User talk:Mufka/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mufka. 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 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Talkback

Hello, Mufka. You have new messages at EuroCarGT's talk page.
Message added 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

///EuroCarGT 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Chevrolet Corvette

If you wish to continue your argument about how Chevrolet Corvette should be classified, take it to the talk page or you (or whatever IP you happen to be editing from at the time) will be blocked from editing. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

it says right in the first paragraph that the State of Kentucky, home to the 2nd highest percentage of people missing teeth and 10th in rate of obesity, has declared the Corvette to be a "Sports Car". Who dares argue with that? I think I'll go watch "Miracle on 34th Street" early this year.

And I'm pretty sure that the first (or nearly the first) line on the Talk page states that the Talk page is not for general discussion of the subject? Pretty sure I saw that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.145.81 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing what should or should not appear in the article. I don't know where your quote above comes from, but I'll assume it's a joke. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

August 29

Hello! I noticed that you reverted the 1294 event with the crowning of the pope Celestine V. I wonder why such event is not notable. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The coronation of a new pope is not notable in and of itself. If the circumstances of the coronation were unique, perhaps, but usually the normal succession would not be considered notable per WP:DOY.

Hmm, I tend to agree, with one caveat. The further you go in history, especially antiquity and early middle ages, the less exact dates and events are available. Adding events from those periods even though the notability is "on the edge" might enhance the reader's experience and let her know that "something" happened even in those "dark ages". Certainly, starting with 1600s up, one should filter more and more the events of importance since we have exponentially more information. Maybe being a history buff and with a passion for antiquity and middle ages I am biased here. Most "day articles" have a plethora of events starting with 1700s but some almost nothing before, like nothing must have happened before on that date which is misleading and unfair to past cultures or parts of the world which lost important today. Sometimes I like to fill in those "earlier", maybe more obscure events, but of importance, in such articles. Hopefully some will make it to the WP main page/On this day since it is quite interesting trivia. But these are my two cents. Maybe WP:DOY could include this idea of being more lenient with events from long time ago, as a suggestion, if it is agreeable.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think what we'd run into in this case is more subjectivity in regards to the older events and that would translate to more subjectivity with newer events. I don't know the answer. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 14:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Airport vandal: edit filter created

I've created an edit filter entry at Special:AbuseFilter/580 that attempts to prevent edits by the airport vandal. So far, it's caught and blocked 11 attempts to edit airport articles from the ranges in question in the last week. If you see the airport vandal making any edits that are not caught by this filter, please let me know, and I can try to widen the filter's rules to take in their new editing habits. -- The Anome (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

They now seem to have stopped hitting the filter; their last attempt was on 2 September. This suggests that they've either stopped, at least for now, or moved on to topics other than airports, or are otherwise evading the filter. -- The Anome (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Block referenced on Village Pump

Mufka, as a courtesy, I would like to inform you that I have referenced one of your blocks in a Village Pump proposal to softblock all school IP addresses, perhaps you would like to input your opinion into the discussion? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Why

Hey Mufka, I have to ask, why on earth was this necessary? WP:DTTR. Airplaneman ✈ 04:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:DoTTR. No experienced editor should take issue with a templated message if it conveys the necessary concern. Is your concern with dropping the template in general, the reason it was left, the follow-up discussion, or all of the above? I'd like to address the specific concern and, if necessary, repent appropriately. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

My specific concern is your utter lack of tact. Please remember that we're not collaborating with robots here. Using a template message is impersonal, easy, and patronizing, especially when it is appended quickly to the end of someone's talk page. Yes, templates are cookie-cutter ways to quickly dispense information. In this situation, yes, information needed to be dispensed. Using a template, however, shows that you can't put in the effort to actually write something up to address your concern that he was not adhering to your version of a minor edit. There are much better ways to go about resolving differences in editing style (such as posing a question as to why edits were marked as minor). Airplaneman ✈ 13:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the way the message was conveyed in this case may not have been optimal. You make valid points. But it seems to me that you would argue against the use of templated messages at all. If that's the case your quarrel isn't with me, but with the system that created and promotes their use. Otherwise, an argument that leaving a templated message for a new user is more acceptable than leaving one for an established user, is flawed. In the former case, it's more likely to turn new and unfamiliar editors off while in the latter case, the experienced editor should understand the message behind the template, give themselves a reality check, roll with it, and reply or move on. Hypersensitivity in any venue is unproductive and unrealistic. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

What is also counterproductive and unrealistic is curt interpersonal communication, especially on a forum such as the internet where communication by way of text hinders one's ability to interpret emotion. Extra measures must be taken to ensure that things such as small stylistic criticisms are not misinterpreted. Airplaneman ✈ 23:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

January 13

Any reason why you reverted me? Giant Snowman 17:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The date pages all follow a layout format template that can be found here. This is explained in the style section of WP:DAYS. In a show of good faith, please take a moment to revert your removal of the – on January 13. If you feel strongly that this practice is flawed, please begin a discussion at WT:DAYS so consensus can be reached. This is a longstanding practice and it has worked well to keep the date pages consistent. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted myself, purely due to User talk:Favonian#Days and dashes. In future you might want to include a better explanation in the edit summary when you revert seemingly sound edits. Giant Snowman 19:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you..

