draft
[1] → For the ACE2012 and other talk page stalkers. --MuZemike 19:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Where would be the place to suggest changes before this goes live? Here, on the talk page for the sandbox page, or elsewhere? Neutron (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC). The biggest comment being, the threshold for election chosen at the 2011 RFC, and used in the election, was 50 percent, not 60. Neutron (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why it can't be discussed here. This is going to go live in about 24 hours, anyways. I have also corrected the one error that you mentioned. --MuZemike 23:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Signpost mention
Hi, hope you don't mind if we mention this at the Signpost in the "In brief" section of "News and notes". If you don't want this, please let me know soon. Tony (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC) PS, ah, thought it hadn't been launched and was still a draft. Tony (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom elections
Hi. In response to this, if still needed, I am offering help on next ArbCom elections. Regards.‴ Teles «Talk ˱@ L C S˲» 22:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please, ignore my message above. Stewards are discussing that. Sorry.‴ Teles «Talk ˱@ L C S˲» 05:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi MuZemike. We have a team of volunteers for the arbcom elections: Pundit, Teles, Laaknor, Mardetanha, Millosh and Quentinv57. Trijnsteltalk 19:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good. I'll ask you folks (the Stewards) if 3 or 4 are enough to manage the election, as we had 4 back in 2010 and 3 last year. While a team of 6 is great, we also need to look forward to ACE2013, and we would prefer to not have Stewards to scrutineer the results for two consecutive years. A slightly smaller team leaves a couple Stewards open for next year, assuming the same Stewards are around. --MuZemike 06:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the feedback. I send an email to the other stewards so we'll discuss this. Trijnsteltalk 08:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Election RFC
One issue that has been discussed, but not included in the RFC so far, is the issue of "parties." It appears that discussion of the "Reform Party" is still going on, so it is possible that there actually will be at least one "party" endorsing candidates in this election. For that reason, I have written up a list of "ground rules" for the treatment of any "parties" that do support candidates. It is still in my user space here and I would appreciate your comments, especially on some of the one or two "technical" questions that I have in the footnotes, before I post it in the RFC. Or if you believe that the whole thing is a bad idea, I would like to know that too. This is intended to be a compromise between having a "nonpartisan" election but also permitting editors to form affiliations and communicate about them to the voters, and to put as much of the "party business" as possible in user space rather than on the Wikiproject that was recently "kept". Anyway, your thoughts would be welcome over the next two or three days while this is still in my user space. I am also going to post this message on two other editors' talk pages. Neutron (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) As we default to the status quo on things not discussed at the RFC, I think most of the points in your proposal aren't strictly necessary. The voter guide point is very interesting though, and could well be an issue. Prohibiting a wiki space voter guide in the template could actually make it worse. Supposing they do endorse a sleight of candidates and have more then a couple editors supporting it, the supporters could each copy the sleight into their userspace, and then list it as a voter guide. Having a large number of guides in the template that are either identical or if not identical similar and that all endorse the sleight would be very problematic. They could essentially drown out all other guide writers given the historical volume of guides. To me that would be worse then a single Wikipedia space guide. Monty845 02:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
As I predicted last month, I knew the issue of parties would be a potential issue regarding to ACE2012. I need to read the developing statements a little more before I say anything in that space. Also keep in mind that I have already made my opinion clear about political parties; people may (and will likely) consider me partial with regards to the discussion. However, as I have emphasized before starting the RfC, if users wants to discuss politicization of ArbCom, they should not be restricted from doing so. --MuZemike 06:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure whether I even want to post what I have written. I am not trying to encourage parties, but I thought maybe there should be some ground rules in case any party actually does field candidates. Posting this may create more issues than leaving it alone. Neutron (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Retro Gamer
Hi MuZemike. You seem to have the March 2009 issue of Retro Gamer that I am interested in. This issue contains an article called "The Making of Full Throttle", and I would like to know if the game in question is the same Full Throttle that was designed by Tim Schafer. Thanks in advance, Electroguv (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't have that one; I'm missing issues 56 through 76 right now. --MuZemike 16:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Q3 Newsletter Feature
Hi MuZemike, per your suggestion regarding a feature for the Q3 WP:VG Newsletter, User:Torchiest and I have drawn up a possible article. Neither of us have had much involvement with the newsletter before so we weren't sure how to proceed from here, but if you'd like to look it over and/or include it with the newsletter then you can find it here. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you, but I made 1 more change to the feature. here. Still time to update before sending it out? -Thibbs (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm loading the stuff into the newsletter right now. Once I verify the numbers on the front, I'll send it out. However, if you have something else in which to send, I can wait a little bit. --MuZemike 14:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, no. That's it from me I promise. :) It's ready to be shipped. -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm loading the stuff into the newsletter right now. Once I verify the numbers on the front, I'll send it out. However, if you have something else in which to send, I can wait a little bit. --MuZemike 14:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Reminder about SecurePoll
Hi, Tim Starling, or someone else at WMF who can do it, needs to be alerted to the probable timing and asked whether he'll be on deck to help with the routine tasks he's done twice before. Best not to ambush the techs with little notice. Tony (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just emailed Tim, seeing if he can volunteer again to run the interface. --MuZemike 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppet on the loose
Another sockpuppet of the banned vandal Fragments of Jade is at it again, this time under the name of Zhoban (talk · contribs). This time, she has the same habit of blanking her talk page, called me a fruitcake (a derogatory term for a homosexual) and removed the sockpuppeteer notice. Judging by the same editing style, same interests, same attitude, same incivility, same blanking of personal talk pages and the same geographical location as last time, I believe that it is Fragments of Jade, the same user who abused me and Hula Hup. Can you please block this sockpuppet? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought last time it wasn't conclusive that we're dealing with the same user (and the user just came from a 2-week block). In any case, I no longer have admin rights, so I can't do anything about it directly. Sorry, --MuZemike 15:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- . Thanks for the well-timed response. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
On "Hope"
I respect you a lot, Muzemike. But without fail, every single time I see you pursuing this line of reasoning, I think of this movie scene. Sorry, but I can't help it. Don't be Denethor. Don't give up hope, as it is demoralizing to hear it from you. Chin up! Doc talk 06:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Request to confirm information re ILT socks
Hi, sorry to do this, but could you have a look at this conversation and this conversation. I'd like to consolidate the many conversations (this is now the 6th) to my page to provide information re ILT to those who don't understand. Can you please post to my page that Susanne2009NYC was in fact an ILT sock - although I see that page has been tagged. Still I guess I need confirmation or something. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Steve Shepherd entry
All of the criticisms of this article cited in the recommendation for deletion were addressed on October 7th and thereafter. Steve Shepherd is a legitimate major historical figure in the history of the sport of kickboxing. The majority print sources cited are authentic and, largely, come from contemporaneous reporting. Nothing has been plagiarized. I was one of the national reporters who covered this man's career. Whoever recommended this entry for deletion, quite transparently, has not looked at the present version of the entry or is uninformed about the history of this sport and its prominent champions. Paul Maslak (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- From looking at the article log here, it was deleted back in October 2008 because of the plagiarism problem that you mentioned. Other than that, I can't recall working on that article at all, nor have I made a single edit to it. Did you get me confused with someone else? --MuZemike 22:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. I'm new to Wikipedia editing. Apparently the flag I was referencing applied to a 2008 version of this entry; not to the new 2012 version. Thanks for your explanation.
