Jump to content

User talk:Mz7/September–November 2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Another Tor-related article getting phished: Dream Market

Can we get the same protection as you put on the Grams (search) and Bitcoin Fog articles? It looks like we're gonna be getting a phish per day. --Nanite (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nanite. Thanks for drawing my attention to that article. I've placed the article under pending changes protection, and I've also blocked 97.104.94.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a period of 2 weeks, since that user appears to be the main spammer there. Mz7 (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I'll continue to modify the private edit filters to try and block this abuse. Thanks, Nakon 07:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello there! I'm looking for an instructor, and I was wondering if you had time to help teach me? No worries if you're busy, it happens. Thanks! :) MapleSyrupRain (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, MapleSyrupRain! I'd be happy to be your instructor. From the looks of things, I think we can start right away. I've created a course page for your at User:Mz7/CVUA/MapleSyrupRain. Please read the information there and let me know if you have any questions. I've also included the first assignment of the course, titled "Good faith and vandalism". Feel free to answer those questions, paying close attention to the linked policies and guidelines I've aksed you to read. If you have any questions, please don't hesistate to ask. Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism Unit Academy

Hello, I've been on Wikipedia for a month now, and I want to fight vandalism. I see that you have a slot open, and since I'm also EST, I was wondering if you can be my instructor. If you're busy its fine. Thank you!! Hummerrocket (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hummerrocket! I would be happy to be your instructor. I've created a CVUA course page for you at User:Mz7/CVUA/Hummerrocket. Please read the information there and let me know if you have any questions. I've also included the first assignment that asks you a few questions, under the heading "Good faith and vandalism". Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending Changes

I know I should be asking this on the requests to be a reviewer page, but I was wondering if it is possible for me to be a reviewer, as you are my instructor, and I have already learned a lot about vandalism. You can see through my history that I fight vandalism often, albeit without mentorship. I feel like with PC I can use that in conjunction with my training, and I read about content policies and copyright. I would hope to get this right. If not let me know what steps I would need to take to receive it. Thank you. Hummerrocket (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Pending changes reviewer is probably the most lightweight extended right on Wikipedia, and administrators grant it on a fairly liberal basis. It's true that you've been fighting vandalism frequently, though with less than 4 months experience, you're still relatively new to Wikipedia. As an administrator, I can assign you the pending changes reviewer right, and I'm willing to do so if you think it will be helpful to you during the mentorship process. However, keep in mind that the main feature of the right is the ability to accept pending changes; if you spot vandalism and revert it to the last accepted version, your reversion will be automatically accepted regardless of whether you are a pending changes reviewer – please make sure you read Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. Because it is not necessarily essential to countervandalism, you may want to consider waiting a bit until you have more experience working with content before requesting the right, or perhaps until we finish the CVUA course. With this in mind, would you still like me to grant you the right now? Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually I'm going to take on your suggestion to wait for a bit. I didn't realize that it doesn't align close enough to what I'm currently doing. Throughout the course, would you be able to determine at a certain point if I have the experience/knowledge fit for PC, like in the middle/graduation, and then grant me it when I'm ready? Or is it hard to determine PC readiness from the course? Hummerrocket (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I think by the end of the course, you'll have enough experience for pending changes reviewer. As I said, pending changes reviewer is granted on a fairly liberal basis, and if you ever stumble across a pending edit that is actually legitimate, it would benefit Wikipedia if you could accept that edit. On a side note, there is actually a point in the course where I'll recommend that you request rollback rights, which will also help you quickly revert vandalism. Around that point, you could also request pending changes reviewer at the same time. Mz7 (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your comments!

Magioladitis (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

ARV

Hey, so twice I almost got to request admins for blocking, but before I could do that the admins already blocked the users. They are: [1] and [2]. Would I still have to find and report two more disruptive users, since finding some is incredibly difficult because the admins are excellent at finding them beforehand? Or can these be acceptable because I was seconds from requesting? Thank you. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Ah gotcha. How about you instead show me just one instance where you reported a user to WP:AIV, just so you have experience with how it's done. It'll come up naturally as you keep patrolling recent changes. Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, no problem! Thank you. Hummerrocket (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The Penguins of Madagascar

