Jump to content

User talk:Mufka/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Calendar days

Hi Mufka. I can see that no progress will be made on this. IU thought we had agreed to have a disambiguation page and a clear intro. People who did not even take part in the discussion are just reverting etc. anyway. I seems pointless reaching an agreement, as someone else who is only interested in their own POV, like CalendarWatcher, just comes along and changes it anyway. It is clear that this cannot be resolved on WT:DAYS. Wallie (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You must have faith in the process and understand that sometimes these types of discussions take months to sort out. You also must understand that consensus can change and a consensus by three editors is tenuous. That is why I said to expect a challenge. You must assume good faith and not accuse other editors of pushing their own POV. CW has as much right to share his opinion as you or I do. Hopefully he will make an argument to help us understand his point. If consensus can't be reached at WT:DAYS, it can be sent to WP:RFC. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert?

Aren't newspapers supposed to be italicized?

Wikipedia:Citing_sources

4.240.78.8 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted due to unnecessary hyphens that were added. Underline or italics are both valid depending on which style manual you use (MLA vs. Chicago). Both are acceptable. The word typically is the operative word at WP:CITE#HOW. Someone arbitrarily chose one as an example. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I looked at both MLA style and The Chicago Manual of Style and do not see underlining in either article. I have also never seen it before in any article on Wikipedia until I came across it in this one. Could you have just removed the hyphens that I added instead of reverting? I personally like the hyphens (although I know there is no precedent for them) because it separates the text a little to make it easier for us older/slightly blind people to read. 4.240.78.8 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The wiki articles on MLA and Chicago are not meant to be complete style guides. You'd need to look at the style guides themselves to see the different formatting options - and underlining is common MLA style (here is a comparison). Yes, I could have removed the hyphens, but reverting to another accepted form was faster and left the article in an acceptable form. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Slightly malformed signature

Hello, I just helped a user with color fonts but your signature is breaking the colors because it is slightly malformed. Take a look at User talk:Elbutler and then my posting at the bottom. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed that it took 16 months and thousands of talk page edits for that error to surface. Should be fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:DAYS

The discussions seem to have stopped... Wallie (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry for disturbing you, but i saw that you are a member of this "wiki days" or what, and i thought that perhaps you can tell me what is a "nn event"?Baxter9 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC) (my edits were reverted according to this rule)Thank you!Baxter9 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You're not disturbing anyone. That's what we're here for. In the context of date articles, "nn event" means that the event is not notable. The date articles have guidelines for notability of entries. Have a look at WP:DAYS for general information about the date articles and how they are formatted and WP:DOY for information about what are considered notable events for date articles. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, understood. :) Thank you for your help! CheersBaxter9 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Foolish Thing Desire

Just to let you know that a CSD9 requires that not only is the article non-notable but there also has to be no article about the artist as well. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles says "An article about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted." In this case the Daniel Ash article has existed since 2003 so the Foolish Thing Desire would require a PROD or AfD to have it deleted. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I came here for the purpose of informing you of the same concern noted above with respect to the article This warm december. Since you seem to not have learned from the message, let me reiterate: CSD A9 is only applicable to albums where the artists does not have an article. Tagging articles on invalid bases bites the creators and creates work for those patrolling the deletion category.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO, WP:IAR applies here. But I will not use that criteria again. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadler 29

Edit reverted

I just reverted one of your edits on the article Truman Doctrine. You added a POV tag to the article but did not specify your concern over the article in your edit summary, nor the talk page. It would perhaps be better that you state your objection next time instead of mindlessly putting tags over articles, as it is quite frustrating to try to guess what your thoughts are. Naur (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Truman Doctrine. Perhaps I should have editted talk before placing the tag, but I would encourage you to assume good faith before jumping to the conclusion that I would "mindlessly put tags over articles". -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet case

Mufka: I believe that you have reverted my article of Henry Crawford. Many say the article is well written. If you wish to contribute in a correct manner, please add to my article, but do not constantly waste your time in attempting to redirect it. I do not believe that you have adequate reason to endeavor to redirect my article. Please understand that what you do is an unnecessary and unwanted contribution. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma woodhouse (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly want you to feel welcome, but the subject of the article that you have created does not appear to meet the notability requirements for an article. I would suggest that you work on the article offline, including valid references, and then attempt to create the article. In the mean-time it is very common practice to redirect fictional characters to the article that covers the broad subject under which they fall. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mufka: How dare you accuse me of being a sockpuppet! My friend and I are both interested in the same article, so we arrange times in which we can do it together. Please begin being more concerned of your own buisness rather than being a busybody who constantly deletes my friend's articles. Most unsincerely, Christy Huddleston —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy huddleston (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your editing actions indicate that you might be the same person as Emma woodhouse. If you feel that you have been improperly accused, I invite you to make your case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emma woodhouse. If the case is investigated and it is found that the accusation is inaccurate, then there will be no bias against you going forward. This is a simple process to ensure that the Wikipedia policies are followed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Mufka, good find, checkuser confirmed they were socks and I have indef blocked all five accounts. MBisanz talk 03:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

