User talk:Muchness/2006-12

links to other sites

I understand your position but rules should be applied to everyone in the same manner. I saw this link: " *[KotOR II Spanish] - Improved translation of the game into Spanish " so i thought i could do the same. If you wanna delete them all, well, feel free, you are an admin. But its very unfair that some stay and some dont.

Basically with this you say that some site cant add a link to an improved translation, but another cant. You delete the kotor one, but you left the kotor 2.

I only ask for fair rules and same implementation for all. :)

Again, sorry for bothering, as said, i saw that link and thought we were all entitled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Immort (talk • contribs) 11:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello, firstly, I am not an admin, I'm an editor just like you. My edit wasn't related to your site's content, it was simply following the Wikipedia guideline that states that you should not link to a site you own or maintain. If you see other links added by the site's owner, feel free to remove them, and as I said earlier, if you feel this link is appropriate and useful, please suggest it for inclusion on the article's talk page. --Muchness 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive read the wiki guidelines, ill follow and cleanup. sorry for the trouble i may have caused when i added links like the other website owner. ~~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Immort (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

It's no problem at all. I will raise the issue on the article's talk page; a third party editor may want to add a link back to your site. --Muchness 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenia article mediation

There is now a mediation case regarding the schizophrenia article that you may want to look at. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/schizophrenia#Discussion DPeterson^talk 01:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads-up, I've already left a note outlining some history regarding the dispute on the mediation page[1]. At this stage I'm happy to let the current discussion run its course; an admin may have to step in if Mihai continues blanking the section. --Muchness 02:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Thanks for reporting that vandal, they were on quite a spree - the admin rollback tool is very handy! Viridae^Talk 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) --Muchness 03:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Come versus Come (sexual)

Hello. Regarding this edit: when disambiguating a term, it's preferable to include all potentially ambiguous entries on the one page, to help people find the desired article quickly and easily. The only exception to this is that long lists of human names should be split to a separate term (name) term (surname) and/or term (given name) page. More info is available at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thanks and welcome. --Muchness 11:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The sexual connotations of "come" are (a) slang, and (b) potential obsenities. If anything they should be transwikied to wiktionary. Don't you think? FEastman 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that they're potentially obscene isn't a reason to remove them – Wikipedia is not censored. The target articles are legitimate encyclopedic articles, and the terms are synonyms; per MoS:D, linking to synonyms from a disambiguation page is appropriate. --Muchness 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's good and fine, the fact remains that they are slang. Slang should be transwikied to wiktionary. FEastman 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The sexual terms are included on the dab page to clarify different meanings of the ambiguous word by providing links to relevant target articles, in accordance with MoS:D guidelines and item 2 of Wikipedia is not a dictionary ("There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word"). If you feel that disambiguation pages should not list slang synonyms, the best places to propose this amendment are on the talk pages of the aforementioned guideline and policy pages. If you feel that any article should be transwikied, you can tag it with the {{copy to Wiktionary}} template. --Muchness 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hen Fap

I wish to enquire about the origins of this term. I've heard it attributed to many people, mainly the rapper Kanye West. Could you help me out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.31.52.60 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 12 December 2006.

"Hen fap" was a joke originating from an article in The Onion: [2]; [3]. One or more posters on a message board hosted by the ilx servers attempted to turn "hen fap" into a meme on the ilx boards. Since then, one or more posters (yourself included) have tried to spread the would-be meme to various other places on the web, including Wikipedia via serial vandalism. --Muchness 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rupeni Caucau

shifted discussion to Talk:Rupeni Caucaunibuca#POV dispute --Muchness 12:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Boone & MoS

Excuse me, did you even read my new version?

I didn't like your edit, but, since you had been kind enough to include in your edit summary your reasoning, I went ahead and read the relevant portions of the MoS. And I found out you were right. I was surprised, but it was quite clear.

Nonetheless, I don't like the pointless redundancy of having a listing that says "Debbie Boone (singer) (born 1952), singer who made the charts in 1972 with the single 'Sacred Sunday'" Why don't I like that? Because it's bad writing. Since the MoS requires us to say that she's a singer by virtue of the article title, if all we're doing on a disambig page is clarifying who this person is, then we do NOT need to say again, two or three words later, that she's a singer. We already know that. So I rewrote this in a way which adheres to both Wikipedia's MoS, as well as conventional style standards.