..for the note clarifying minor edits. Stroopwafels! CJGarner (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

2013–14 Liverpool season

Hi. I dont understand why you protected 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season‎ after I reverted starting XI. There has been discussions on the article talkpage and consensus reached on WT:FOOTY here,here, here, here and know here (I can find much more examples). These XI dont belong on the articles as discused so many times and I also brought it up on the article talkpage. A discussion the user adding the XI has not even tried do add something. I think this is totally clear as disussed all these times, and should be removed without the page getting blocked. Not really a content dispute. Can you motivate the protection? QED237 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt to engage the editor in discussion on this topic at User talk:MillsyOnWiki. Until you've done that I'll view it as you're just edit warring. You can't just revert to enforce your narrow consensus without showing a real effort to communicate with the other editor. Edit summaries do not count as discussions. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And unless you can prove sockpuppetry, there appears to be more than one editor that disagrees. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but now my pulse is growing a bit, and I am getting a bit frustrated. My "narrow consensus"? All of the editors regularly editing on football pages has discussed this and we agree, these tables should not be included. Noone can say how a team has their formation since it can change during a match. This is not something I have come up with but as shown above has been discussed many time with the same conclusion. FROM MANY EDITORS. This is as clear as it can be. This has also been informed on the article talkpage. Do you mean that we should talk with every editor doing something wrong every time? No one does that. When there is a clear consensus it gets removed. I will probably consult with another admin now. QED237 (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read all of the discussions I gave you and count how many is against these starting XI. QED237 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CCC? Someone disagrees with your consensus. You have to take it seriously. You can't just beat down the dissenter because he has a different opinion. I don't see any obvious malicious intent. And, yes, you are expected to assume good faith and give every editor who disagrees with you the courtesy of addressing their concerns. If the guy turns out to be a troll or a generally disruptive influence, then action can be taken. What would you have done, block the guy? Please also consult WP:ADMINSHOP. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I start by assuming good faith but this is the fourth time this editor added rhis and I did write on the article talkpage and the infomation has been given in edit summaries as well. QED237 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If he keep inserting the table without looking at the edit summaries and the article talkpage then yes i would block him. QED237 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries and the article talk page do nothing to alert the editor that you are addressing your concerns to him/her. You need to address your concerns on the user's talk page if you hope to see any action taken against an editor. Prove that the editor is unresponsive. Prove that they know they're being disruptive. So far, you and others are just reverting. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mufka, I'm another admin who has been heavily involved in the discussion at WT:FOOTY, so stating that I am INVOLVED from the very off. However, I do feel that there is sufficient consensus at the most recent discussion (and various older ones as well!) that shows that such starting tables are not encyclopedic and should therefore not be included. Regards, Giant Snowman 08:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there is consensus. My concern is that other editors may not be aware of that consensus - thus my use of the term narrow (perhaps a bad word choice). Those involved can't assume widespread awareness and if they want action taken against an editor for disruptive editing they need to communicate directly with the editor - not via edit summaries. That has occurred now so if that editor still adds content against consensus or doesn't join the discussion, action can be taken. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 09:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it would of been helpful for Qed237 (talk · contribs) to have posted links to the relevant discussions earlier at the article talk page. However, I now feel that full protection should be removed. Giant Snowman 09:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now had a good nights sleep, that I really needed after last night. I admitt that the choice of words in "narrow consensus" might have been a part in making me a bit aggressive (sorry about that), but I also felt like you protected the article way to fast. There was one revert each, and I was about to go to the editor talkpage after not getting response on the article talkpage. Also I felt like you accused me of edit warring, when I was just following consensus and I used the edit summaries. Since the editor reverted my change, and not just readded the XI I also felt like he/she had read the information in the edit summaries and that this was enough. Now I know better, but I cant go to every talkpage everytime, I dont have time to do that. Anyway it is hard for that editor to still add the content now since the page is still full-protected. QED237 (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, it had been protected on 9/4 and that expired on 9/15. Immediately after that expired, the edit war started again. Extending protection was a rational next step. Let me be clear: you were edit warring by every definition. There is no exception in WP:EW that says you can continue to revert to enforce consensus. It is your job to educate other editors to your consensus and edit summaries do not count. If you don't have time to go to a talk page, you don't have time to be here. Assume good faith and drop a note on the user's talk page. It doesn't take much time and it isn't difficult. It seems that more than just one user has been adding this stuff. Unprotecting to set a trap is not the preferred method. Give it a few days, see if any discussion takes place. If not, we can revisit unprotecting and go from there. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have a question about enforcing consensus, if the page gets unprotected and a User adds back the Starting XI, do you revert and warn on their Talk page? If they continue, you report them for disruptive editing resulting in a block from an Admin? Is that the process? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case, if the page is unprotected and the editor just adds it back, a block is appropriate. This is now acceptable because the editor has been warned about EW/3RR and has been told of the consensus. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case and the editor knows what part not to add then can you please remove the protection?? There is info that needs to be added related to last night's game you know!!! 109.148.200.30 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I take your point but is there any need for the article to be protected now when the user who is causing the problem has been informed about what shouldn't be added to the article. If the user adds the starting XI section again then warn/block. The page will need to be updated regularly during and after games and if it is protected (especially for a month) then the article will be out of date and some sections not correct. 109.148.200.30 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, there was more than one user/ip adding the content. It's worth the time to wait to see if any discussion takes place. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was the user causing most of the problems. I felt that the 'Starting XI' was a welcome addition to the page. However, if this does not comply to the (pompous) rules of Wikipedia, then I am sorry and will stop trying to edit the page in this way. Mufka, please remove the protection from the article. It is almost always the public, not administrators, who update the page and the page needs to be regularly updated. It currently has incorrect information, and for the page to always be correct and up-to-date, this lock needs to come off. Sincerely, MillsyOnWiki. MillsyOnWiki (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Washington Navy Yard shooting