Paul Maslak (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's OK. The most important thing is that the current version is good to go. Keep in mind that anyone is able to edit the article that you created, our licensing and policies do place restrictions on what you can and cannot do, as we are an encyclopedia. --MuZemike 03:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hope everything's all right
Between the image change above and you archiving of everything, not to mention your handing off of your advanced permissions a few days/weeks ago, I'm a tad worried that something's wrong. Just wanted to stop by and check in on you, make sure you're okay. Let me know if you need something. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is now engulfed in a humongous flame war. Nobody is going to leave unscathed. I doubt anything will put this fire out. (And certainly anything I say, being a former admin, will only add to the turmoil.) --MuZemike 05:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do wonder if that will happen. --Rschen7754 06:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's my opinion, at least. I'm not going to get near that cluster with a ten-foot pole. --MuZemike 15:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking about the one at A*****. If not, somehow I missed one. The thing is that Wikipedia is always getting into flame wars over one thing or another. I remember getting involved in one of the NFCC enforcement dustups and in the last two Betacommand dustups. Since then I've just avoided major dust ups, which is remarkably easy to do. Considering that there are still people that are bitter with each other over dust ups that happened before I joined the project, and yet Wikipedia does continue to function, I wouldn't get too worried about it. As long as you're still able to find enjoyment in the project, a massive flame war that doesn't involve you shouldn't be a reason to head for the hills. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's my opinion, at least. I'm not going to get near that cluster with a ten-foot pole. --MuZemike 15:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do wonder if that will happen. --Rschen7754 06:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
ACE2012
It took a while, but as a response to this: Pundit, Teles, Quentinv57 and Mardetanha will help the en-wiki community this year. Trijnsteltalk 12:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Mtking (edits) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
Malibu Barbi
Do you happen to know why Malibu Barbi was a G6? What was the page's content before it was deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this page you deleted needs bringing back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Ori_Allon Mikepegg (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like he may have enough now to pass for notability. The bad news is that I am not currently operating as an admin, so you'll have to ask another admin about the possibility of restoring it. Sorry, --MuZemike 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Purpose
Hi MuZemike. I been busy mucking with the Deletion review/Purpose to get it transcluded into the Wikipedia:Deletion review page. I also posted a thread at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Purpose#Interpreted the result incorrectly related to the wording of the DRV statement of purpose. A favor of your reply there would be welcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— ΛΧΣ21 03:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Redlinks after AfD deletion
Hi, I notice that in this edit you deleted the instructions to remove backlinks after AfD.
This makes the admin instructions for AfD inconsistent with those for PROD and CfD.
Before I propose reinstatement of that instruction, please advise whether you can recall any particular objections to that former requirement. Your edit summary said the overhaul was "Mostly per concerns at WP:AN". Those would be hard to trace, so I'm hoping you have a good memory on this point!