Frankly, it appears to me that you a) didn't read my edit and give it its due consideration, and/or b) misunderstood my edit summary. I say this because, for the life of me, I don't see what you can think I did wrong. I adhered to the MoS, as you rightly insisted, but created a better-written entry. Please explain to me exactly what your problem is; otherwise I intend to revert your poorly-considered edit. Unschool 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism, perhaps my edit did not give due consideration. To be specific, my problems were that a) dab page entries should consists of a sentence fragment with no period at the end of the line, and b) for links to biographies, it's standard to include birth and death dates in parentheses after the wikilink. I've restored your wording with the above minor issues addressed. Regards. --Muchness 03:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Article: Kraven Ergeist

Hi

I'm just writing to let you know that there is more specific speedy deletion template to {{db-empty}} in relation to the Kraven Ergeist article. I have replaced the {{db-empty}} template on the article Kraven Ergeist for the template {{db-rediruser}}, which is for redirects to the user namespace from the main article namespace.

Matthuxtable 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, I will be sure to use the appropriate tag in future. --Muchness 16:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. That's OK. There's a page full of speedy deletion templates here: CAT:SDT - It's very, very useful! Matthuxtable 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been using WP:SPEEDY for reference, but I overlooked that template. Thanks again. --Muchness 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Antonov An-72

Hi. I'm just curious why you swapped out the images on Antonov An-72. I thought the stitched-together image of the full airplane was much better than the two smaller ones it started out from. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. I've fixed my previous edit, and thanks for the catch. --Muchness 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Zidane

Muchness, why have you removed the following text from Zinedine Zidane? I am aware that I may have put this into the article in a way which seems biased, but I still feel this is pertinent information.

"One might consider Zidane to be quite lucky at having got off relatively scot-free, as in 1995 Scottish footballer Duncan Ferguson spent nearly two months in jail for an on-field headbutt." Referenced source: "Duncan Ferguson jailed for a headbutt". BBC. 2006-12-14. Retrieved 2007-06-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

217.43.106.32 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Note: edited the above user's comments for formatting; see diff for original post. --Muchness 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. In brief, the passage cited above falls short of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. To elaborate, this passage is an unsourced, speculative opinion, and it draws an analogy without providing a reliable source for that analogy. That Zidane may have been lucky is an opinion, and Wikipedia's policy regarding the neutral point of view states that opinions must be attributed to reliable sources. Furthermore, the passage synthesizes established facts (Zidane and Ferguson were both sent off for headbutting) to build a particular case ("Fergsuon was jailed; Zidane was not; therefore one might consider..."), without attributing that analysis to a reputable source, which falls short of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding original research. --Muchness 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

I am having trouble finding the exact answer to my question-- how exactly can the author propose an article for speedy deletion? I feel I'm being attacked on something I wrote, and tried to make the deletion page private in good faith, but errored against apparent Wikipedia policy. I just want it to be private or deleted altogether, as it's coming up in search engine results. I apologize if the answer is right under my nose in the help topics--I have not had a great experience with this site. Thanks. Sweetaurora 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, if you are the author of an article, and you created the article mistakenly, you can request speedy deletion per CSD G7. Add this tag to the article: {{db-author}}. Regards. --Muchness 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Carter

This is regarding the Image of Dan Carter..The picture is from the official Crusaders site and is of fair-use and check out Richie McCaw ,Rico Gear and Caleb Ralph..they use the same guideline from the same site but I dont see you deleting their images.Look be4 You Leap..thanx..Cometstyles ^talk

Thank you for bringing those images to my attention, I've tagged them as replaceable fair use images. Like the Dan Carter image, these are also incorrectly tagged as promotional images – they are not part of a press release or media kit; they are used to decorate a website. --Muchness 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

While you are at it check out Robbie Deans becoz i dont think it falls in Promotional..thanx..Cometstyles ^talk

I'll look into it, thank you. --Muchness 06:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:83.140.16.152

This users has link-spammed Mensa International again (4th time?) ... I've reverted it, but you have already warned them about it, so I'll let you take it to the next level. —72.75.126.37 (talk · contribs) 10:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked for 31 hours. If he resumes spamming after his block expires, you can file a report at WP:AIV. --Muchness 12:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thnx ... would you please indicate that block on their talk page as well, so that other editors will know about it if it happens again? --72.75.126.37 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add a {{spam5}} notice. --Muchness 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I have problems with adding the right image tags. Maybe you could help me on that. I would like to add useful pictures on Wikipedia but it is hard to find one that is not a copyright image. Thanks.King Lopez 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia currently has a policy that non-free media cannot be used on Wikipedia if an equivalent free image is available or could be reasonably created – see Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. This means that copyright photos of living celebrities are almost never permissible, because as public figures a free image could reasonably created (for example, by an editor taking a photo of the person and uploading it to Wikipedia with a {{GFDL-self}} license). The best way to add useful images of celebrities is to upload photos that you took yourself, images that are in the public domain, or images released for use with a free license. --Muchness 13:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Collaborative Fiction