Obviously you were right. The local newscast is not entirely devoted to this topic, as I had feared it would be. And I checked the history first to see if this had been attempted.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It was added again. Have you changed your mind on the significance?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hill Street Blues

What part of WP:DOY makes this edit correct.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that you nixed Hill Street Blues, which was one of television's most critically acclaimed shows, airs its critically acclaimed pilot episode, "Hill Street Station" I was wondering if it was due to the fact that it was TV or not obviously highly notable for TV. Keep in mind the following two facts.

Hill Street Blues is one of only three television series to win Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series four years in a row.
"Hill Street Station" is the only television episode in television history to win the two major best director (Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series and Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Drama Series) and the two major best writer awards (Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series and Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Episodic Drama)

I am not sure if there is a hard and fast rule against television, so I am explaining why this is a rare case of exceptional notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. maybe the hook should be Hill Street Blues, one of three series to win Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series four years in a row, airs its critically acclaimed pilot episode, "Hill Street Station".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I just reorganized Hill_Street_Blues#Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience while I've been on vacation. Generally, the first episode of any television program would not meet the long term global notability requirements for inclusion for the simple reason that there had to be a start and the start wasn't the part that was primarily notable (was it?). You've made good points to explain why it should be included but do those points hold a lot of weight outside the US? Using the text "one of three" would automatically disqualify it because it is not distinctly notable. #2 above is the more compelling argument. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Calendar templates

Mufka,

The January calendar, February calendar, etc. templates have been deleted. Template:calendar can now do the job that they used to do. The twelve templates have been turned into one as you'd suggested doing a while back. You have at least one of them on a subpage of yours I'll just go and replace it. I hope you don't mind. Jimp 09:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season

Hello there, Mufka. I just wanted to thank you for protecting the article in question. Please take your time with the protection status. I wouldn't mind seeing this article protected until November, if I may be honest. It seems that as soon as the page protection is removed, the usual suspects would immediately go back to their endless edit war tirades. It's rather childish, and quite off-putting to those who actually want to contribute. So, thanks again, Mufka! :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So you'd rather it isn't updated at all? Not a single admin has bothered to update the page for the last 4 games. Disgraceful. MillsyOnWiki (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

2013-14 Liverpool F.C. Season

Muftka, please take off the lock from the Liverpool page. Despite my faults with adding the 'Starting XI', I have been responsible for a lot of good on the 2013-14 Liverpool F.C. Season page. It is clear to see that the page has got behind - the squad stats are 3 games behind, the Swansea and Southampton scores are not updated, and it still states that the team are '1st' in the League.

It is mainly the public, not the administrators, that update this site and I feel that not having it up-to-date is surely worse than having a small inconvenience on the page (the starting XI).

Please unlock the page so that I (and others) can sort out the issues plaguing it. It is essential that our team's page is well-presented and up-to-date. MillsyOnWiki (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the article is extremely out of date and now that a consensus has been met I see no reason why the page should be protected. 109.148.201.22 (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at this, Muftka. How can a minor inconvenience on the page be worse than it being four games out of date? That's madness. MillsyOnWiki (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the talk page about the reason the page was protected. Start there. Use the {{editprotected}} tag to get new content added. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for co-operating, but I don't really understand what you mean. I have apologised profusely for my actions, and this page needs updating. Please unlock it. MillsyOnWiki (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for admitting a little mistake ... "oops".

Bearian (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just lucky I caught it before the trout fell. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the personal attack on my page; and blocking the user. I was in the process of wondering what to do next, so thanks for the help. Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for removing the personal attack on my userpage almost before I had even read it, and blocking the user involved instantly. Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)