Kind regards – Fayenatic London 15:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I believe this is the discussion you're looking for. —Torchiest talkedits 16:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! I have gone ahead with the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Removing backlinks. – Fayenatic London 16:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Festivus
|
Happy Festivus! | |
| Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. —Torchiest talkedits 14:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
Operation Entebbe
Operation Entebbe, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject tagging request
Hello, WP:JAZZ would like to have a 'bot add a WikiProject banner to jazz-related articles that aren't already tagged. We had already left a request at User talk:DodoBot/Requests#WP:JAZZ. However, that account does not seem to be very active (which I did not notice at the time I filed the request). Could you have your 'bot complete this request? Let me know if you have any questions (I'll add this page to my watchlist). Thank you and Happy Holidays! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Mention at ANI thread (nothing bad)
Yo MuZemike, your name has come up at ANI in reference to an edit filter you wrote: the thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell". Looking at the filter stuff, I don't think there's anything to be done, but you'll have more knowledge about it than I do, in course. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: WikiProject tagging request
Hi, I had left you a request a few days ago, but it had already been archived. After that, I saw you had left an older message about being on administrative hiatus, and I wasn't sure this was still the case. So, I went ahead and added this request to Wikipedia:Bot requests (just in case you had already seen the archived message – I didn't want two people simultaneously trying to work on it). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Weird page in my userspace
Any idea what happened here? You created a socktagged page in my userspace. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- And Salvio created a tagged/hardblocked notice for User:Sitush/Sitush2, which is presumably for some similar reason. Obviously, I understand blocks and socks but not why these things appear in my userspace. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strike all of the above. My brain has re-engaged: they're not in my userspace but appear in a listing because of the selection of prefix. Talk about being stupid ... - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Richard Richardson (military officer)
hi there, Richard Richardson (military officer) was deleted, do you have the article was there anything in there? thanks mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I cannot tell you that, as I am no longer acting as an administrator. You may be able to get that information from another administrator if you kindly ask. --MuZemike 05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Interview
Hi there MuZe. I'm wondering if you would like to be interviewed for the Video Games WikiProject newsletter. If you want to, or not, please get back to me on it. GamerPro64 03:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
reverbnation.com
Howdy. Trying to see why we have reverbnation.com blacklisted, as I cannot find a reason in the corresponding logs. Also there seems to be >> 1000 links to the domain Special:LinkSearch/*.reverbnation.com so wonder if it is that evil, why we haven't removed the links. Seems that we are betwixt and between on this domain, and some enlightenment would be helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey there. I was wondering if you have a script or something you use to archive each month of new WP:VG articles. I did it by hand last month and it was tedious to say the least. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 05:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for tagging this for notability back in 2009. The tag's still there; I've added a couple of reviews, but I'm unsure if it meets WP:NALBUMS. You may want to take it to WP:N/N or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Picker78 yet again
He has got to be one of the most persistent WP:Sockpuppets I have ever come across. I don't know if you want to do anything about his latest visit to the Masturbation article, but I left a a note in the edit history about it for others. Past edits under whatever user name or IP address compared to the recent ones he made there as 46.190.66.249 of course show the connection.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's this to boot. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- And here and here. He might even be silly enough to show up in this section of your talk page to claim that he's not Picker78, despite your thorough knowledge of how he operates. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Update: Fluffernutter has indefinitely semi-protected the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- And here and here. He might even be silly enough to show up in this section of your talk page to claim that he's not Picker78, despite your thorough knowledge of how he operates. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Filter question
I'm not sure if you're around these days, but I've posted a question here that pertains to a filter you maintain. If you get a chance, please comment. -Thibbs (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, the problem's been solved now. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Little Racers: Requesting to know
Hello, i was wondering about the article called little racers and what got my intreast about the article was that it was made from Milkstone studios. I left a talkpage message on the article's talk to offer some assistance but since the article is on a safeguard due to a keep or delete discussion i was wondering if i may have permission to help this unknown individual in there unfinished work. --Indienews (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
A global sock is back?
See: [8] The Dutch user Knowalles and his socks were blocked among others because of global sock puppet actions to remove the "JDL graffiti image".
It seems he is now back as Libertaz. [9] Not sure what to do with this. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 21:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Scruffy
Expect it to start back again. THis is just the very humble beginning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.182.240 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Nintendo Power for Final Fantasy Adventure
I'm working on Final Fantasy Adventure and I'd love to know what Nintendo power said about it in Issue 28, September 1991. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- They provide a 10-page overview/walkthrough of the game in that issue. If you're looking for something to improve the Gameplay section, that may be a good place right there. --MuZemike 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do they rate the game in the issue? And how do I see, or learn what the issue says? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Note recreation of a page you deleted
Freilichtbühne Loreley was recreated by the same editor; you had deleted it as created by a blocked/banned user. I found out because I was about to undelete it myself in order to add refs. demonstrating notability. I can't do that for at least a few hours, but I've gone ahead and undeleted the history for attribution's sake; letting you know meanwhile before packing up to leave work. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not that I can do anything about it, but the user in question is no longer blocked or banned, so it makes little difference now. --MuZemike 20:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've now looked up the second AN discussion. Frankly, I'm disturbed that he seems to have recreated all the deleted articles in substantially the same form. I think I'll drop a note on his talk page about inadequate referencing and bare URLs. I don't have time to transform all his articles and am sure there's at least one dud topic among them, but if you compare what I found at Freilichtbühne Loreley with what's there now, and the same with Waldbühne (and earlier Alabamahalle; it was probably the listing of the AfD for that that made me aware of Evangp), I think you'll appreciate that one of my biggest concerns is that his poor work is giving the impression of lack of notability for topics that are in fact extremely notable - and not solely because a long list of rockstars performed there. Since he's unblocked, I hope he starts doing them more justice. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I´m back, Mr. Scruffy
There will be an automated mass "Scruffy" event on Wikipedia on June 1. Stand back and wait for the excitement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.183.175 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear MuZemike,
I am writing you to gain information on the proper procedure for posting a company on wikipedia. I am not interested in using wikipedia for any advertising purposes as we are an advertising company and have plenty of more efficient resources for this. I am simply inquiring about information so we can simply list our company in the free encyclopedia. Regardless of the fact that we are something that has never been specifically created we are simply wanting to make sure people have the full story about our company. I have seen many other adult related companies on wikipedia and am simply looking for insight into the proper procedure to accomplish what so many other have been aloud to do, in the proper procedure according to wikipedia. Please help me with any information to resolve my query.
Explicit1 2012 (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)FYI: This account has been blocked as a spamusername for a company called Explicit Management.--Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia user page
{{Help me-helped}}
Can YOu please make user page for me. it would be kind of you
Khaja.moinuddin.24 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do not think that anyone would want to make your user page for you. I'd be happy to show you where to find resources to help you build it for yourself. User pages aren't something that are needed for the encyclopedia, and are more of a way for users to describe themselves to the community. It's about you and no-one knows you better than YOU!!! Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Dota 2 revisit
Hello, MuZemike. I'm getting in touch with you because it has nearly been two years since I nominated Dota 2 as a Good Article, which, you may recall, you immediately rejected, due to the instability of the article. Well, there has been plenty of time for the article to develop and ripen, with infinitely more content, pictures and a more comprehensive degree of flow to it. So, with your fair judgment in mind, I must ask you, would it be worth it to open a new GA nomination and anticipate more promising results? DarthBotto talk•cont 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You might have insights...