category sort keys

Hi - Just FYI about how this stuff works. If you look at Category:Days of the year all the April and August days are presented together under the "A" heading and the December days are under the "D" heading, etc. This is done using the first character of the sort key. By default the sort key is the article name, so "regular" categories are indexed by the first letter of the article name. When you add a sort key the first character of the sort key is used for this rather than the first character of the article name. Whether you use a sort key or not, the article name is presented in the category listing. Make sense? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty intuitive. If that's all you mean by custom, then I get it. I thought maybe there was some other, more complex way of doing things - like whatever would be necessary to make December show up under 12. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The headings in the category listing are only a single character, so an article with a sort key starting with "12..." shows up under "1", not "12" (and there's no way to force "12" to be a header). You can define a custom table of contents (Category:Days of the year has one) with links to wherever you'd like in the category listing, but the headers in the listing are always a single character. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Truman Doctrine

Mufka, I appreciate your efforts at returning the Truman Doctrine article to a more neutral POV. I'm not an expert on the subject but would like to do what I can to help. (FWIW I do have a BA in Political Science.) Is there a body of experts that will be alerted by your placing the NPOV flag? (I don't see anything on the NPOV Noticeboard or on the RFC page. Is it posted someplace else?) Frappyjohn (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It shows up as a subcategory of Category:NPOV disputes but since there are so many articles in that cat, the immediate intent is to get those editors who are watching the particular article to have a look at it. Not being an expert on the subject is not a problem - in fact, it can be a positive. If you have no particular knowledge of the subject, you are well suited to read it and determine if you see that some of the text is unduly slanted to try to make some statement. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I tried (and was pretty proud of how I managed to retain most of the questionable content but place it in a better context). But unfortunately today the person in question has undone all my work (but without using the 'undo' function and without justifying his actions). Please check out my changes and the ones that undid mine. Also see the exchange on the talk page. Thanks. Frappyjohn (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Quit it!

Please quit reverting my editing for Diane Cibrian's page because, our opponent posted that false and negative article. All i am doing is posting her original biography from a local .gov website. I would appreciate it if you would please stop reverting it back to the negative post. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Essmember (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, continuing to reinsert that text from http://www.sanantonio.gov/council/D8/index.asp?res=1280&ver=true will result in a block for violation of the copyright policy. If you have an issue with facts in the article, please visit WP:BLPN. MBisanz talk 21:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the article as there is no version of it that is not a copyright violation or a violation of our policy on living persons. MBisanz talk 22:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Petrick page?

You questioned the notability of the Robert Petrick page. The page now has additional information, including references in books by Burkard Polster and Douglas R. Hofstadter. Are you satisfied now? I'd rather not spending any more time right now on this.

Can we condense what's on the talk page (comments by you and me) to a summary of why he's considered notable:

Just to make it official: If you want to do this edit, I authorize you to remove my comments on the Talk page. Thanks! RoyLeban (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is a record of conversations related to the topic. There is no need to condense the talk page. The article should be safe from deletion for now, but if he only received a passing mention in those sources, better sources will be required. I questioned the notability when there were no references to support it. You have added references so assuming that the sources are reliable and the person receives more than a passing mention, the problem is solved. Do remember though, that since this is an article about a living person, every word of it must be backed up by a reliable source. WP:BLP is very clear on that. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?

No, really, who do you think you are going and editing my posts. Amarkson50 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. You may have noticed that at least a half dozen articles have been created on the subject of Charles Sullenberger and each one has been redirected to the article about the recent plane crash. The individual is in the news only because of the event and his personal notability outside of the event has not yet been established. Let's give it some time before we try to create an article about him because we'll want to be sure that his notability has been established. Additionally, your version misspells his name and would end up redirected anyway. Feel free to ask questions if you have any. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Good answer. Put me in my spot. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkson50 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

VICI

Hi Mufta, thanks for your comments. I am very unfamilar with Wiki editing as yet so I hope you will bear with me. I am responsible at VICI for the text I used from them & I hold the copyright to it. However for the wiki article I rewrote it away from the original & to make it simple & factual (eliminating the pr speak in it!). I hope this will satisfy the criteria? thank you for you attention.

Kathy Weston speedy declined

It asserts siginificance, "a lower standard than notability." She might be notable per Pan Am games, 'cause she came in first. Dlohcierekim 21:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition of Olympics appearance establishes notability anyway. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Adjustment to templates

Actually, I noticed a formatting issue in an article that I thought at first might be being caused by the formatting of a template...turned out it wasn't, so my apologies for anything I goofed up in there. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Julekalender

Hi Mufka, I see that you have redirected Julekalender to The Julekalender (Norwegian TV series). I have made a commment on the talkpage of Julekalender, since I disagree with you on this move. Snailwalker | talk 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Dannny Douberly

Is there any particular reason the original prod could not have been left to run its course? Cancelling the prod and taking it to afd only serves to extend the life of a bad article by a few days, as far as I can see. -- roleplayer 14:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is more likely that the article would be deleted sooner at AfD than through the prod. With the prod, it couldn't be deleted before 1/28. At Afd, it could be deleted almost immediately. Hoax articles tend to get deleted within a day at AfD. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
OK I shall rely on your experience of the system then! -- roleplayer 18:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Radomski