Hi, I think you deleted some external links from Collaborative Fiction. I put one on - Scriblist.com - because I think it's a great site and a really interesting way to develop creative writing. Have I done something wrong, or does the site contravene some copyright laws perhaps? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marmaduke Jinks (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Hello, the site in question doesn't provide encyclopedic content on collaborative fiction or creative writing, it only provides a venue for people to post it. Also, this is a commercial site – one of the site's aims is to make money off the users' submissions. For these reasons, it may fall short of Wikipedia's WP:NOT and WP:EL guidelines. You haven't done anything wrong by adding the link unless you're involved with the site in an official capacity (for example, you own, maintain, or represent the site); however, I ask that if you want to add a link to this site, you suggest it for inclusion on the article's talk page, explaining why it's in line with Wikipedia's external links policy. --Muchness 04:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pics

There are 2 more Articles where I have seen pics which I think should be Deleted Casey Laulala & Jerry Collins..Check Em Out..ø~Cometstyles~ø^(talk)

Thank you for the heads-up. One image is already tagged; I'll tag the other one too. --Muchness 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

3 More Pictures I woul like you 2 check out..

• Jean de Villiers
• Matt Giteau
• Mat Rogers

I think they are also infringing on copyright laws..ø~Cometstyles~ø^(talk)

Ok, I'll look into them. But if you find an image that may be problematic, you can tag it yourself. I find that the most frequently used tags are:

• {{subst:nsd}} for images with no source info
• {{subst:nld}} for images with no license tag
• {{replaceable fair use|day=|month=|year=}} for copyright images when a free equivalent is available or could reasonably be created

--Muchness 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know how 2 do that and I have already tagged over a 100 Pics but in terms of Rugby I'am not sure about which ones might violate copyright becoz when I joined Wiki all the Pics I added were Deleted so its better to get information from a much experienced Editor..Ok ..Bye..ø~Cometstyles~ø^(talk2Me)

Sure, ok. No problem :) --Muchness 07:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rugby

Do you know any rugby sites from where the use of Pics have GFDL or No-Copyright Violation Laws??? because I dont think there is anysites like that for Rugby so I wonder how do you get pics of rugby players & coaches without it being deleted Cometstyles 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any sites specifically for rugby. However, Flickr has a large archive of images that are usable on Wikipedia, and you may find some useful rugby pictures there. For images on Flickr that Wikipedia can use, see CC-by-2.0 and CC-by-sa-2.0, and tag any images you upload from Flickr with {{cc-by-2.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} respectively. --Muchness 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the authority to block someone?

If you do have such authority, that is a problem. And you should be rid of such authority in rapid order. By whatever interpretation of the rules, this article is not NPOV. There is a clear negative bias towards short stature and you are blocking any attempt at balance. I provided a reference for a well meaning good faith edit and certainly at least part of the edit was sourced by the reference yet you proceeded to delete the whole edit. This is clearly against the rules of Wikipedia. I think you should be blocked.01001 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not "blocking any attempt at balance", I am removing a section that by my estimation, and the estimation of other editors who have voiced objections, is a violation of Wikipedia's original research policy. To answer your question, I do not have the authority to block other editors. Like every user, I have the authority to notify you about policy violations, and bring your conduct to the attention of a sysop with blocking privileges if the policy violations persist. --Muchness 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to draw attention to any perceived problems with an article's neutrality, you can add a {{POV}} tag to the article and explain the specific problems with the article on its talk page. --Muchness 21:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Corr

Don't warry ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.152.176.147 (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Re: Your edits to Fergie (singer)

Hello, did I list the page correctly where you said? I've never moved or edited articles in such a way before.. I definitely think Fergie should be the article for Stacy Ferguson since she has become widely recognized by it where as the others have not, prompting them to be ambiguous uses. Could you help me with the request? --User:iwasblueonce

Hello, technically this isn't an uncontroversial move proposal, since there's a possibility that someone might oppose the move. I've taken the liberty of shifting your proposal to the Other proposals section and I've added a section for discussion on the article's talk page. Regards. --Muchness 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Upen Patel

Is this Pic legal and should it be allowed on Wikipedia because I believe that the licensing is wrong.Cometstyles 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagged and speedy deleted as a copyright violation[4]. Thank you! --Muchness 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Barbara McNair

I saw that you removed this data from Barbara McNair's page, which was contributed by another user:

• "A posthumous compendium of her work, I Want Hen Fap, using the hip hop term for "something one needs to have", was announced for release July 2007."