Hello MuZemike, I'm Kevjonesin,
I just posted an inquiry here and it occurred to me that you may have insights to share on the topic as you signed off on one of the quoted comments.
Thanks for your time and attentnion,
--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Kevjonesin: – First off, apologies in the delay, as I do not get back on such replies quickly anymore. If I recall a year ago, it says what it says – I basically marked it as closed, and I cannot recall running any CU on the user in question. However, that seems to be a moot point due to the abuse of multiple accounts after the fact.
- (Also, on an unrelated note, I'm also trying the
{{reply to}}template for the first time to see if this does indeed trigger an Echo notification on the respondent's end. However, there the developers really should come up with a way to do the same with regular WikiCode, similar to how mentions are formatted on many other websites.) --MuZemike 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:VG Q2 2013 newsletter
Hey there. Can you send out the newsletter for this quarter? It should be all set up and ready to go. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 13:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Torchiest: All done! --MuZemike 17:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I had to find out about you in particular about your credentials. Too many questions have been asked about your involvement in the afd Manu Shanker Mishra. It happens to be me. The sources I provide are www.msmishraassoc.org and simply google. All sort of things have been said which appear to be defamatory. In any case with due regards to your earnest efforts, sincerely hope to hear from you in case you are a real person.
Regards
Manu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.201.143 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- @27.7.201.143: As an administrator and the closing administrator of that AfD almost 4 years ago, I was more than qualified to close any deletion discussion in which consensus is in favor. The rough consensus was in favor of deletion of the article, despite the disruption that was occurring in that deletion discussion.
- That being said, if there was anything in the AfD in which anything defamatory was being said towards you personally, we have the option to courtesy blank the deletion discussion to prevent any further damage. Please let me know if this is a suitable course of action for you.
- However, as far as the deletion of the article about you is concerned past what I have explained above, that is something in which I cannot address (especially since I am no longer an administrator), but you may request a review of the deletion at deletion review by following the instructions here. --MuZemike 06:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Range-blocked public library asking for unblock
You blocked 64.107.0.0/22 for three years in Jan 2012 when trouble continued after a previous range block. IP 64.107.0.226 (talk · contribs) is the Chicago Public Library and is asking on its talk page to be unblocked. What do you think? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- @JohnCD: That person will need to go through WP:ACC and request an account. That IP range has been under long-term abuse and continuously blocked since 2006 to say the least. I do not support any unblock of that IP range. --MuZemike 23:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Chicago LTA
Thanks for the email - useful background. There was another request from 64.107.3.126 (talk · contribs), also Chicago Public Library, and I pointed them, too, to WP:ACC. Would a registered account be able to edit through that rangeblock, or would they need IPBE? JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:VG newsletter interview
Hey there, would you be willing to do the interview for the 2013 Q3 newsletter? As in, be the interviewee, not the interviewer. If yes, let me know either here, on my talk page, or on the newsletter talk page. Thanks! —Torchiest talkedits 13:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir, Please display my IP address. You were personally responsible for a most humiliating, absurd, totaly unsubstantiated AFD. MANU SHANKER MISHRA. Any way my website is http;//www.msmishraassoc.org. We need information on you . What we know is you are an Indian National. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.201.176 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- 1) I cannot do that for you, and 2) I have nothing to do with Indians or anything remotely Indian - I think you have the wrong person (I don't even know what article you are talking about in the first place, especially given that I haven't been editing here in quite a while). Moreover, I doubt that any such thing would be the worst thing in the world, otherwise one's priorities are most certainly in the wrong places. --MuZemike 05:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game). Since you had some involvement with the Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
ReverbNation
Hi MuZemike. I noticed a few articles in my watchlist got tagged with a warning that links to ReverbNation are blacklisted (e.g. Dread Zeppelin), but I can't find anything in the logs to indicate why. Do you recall why it was added? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- You may wish to ask the bot operator on that, as I don't know why that would happen. --MuZemike 05:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was unclear... I was curious why you added ReverbNation to the blacklist. 28bytes (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then it would have been for spamming or other abusive purposes. If there is a legit purpose to have that URL on some sites, as opposed to back whenever I added it, then I won't oppose de-blacklisting it. --MuZemike 04:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. 28bytes (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then it would have been for spamming or other abusive purposes. If there is a legit purpose to have that URL on some sites, as opposed to back whenever I added it, then I won't oppose de-blacklisting it. --MuZemike 04:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was unclear... I was curious why you added ReverbNation to the blacklist. 28bytes (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Came here to ask the same thing since the blacklist addition was not logged, and managed to find out it was added after handling WP:Sockpuppet investigations/IvanthegreatLaw/Archive who apparently intended to advertise his blog & songs there.
The spamming may have been a one-time occurrence, but the page sure doesn't appear to be usable as a reliable or even a primary source. It's used on some 20 articles, and on the few I just checked the link should really be removed.