Reference "before" came from the source page Haidari concentration camp. I did an edit, which cut out the main reference, then tried to find it on the source page, but couldn't before I had to go to work. Probably gonna be a perpetual mystery like Loch Ness monster and Bermuda Triangle. Thanks for clean on sources by the way.Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

What makes this vandalism? It's completely verifiable, through sources like CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera. I'll concede that it's been a slow edit war for the last couple of weeks, but you have been as much a participant in that as he has. It looks like a content dispute to me, so please elaborate on the situation. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking into account the IPs editing and block history along with history of edits as User:121.72.176.141, good faith was out the window. The event was unsupported and the editor seems to be playing games. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The other IP you mention was blocked for these same edits—part of the edit war I mentioned—but they are not vandalism. I don't see anyone playing games; it looks to me like someone being systematically shut out of editing because he's not a registered user. Am I wrong? Kafziel Complaint Department 01:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you looked at the talk page history of both? Erased messages included? I could certainly be wrong. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and all the previous warnings and blocks appear to have snowballed out of this dispute.
I'm going to reinstate the information, citing a reliable source and reworded for neutrality, and I hope that will settle this. If there's still a problem in the future, please discuss it instead of issuing warnings for vandalism. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Date articles do not use references. The support must come from a linked article. The entry should be removed as unsupported per WP:DAYS. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:DAYS is a Wikiproject, not a policy. WP:V is policy. Any time there is a conflict between projects and policy, policy wins. It's starting to look like there's some hidden agenda here. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:DAYS is widely accepted and long practiced as the guideline for the days of the year articles. You will not find any references in any day article (except maybe February 29 - for good reason). The guidelines that are laid out by the project keep things in order and keep the articles clean and verifiable. I believe the long-standing requirement that any entry in the days of the year list articles is supported by a linked article makes the articles more easily comply with WP:V and raises the utility of the articles. It is a reasonable standard and has wide acceptance. If this guideline is in conflict with WP:V, then it is a clear case for WP:IAR. The only hidden agenda is the desire to keep the date articles informative and verifiable. If this particular entry were mentioned in a linked article, there would be no argument for removing it on a verifiability basis, only on a long-term global notability basis. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
IAR is for actively improving Wikipedia, not for the sake of convenience. We do not use Wikipedia articles as references for other Wikipedia articles. Ever. Now, I agree that it's not generally necessary to have in-line citations on date articles. But if the lack of citations is being used as an excuse to remove verifiable information (while calling it vandalism, no less) then it's not okay. I notice everyone is very concerned about the removal of this particular event, but nothing else. Just above it, I see:
Nothing in that sentence links to an article about a trial or the men involved, but nobody is falling over themselves to remove it. Because it's clearly factual and easily verifiable. As is the Bin Laden thing. And probably thousands of others like it. If you disagree about its inclusion—if you think you can find community consensus to say citing sources is bad, and that the will of Wikiprojects trump our core policies—I suggest you take this to dispute resolution. Because when I was considering blocking the IP for the edit war, I was very close to blocking both you and CalendarWatcher for participating as well. I decided to try to work out a compromise instead of blocking anyone, but you don't seem to want it. So tell me what you want to do here. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that you understand that with thousands of entries in the date articles, it is impossible to patrol every entry. The newest ones always get noticed first. The event that you point out should be removed. Consensus exists on excluding references per this because it has been discussed and practiced and has not been challenged for years. Now that you are challenging it, perhaps you will insist on formal discussion. The IP editor that sparked this discussion should have been contacted more carefully but regardless of that fact I tend to put a lot of trust in an admin's judgment when they block someone. With the blocks and the comments here, here, here, here, and here it was clear to me that the editor was playing games. Granted, the edits to the date article were not vandalism, I concede that. They should have been discussed.
I cite WP:IAR because WP:DAYS is attempting to improve Wikipedia by making the date articles easy to maintain and to provide simple criteria for inclusion of entries. You've got a handful of dedicated editors who maintain the 366 date articles. It is a significant task to maintain references both in the list articles and in the topic articles. The list articles provide no content. They simply list things that should, if notable, be covered in other articles. The existing practice gives readers a quick and easy way to read more about notable events. If the entries didn't link to existing articles for their support, the lists would be lifeless and provide no real value. I'd just hate to see another level of complexity added to the date articles when it is not necessary and it reduces the utility of the articles. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
So if we link to the related article, that would be acceptable to you? Kafziel Complaint Department 00:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And I'll leave it at that. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I think it's a reasonable compromise. If the IP still continues the edit war, I'll semi-protect so he can start an account and discuss it like a civilized person. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Panda Inn

Please take a close look at the additional references on Panda Inn. I think they are enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

References that amount to press releases, reviews, and a story about food poisoning do not establish notability. The official site lists that it only has six locations. Doesn't seem particularly notable. I think it is a good candidate for AfD. More input would be good to establish its notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Donahue

Hi, did you see my rebuttal of your deletion suggestion on Nancy Donahue's page? Please respond, thanks.

Vanya_Scpo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.75.148 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mufka/Archive_5&oldid=1190127009"