Did you think that was vandalism? It happens to be factual, although the contributor did not provide a reference link. I will try to find where I saw it again.--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found the source of the info you removed. Previous version has been restored with a reference link added.--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I realize that the referenced link -- actually sources/references the wikipedia article! The contribution was made by a one time anonymous user--and I cannot locate anything to back it up. Will revert back to yours. Good catch, after all. Sorry. End of saga :)--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, no problem. The info was added by a serial vandal who adds the nonsense phrase "hen fap" to random articles. --Muchness 03:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert my article again

I alrady gave a source for the Dynasty Warriors post, i said it has been hinted at on the official website, which it has, so please don't revert it again. thank you. RandomJoe123 11:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating a source in an edit summary is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's attribution policies. You have to include a link to the source in the article. Please see the policies linked on your talk page for further info on how to correctly source material. Please also see WP:OWN: this is not your article; others are free to edit it in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. --Muchness 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Medium bowler"

Note: this message was in reply to Talk:Medium pace bowling#Medium bowler

I agree. A google yields '1 - 100 of about 13,200 for "medium bowling" cricket', and pretty much all of the relevant hits are about "fast-medium bowling".
"Fast Bowling", and "Fast-Medium Bowling" appear to the pukka terms ("fast pace bowling" and "fast-medium pace bowling" just sound wrong, don't they?) Yet, it's "medium pace bowling" that sounds right.
Gosh, could it be that Cricket is a somewhat quirky game? --Shirt58 10:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
ps: sort of annoys me that the Template:Bowling Techniques list only fast and spin, but Fast_bowling#Categorisation_of_fast_bowling goes all the way down to "Slow". Sort of begs the question, when is a fast bowler not a fast bowler? Anyways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shirt58 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 19 February 2007.

Yes, it's clear as mud :) I'll hunt around the local libraries and see if I can find some authoritative references on these terms. --Muchness 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Muchness

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Muchness. --Muchness 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, and an explanation of my own

Thanks for your clarification. I hope there are no hard feelings. Also, i looked up and down the website but could not find the page taht held that information, i know it exists, but cannot find it; therefore, i will not get angry if you revert it. Obviously i would prefer if you kept it up, but since i can't find proof, i cannot get angry over you deleting the tab. Thank You. User: Teniii:Teniii 3:29, 19 February, 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi, I assume the editor wanted to use the image under fair use, and had no idea what to tag it with. If he would have stated on the image page that it was released under the GFDL or creative commons, or that he took the picture, then it would be a copyvio. Now the image will be deleted anyway because of no information on its copyright status and even if it will have that info, it probably will fail our fair use criteria. But it's not really a deliberate copyright violation. Garion96 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thank you the reply. I spend a fair amount of time tagging images, so it's important to me to get the policies clear. What I'm confused about is that the image appears to meet all the relevant parameters of CSD G12. G12 doesn't state that there must be deliberate intention to violate on the part of the uploader, it only states that the copyright violation must be blatant, i.e, able to be established beyond reasonable doubt. If the assertion is questionable, it meets G12, but if the assertion does not exist, as is the case here, it also meets G12. As you say, the image is going to be deleted anyway, so this discussion is moot. But I want to get things cleared up for future cases. And I appreciate the reply. --Muchness 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You also really could have waited before reverting me. Also see Category:Images with no copyright tag with exactly the same kind of images and WP:CSD#I4. They (almost) all will be deleted. No reason to add it to the normal overflow on csd. Garion96 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I was in fact about to revert myself immediately after I finished writing the above message. I wanted to clarify the usage of CSD G12 because unlike CSD I4 there is no 7 day wait period (I felt that if a copyright is blatant it's preferable to use a tag that allows it to be removed from Wikipedia as soon as possible).--Muchness 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. I guess, don't know for sure (you could look at the CSD talk archives) the reason is that it might fall under fair use and give the editor some time to fix it, I also think that criterium was made before our stricter enforcing of the fair use criteria before the stricter copyright violation criteria. It is a bit inconsistent yes, but since the image will be deleted anyway, I don't think it matters that much. Garion96 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that clears things up. And thanks again for your patience :) --Muchness 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Institute of Brand Science. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jambaloop 17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it was Steel359, not me, who closed the AFD discussion and later speedy deleted the recreated article[5]. --Muchness 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)