Amalthea 15:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)- Probably about as useful a page as myspace or facebook, and sometimes used as such (e.g. The Tennors). IMHO we should remove the blacklist entry, and if it becomes a problem again only blacklist narrowly like we do with similar hosting sites. Amalthea 15:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- → MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#reverbnation.com. Amalthea 20:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I won't throw up any roadblocks over it. It was being abusively used about a year ago (the website seemed to have really started to take off since 2012, after I blacklisted the site because of spamming), but the benefits here may outweigh the costs. However, I'd still treat the website like MySpace, especially with regards to artists and promotions. --MuZemike 04:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- → MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#reverbnation.com. Amalthea 20:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Probably about as useful a page as myspace or facebook, and sometimes used as such (e.g. The Tennors). IMHO we should remove the blacklist entry, and if it becomes a problem again only blacklist narrowly like we do with similar hosting sites. Amalthea 15:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Mater-Banshee
Why are you credited with uploading the file File:Mater-Banshee.JPG? I was the uploader. -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 
This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
File:Mater-Banshee.JPG
I recently looked in on a file I uploaded a few years ago, File:Mater-Banshee.JPG. I have found that YOU altered it doing a size reduction. OK -- you had your reasons for doing the size thing -- I'm use to it -- but why did you delete the record of my uploading it originally? You have taken FULL credit for what I posted to the site. Jason Palpatine (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Jason, both the downscaling of unnecessarily large non-free images and the deletion of old non-free revisions are actually required per our non-free content policy and are done routinely by editors and admins (CAT:FURD). The page history still shows you as the original uploader. Amalthea 11:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- What Amalthea said. I wouldn't care less what name an image is attached to, as far as it fits within non-free content policy. Now get off your high horse, stop belitting others for every little thing, and assume some good faith next time. --MuZemike 02:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
vg delsort archive
Do you still archive the vg delsort page? I noticed that it's getting kind of long czar ♔ 00:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Czar: Just did it! --MuZemike 00:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merci
czar ♔ 06:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merci
EGM 39
I'm trying to track down EGM 39 (something in the EGM Express section on Menacer). Would you happen to have it? 
czar ♔ 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Consensus on the correct spelling of Dodonpachi
Hello, you're invited to vote and express your views about this on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Kiko4564 unblock discussion
Hello MuZemike, sorry to trouble you, but Kiko4564 (a user you have previously blocked, changed the block settings for, or unblocked) has requested to be unblocked. There is a discussion at ANI which so far has attracted no interest, if you wish to leave a comment, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Unblock_request_by_User:Kiko4564. Nick (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. As you have previously been involved with the milestones for the Dota 2 article by giving input, I figured it would be courteous to notify you that said article is up for Featured Article status. I am welcoming you to give your input! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 18:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Clarification motion
A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Manual notification
Hi MuZemike, just notifying you that I pinged you here. I'm not sure whether pings are working or whether they work from transcluded pages. I've changed my user name since last I posted here, but you know who I am. I hope. Best. Victoria (tk) 03:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Help with dictating editor
Can you do something about this? [10] this user is refusing to let anyone edit the Nintendo 64 article except him. I as well as others should have the right to make constructive edits, without some tyrant user over riding us. He even said he reverted it to match what he wrote on another article.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
scan req
Hey—I'm looking for the Super Mario Land series-related articles in EGM #2 and 3. Would you be able to send them my way? czar ⨹ 13:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
An old 'friend' returns
Hello, MuZemike, this is indef-blocked User:Doughnuthead speaking. I firmly believe I can finally be of positive use to Wikipedia, and I no longer feel the need to gain attention through malicious editing. I'd actually all but forgotten about all the nonsense i had caused in the previous years until i saw a funny picture online of a guy with a swollen head, which reminded me of my username. But more to the point, i realised that my ability to edit the talk page was barred. After taking a look at previous edits, i realised i was being a bit of a tube. You were right to take that ability away. So just a heads up that i can only edit on anon as this account is obviously still suspended. In terms of getting unblocked, i haven't made a single edit to Wikipedia in almost 3 years, and during this time i have matured enough to the point that i look back at what i was getting up to and think 'Oh god! Who was i even trying to impress?!' In terms of where i aim to get involved in on the website, I still hold a strong interest in football (soccer) related articles, along with hip-hop and old school rock related articles- hence my music taste. As it has been so long since I bothered to use the editing facility, I'll need re-shown how to work various parts of the site or whatever it's called. I only remembered how to request unblock by clicking on the 'edit' tab and noticing one of my old templates! Furthermore, I don't intend to be an overly active user on the site, as I begin my university course in September much of my time will be dedicated towards my studies, and so I intend to see Wikipedia as a hobby to input my thoughts and research every now and then. Finally, thank you very much for reading my request - I appreciate the time taken to do so and I apologise for my past behaviour. I was just a stupid kid (it lasted from age 12-15 if I recall!) and I hope to hear from you as soon as possible--89.241.208.230 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Same person?
Hey, someone tried to recreate the article for World Database for Islamic Banking and Finance at Islamic Banking and Finance Database. I noticed that the original creator of the first article was Fayazahmad123, who was blocked for sockpuppetry. Do you think that this could potentially be a new sockpuppet years later? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Rare Replay
I'm working with @Jaguar to get the Rare Replay articles to GA. I see that you've worked on a bunch before—would you want to join in? 
User_talk:Jaguar#Something_to_ponder, User_talk:Czar#Rare_Replay_articles – czar 18:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do you still have access to "The Ultimate Retro Companion from GamesTM 2. Bournemouth: Imagine Publishing. 2006."? I can't find a copy. Does it have anything on the other early Rare/Ultimate PTG games? – czar 20:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Czar: If I get time, I can take a look at some of them; I've mostly focused on the 8-bit titles, but I know the same Retro Gamer coverage that were in a few of them (such as R.C. Pro-Am and Wizards & Warriors) do give some in-depth perspective on the history of Rare and the games they've developed over time. Also, I would bank on more upcoming retro reviews of these games due to the Rare Replay rerelease, so keep an eye out for them.
- I can try and dig out some of those old mags when I get the opportunity, but things are rather busy for me IRL (as it has been the past several years), so no guarantees. --MuZemike 21:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks—I'd appreciate it – czar 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Edit conflict over longest snake
MuZemike, I was wondering if you can tell me what you think on this subject? I posted a source on the Python reticulatus page, that debunked the other source that stated 22 feet long is the longest length possible for the snake. The source I used was from Guinness World Records which is used in several articles when stating the largest weight or size for a specific animal. On top of that my source is the SAME exact reference on the page for Medusa the longest snake captured in captivity. So it doesn't make any sense to remove it. HCA wants to keep his source based on personal whim and the fact his source should be the only source reliable when stating the maximum length for a Python, which is very selfish on his part.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- 76.107.252.227 Simple has not read the talk page. See the extensive discussion there. Please note that the definitive source on giant snakes is "Tales of Giant Snakes: A Historical Natural History of Anacondas and Pythons" by Dr. John C. Murphy, which compiles the greatest expertise on this topic seen outside of the technical literature and includes several dozen pages dedicated to thorough examination of all size records for the "big six". Simply saying "I found this random webpage" does not trump the highest possible quality source short of a peer-review journal article. HCA (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- But it is not the highest possible source 22 feet is too short and there are several sources that prove this. If you believe your source is correct then add multiple sources not just one pseudo-scientific report that says it. Wikipedia should not fall on one user being the dictator over an article. ADD MUTIPLE SOURCES that all state 22 feet is the max length. You probably just typed "22 foot python' into google and referenced the first link you saw.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your homework assignment is to read that book (Ch 3, if I recall), as well as the entire talk page for Python reticulatus. It contains an extensive, detail analysis of literally every single maximum length report for a variety of species, including detailed analyses of their probable veracity. This topic has been discussed at great length previously, has been analyzed thoroughly, and yet you simply swan in and spout the same "big fish" stories that the very same book debunked. I am not "dictator", I am removing false information added by a user who has minimal knowledge of this subject matter and shown no interest in educating themselves beyond "look what I found on google". That you cannot even recognize a peer-reviewed article says all that needs to be said about the quality of your edits and understanding on this topic. HCA (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- You can't find multiple sources so you re-state that your source has to be the only one there is. IF you would read WP:SOURCE you would know that reliable sources can come from. University-level textbooks, Books published by respected publishing houses, Magazines, Journals,Mainstream newspapers, Not just SCIENTIFIC REPORTS. Also if you believe what you are saying is true, then why is medusa the 25 foot python still mentioned that contradicts what the article states. Quit being an edit warrior--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your homework assignment is to read that book (Ch 3, if I recall), as well as the entire talk page for Python reticulatus. It contains an extensive, detail analysis of literally every single maximum length report for a variety of species, including detailed analyses of their probable veracity. This topic has been discussed at great length previously, has been analyzed thoroughly, and yet you simply swan in and spout the same "big fish" stories that the very same book debunked. I am not "dictator", I am removing false information added by a user who has minimal knowledge of this subject matter and shown no interest in educating themselves beyond "look what I found on google". That you cannot even recognize a peer-reviewed article says all that needs to be said about the quality of your edits and understanding on this topic. HCA (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
We will continue this on the appropriate talk page. HCA (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Re:
DH. 5 sleeper. Currently active--Calford23 (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good for you. I no longer care. --MuZemike 00:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Malaysian football sockpuppets
Hi. I'm a journalist from Australia. I'm just trying to find out more about the investigation you did into the Malaysian football sock puppets in 2011. Is there some way I could speak to you in private? You can find me on Twitter. Thanks Jckkrr (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
IP block exemption
Hello MuZemike, I had been granted an IP block exemption in 2008 (see log) to be able to access Wikipedia using Tor (see Censorship of Wikipedia # China). I’m still going back and forth between China and Europe. In China, I use Tor for access and protection.
On 19 February 2016, Mike V removed my IP block exemption, without warning or explanation. I posted on his talk page asking him for his reasons and requesting to restore the IP block exemption, but he/she doesn’t reply.
Could you please restore the IP block exemption? --Babelfisch (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- In any case, I can no longer do that, as I no longer am an administrator. --MuZemike 05:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you anyways. --Babelfisch (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was not the only one. Mike V apparently stalked and blocked “tons of users” (see here). When I asked on his user page, he simply ignored me for two weeks.
- In total it took me six weeks of arguing and begging in various places, but finally another administrator restored the IP block exemption.
- I hope the policy Mike V used as an excuse will be changed to prevent such problems in the future. Maybe you'd like to contribute to the debate: Wikipedia talk: IP block exemption. --Babelfisch (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Why did you archive this case?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Gamingforfun365's userpage
Hi. I saw you put the indefblocked tag on this userpage. I'm the admin who made the indefblock, but Floquenbeam has explained some background on his talk, and while this editor is currently indefblocked, hopefully that will change at some point. Thus, I think I'd prefer to see the userpage left alone for the moment, if you could see your way clear to restoring it. If the status remains quo after a few days then I'd agree with you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Nigeria01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Time: May 30, 2016 18:54:02
Message: Can you weigh in on this with regard to the emails mentioned in the block log?
Notes:
- If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
- Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.
--UTRSBot (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the protection template.
I wanted to drop a line to say thanks. I really do appreciate it. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:BombSquadBoxart.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BombSquadBoxart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
List of games that Data Design Interactive published listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of games that Data Design Interactive published. Since you had some involvement with the List of games that Data Design Interactive published redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 08:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
List of games that Data Design Interactive published listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of games that Data Design Interactive published. Since you had some involvement with the List of games that Data Design Interactive published redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 21:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
It looks mistake user:Starzynka was blocked.
Hello, maybe I don't understand all the rules on Wikipedia, but I don't see any accounts apart the single of user:Starzynka, there in the list are the same account but in other language, Arabian, Ukrainian, etc, also on Wikimedia Commons, Wikisourse, etc. On Wikimedia Commons You can upload photos after creating page, so many have pages there... I read today one page about Polish poetry Czesław Miłosz and found very short pages about Polish poetry - so, the user created very quickly new pages, like Orfeusz i Eurydyka (that is why I think the user is Polish), but very short, that is bad, but not a reason to block the user. The user is obviously Polish, and has desire to write about Poland, but has difficulty in English, but this cannot be, again, reason to block. I think puppet account we can consider when one IP has multiple accounts with different names, and, second, the puppet user can use these multiple names to harass anyone or lead war of edits. But, I don't see the crimes. The user has only this one account user:Starzynka. May I be wrong? I am recently registered and start to learn wiki-text from scratch. I have also pages in English, Ukrainian, German, but all these are my own, the pages created automatically when You visiting the Wikipedia pages in other languages. And even there are notifications that welcoming you create your page, for example, not only on Multilanguage Wikipedia, but also on Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikinews, etc., and many users having accounts not only on English Wikipedia, but the accounts are the same names, not a puppet. Also I have doubts that user who interested in Czesław Miłosz may be a sucked puppet, or like that, so that is why mostly I consider to have a brief look on it, why the user was blocked. I also apologize for my weak English with lots of mistake:)If I am wrong I really beg Your pardon, because I am really novice on Wikipedia. All the best!PoetVeches (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Darklord cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Darklord cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Personal attack
Hi, Mike. Sorry to bother you. It looks like you have plenty to do.
I saw your name in a talkpage discussion with a user named Otterathome. The topic seemed to be crosslinking and redirects. I am just about out of my depth with such, so you tell me.
I learn a lot about concensus and policies/practices by reading userpages and usertalk pages. Otherwise I would not have seen this.
Otterathome's userpage seems to be redirected to his talk page. No problem. I see more and more people doing that. What surprised me was a link to MY userpage, thusly: "I don't like some people, particularly this user, and this other guy, but I put up with them." I'm having to paraphrase—I tried a copy/paste, but it didn't work. Point is, I seem to be "this user". These links won't work, either, but if you visit him "at home", the first link—in a hatnote at the top of his talkpage—links to MY userpage. Looking at his edit history, this link seems to have been there since 2008 or 2009. At that time I had only made one edit. I usually remember usernames, unless they are gibberish. but I don't remember ever interacting with this guy at all. From what I'm reading, though, he seems to have a habit of deleting comments from talkpages, if he sees them as off-topic. I have an idea he's made some enemies(I don't wonder), and maybe he has me confused with one if them.
Now I know Wikipedia is a big place, and I really don't care if the person likes me. I would just like that link removed from his talkpage. Were the situation reversed, I'm sure he would have already fixed it, but I try to keep my fingers off of what doesn't belong to me. You might not be the best person to bring this to, so maybe you can direct me to a more proper venue. My time here is limited, and I won't spend it on feuding and vendettas, so maybe it would be best to delete this message, once you decide what to do, or do not. I'll go with whatever you decide. rags (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @MuZemike—
- I didn't see your notice of a hiatus until I went into the most recent archive. Maybe it needs a {{}}, so it remains visible. I'll leave this here a few days, and then delete it myself. I wouldn't put it past this Otter-person to follow my contribs. rags (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ragityman: Apologies for not responding, as I'm obviously nowhere near as active as I used to be. I think I know what you're talking about by looking at the history of that userpage, but it was considered an obvious abuse of usage of userpage and was removed by an admin back in 2009. Since then, everything on that page has been removed, and the page redirects to his talk page. Given that this was 9 years ago, I don't think I would worry about that specific userpage version. --MuZemike 02:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
noinclude
You applied a speedy tag to User:MuZemike/User Windows 7 without surrounding it with <noinclude></noinclude>. That had the effect of sending the user pages of eight other users to CAT:CSD. It would have served you right if I had deleted them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- @RHaworth: Sorry about that. I would normally know that, but it's been a long time. --MuZemike 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious
Just exposed to two other fellows some liaison to w:ja:LTA:YOT. Now noticed that User:JotCeVauDe should be marked on his edit-protected page, as obvious one, not suspected one, according to the Special:Contributions/JotCeVauDe. Please correct this as already these ones:
Something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JOHNDOE&diff=prev&oldid=468127085
User:JotCeVauDe is sole suspected-marked, while all the rest is obvious-marked. Please correct. Special:Contributions/JotCeVauDe makes it obvious not suspected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1828:1000:2217:0:0:0:2 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:BaseballStars2NeoGeoBoxart.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BaseballStars2NeoGeoBoxart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, MuZemike. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
TEMA(Association) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TEMA(Association). Since you had some involvement with the TEMA(Association) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Reactivate edit filter?
Hi. I'm an admin here and also an OTRS agent. On OTRS we have a request to reactivate Special:AbuseFilter/257. I'm contacting you because you appeared to be involved with it in the past. I understand that the requester suggested a low-false-positive regex on the wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list but has not received any response. There are credible BLP concerns with the Kiwi Farms article and I agree that it might be good to reactivate that filter and contact an oversighter about possibly suppressing edits that have led to harassment. I confess I don't know much about edit filters and I don't seem to have permission to do anything with them. Would you give it a look? If you contact me via email I can give you a copy of the editfilters mailing list request if you aren't on that mailing list (I'm not, the requester copied it to me in OTRS). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: @Ryan Kaldari (WMF): @Reaper Eternal: As MuZemike seems to have been inactive all year, and you guys most recently touched this edit filter, please see above. If you have OTRS access, the ticket number is 2019102310004407. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Seen that you expanded and made the original game to GA status. Shame that the sequel is only a stub article. Do you have any interest on working on it? Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Harizotoh9: Honestly, I don't know if I have resources to get around to it. Maybe I'll take a look at it, but if I recall even print sourcing was scarce and so was online. --MuZemike 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for endorsing my earlier PROD on this article, which has been objected to by an anonymous editor. You might like to know that I’ve nominated it for WP:AFD as I don’t believe the deprodding editor has helped to indicate notability. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Precious
video games
Thank you for quality articles about video games, beginning with Zanac, then Ninja Gaiden (NES video game), The Guardian Legend and many others, for picturing protests, for good sports encouraging social progress,for defining your user by contribs alone, - Mike, repeating from 19 November 2019 and 10 years ago: you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2506 of Precious, a prize of QAI.
| |
| Ten years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey
I just noticed you were in the middle of a GAN and that threw me into a loop. How's it been? GamerPro64 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64: Not too bad. I had a little time off, so I decided to go back and do a little work on WP. --MuZemike 00:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Good article drive notice
 | Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations! |
-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
An article you may be interested in, Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case, has just been undeleted. Any help you could give to this, included BLP-related edits, would be very much appreciated. --Bangalamania (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unban_request_for_Bigshowandkane64, original blocking admin
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
| Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive | |
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Resysop
If we head towards another shutdown here in the U.S. due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I will come out of "retirement" and request for a resysop and resume my administrative duties here on en.wiki, as I did 9 years ago. --MuZemike 02:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
FIA RGT-CUP 2021
It's FIA RALLY COMPETION!!!!--Peter39c (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
https://www.ewrc-results.com/season/2021/582-rgt-cup/
- I don't care about the article. Please stop removing the deletion tag from the 2021 FIA R-GT Cup article. If you oppose deletion, voice your concern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 FIA R-GT Cup. If you continue to remove the AfD from the article, an administrator will block you. --MuZemike 17:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
There are six previous FIA seasons and you say don't worry about the article, but then you can cancel all FIA seasonal competitions !!!? An idiot put this article in delete !!! that he does not know what he is doing and does not know anything!--Peter39c (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again, please voice your concern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 FIA R-GT Cup and not at me. --MuZemike 17:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, please remain civil and don't attack other users such as calling them "idiots". --MuZemike 18:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| One year! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
Birmal Hembram.
I just finished cleaning up the mess made by these two block evading accounts: User:Dolon Provas,User:Muchiram hansda. I'm not a big fan of allowing the Birmal Hembram. (with a period) article to existing for any amount of time, given it's provenance. Any objections to a speedy? The subject's name is not mentioned on any of the reliable sources; it's only mentioned on the two self-published sources. As far as I can tell, the medium source is simply a copy of one of the other articles with the subjects name inserted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have no objections. It looked like the 2nd source was a little suspect, also. --MuZemike 14:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Page Amir Mohammad Nekounam
Hi,I have a request to remove the tags from Amir Mohammad Nekounam's page Reason:
I have added credible sources to Amir Mohammad Nekounam's page in the past few days A2004b (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not how it works. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Mohammad Nekounam, as been pointed out to you several times. Continual removing of the tags from the page may result in your block from an admin. --MuZemike 16:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Please agree with me because I have added the desired resources and I do not know where the problem is and so I removed the tags but now I ask you to remove the tags according to the available resources A2004b (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Again, that's not how the process works. Please reread the comment I just made above and comment in the deletion discussion there. --MuZemike 16:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Singapore
Thanks for helping out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Singapore, but, well, the one that closed the AfD as "speedy keep" is the article creator, not the nom or an uninvolved editor. They have done this twice, and have also removed the AFD notice from the article repeatedly. I don't want to keep edit warring over it, better to let someone uninvolved handle it. Fram (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, didn't see that. I was just trying to fix the AfD close so that it didn't affect the rest of the discussions on WP:AFD/T. --MuZemike 12:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| Two years! |
|---|
Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion
Hello, MuZemike! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 22:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
A very, very, very old block
Hi, this may come a bit out of the blue, and I'm sure you don't remember anything. I was scrolling around random articles and their edit histories when I noticed that one User:Starzynka was blocked by you in 2010 for sockpuppeting. The account appears to be one of those accounts which spam-creates geographical stubs (a practice which, as I understand, is no longer accepted nowadays but was acceptable at the time). Around the time of the block, there was a bit of a heated discussion at ANI and the user had blanked the user/talk page. I could, however, find absolutely no trace of sockpuppeting even being mentioned in any of these instances. Is there a reason for this? Regards, Fermiboson (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218#User:Starzynka, the user was blocked as a sock back when I was an admin and CU, presumably per CU evidence. The sockmaster, whom I did not disclose, was warned privately not to sock again, according to that discussion. Any other information I would have about that specific case would be long gone, I'm afraid. --MuZemike 15:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you very much for the reply. Fermiboson (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Inquiry
Hello, MuZemike, your talk archive pages 1-7, and 9 are all currently admin level protected. As you are not currently an admin at this time, I wondered if you would have any objection (as the page protector) to their protection levels being lowered to extended confirmed?
My personal interest in these 8 pages is I'd like to address the large number of Tidy Font Bugs (a high priority WP:Lint error that affect how some users' signatures display on these pages) and plan on filing a WP:RPPD for reduction so I can address these, unless there is an objection. My edits would be minimal (one edit per page), thorough, and respectful. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- It was protected by another admin, so I personally have no issue with it. --MuZemike 13:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
afd
Hi there,
I wanted to ask why is the page keep getting added for AFD? It already passed, and then user US-Verified has been putting a lot of pages for AFD, for no reason. Itsalldestiny (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- The previous AfD closed as "no consensus", which means it can be re-tagged for AfD at a later time, which it has (though it may have been a little early, there is no time limit). In any case, discuss the 2nd AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OtakuKart (2nd nomination) as opposed to removing the tag from the article.
- Moreover, see the deletion policy for valid reasons for deletion. --MuZemike 01:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Car Town.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Car Town.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Deletion review for OggConvert
An editor has asked for a deletion review of OggConvert. 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. Daemonfc (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Dutch wheelchair tennis players
Hello there! So I noticed you deleted Category:Dutch wheelchair tennis players in 2011. Since then, of course, things have changed quite a bit and articles on this subject have grown as wheelchair tennis has. I wanted to ask you if I am allowed to recreated as part of Category:Wheelchair tennis players? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Just for a heads up. I took it to deletion review who allowed me to recreate the category: see here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_December_26#Category:Dutch_wheelchair_tennis_players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)