I'm facing a dilemma at The Penguins of Madagascar. I rather listen to registered users, not the unregistered ones. What do you suggest I do? — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi FilmandTVFan28. I would stop reverting immediately and take it to a talk page, especially since you're at 3 reverts now. This doesn't look like blatant vandalism. It appears they want evidence that the show is distributed by Paramount and NBCUniversal, so I would try to find sources that verify this. Technically, policy is on their side; WP:BURDEN states that if information is unsourced, it can be removed by any editor at anytime and shouldn't be restored without a citation to a reliable source. The burden is on the editor who wishes to reinsert the content to provide sources. Mz7 (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. I just handle anymore negative feedback from that user. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User Zacharycook597 and NASCAR templates

It looks like you move-protected the first template, and this new user is trying to make an end run around the move. Should I mass-revert the changes? —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred. Alright, I've spent a few minutes familiarizing myself again with this particular template, and it looks like you've already performed the mass-revert. For a bit of background: Originally, this template was located at Template:NASCAR Sprint Cup races, as that was the name of the series prior to December 2016. Admin Airplaneman move-protected this template way back in 2010. In December 2016, however, the series changed its name from "NASCAR Sprint Cup Series" to "Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series". As a result, in May 2017 user Gameguest9459 (talk · contribs) cut-and-paste-moved the page to its current title of Template:Monster Energy NASCAR Cup races, which I repaired using Special:MergeHistory. Since the new template was no longer protected as a result of the cut-and-paste move, I reapplied the move protection.
It appears that technically the name of the series is indeed "Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series", not just "Monster Energy NASCAR Cup", so it may not be the worst thing in the world to have Template:Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series races serving as a redirect to Template:Monster Energy NASCAR Cup races. Naturally, cut-and-pasting was the wrong way to move the template (and it appears Zacharycook597 done this several times across different articles now), but I can see why Zacharycook597 might have wanted to move it. The reason the template is named how it is now is because this is historically the way we've always named it. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Mz7, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Mz7, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Cheers, ansh666 22:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Good old days

Hi.
While moving pages, and performing post move clean-up; I came around this. It leads to other page, and it leads to another. Should we consolidate the matter in one place? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran. At first glance, it doesn't look like anything is wrong to me. Good Old Days (disambiguation) redirects to The Good Old Days (disambiguation). What needs consolidating? Mz7 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Spongebobfan1997 VEGP

Hi Mz7. You indefinitely blocked Spongebobfan1997 VEGP as a sock, but you might want to also consider removing their talk page access as well if they are going to keep making edits like this. I can't see any reason for this editor to be copying-and-pasting an entire article (including non-free content) onto their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:  Done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mz7 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Westworld / spoilers

Thank you for closing the rfc. It was a tough rfc to close and some came before you who even gave up altogether. As an uninvolved editor, do you feel any of the policy pages need adjustment or clarification? Again, thank you for the effort it must have taken and the well written summary. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 11:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with PizzaMan; it was a difficult close, and I honestly expected it to go the other way because so many of our experienced editors seem to think that the inclusion of spoilers is fine no matter where they are placed, unless the spoilers are blatantly included merely to spoil. Some spoilers we include, however, could be argued as merely spoiling rather than being needed for the reader's understanding. Like you noted in your close, there are other things to consider. As for what PizzaMan stated about changing the guideline, I pointed to an RfC from the guideline's talk page, noting that we've already been down that rode. It is worth another try at some point, since there was a rough consensus general agreement in that RfC to not unnecessarily include spoilers in the lead, but the wording of a new RfC would need to be more focused. And I don't think we should skip on over to the guideline talk page and argue for a change to the guideline solely because of how this RfC closed. This is per what you stated in your close. It can serve as an example, yes, but we need to give this close result time to breathe and stand on its own. Bringing the close up there this soon would also possibly jeopardize it due to opposing editors seeing the close as likely setting a precedent.

Sorry that you were spoiled on this series, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@PizzaMan and Flyer22 Reborn: I think my thoughts align with Flyer22 Reborn. Definitely, as an uninvolved editor coming into the RfC, I saw the question, "Should we include spoilers in..." and I thought surely the community say yes, we should include spoilers, since that's how most editors think, and WP:SPOILER is primarily written against editors who remove spoilers from articles. I was surprised, however, to find that a good number of experienced editors did oppose spoilers in the article, and as I read through the RfC, I found their arguments to align themselves with policies and guidelines, as opposed to going against them.
For that reason, I don't feel that any of the policy or guideline pages – particularly WP:SPOILER – need immediate clarification as a direct result of this Westworld RfC. The guideline already includes such language as When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. and this does not mean such information must be included ... it should contain information appropriate to an encyclopedia article on the subject. At least two participants in this discussion (Sergecross73 and Flyer22 Reborn) pointed specifically to this language in their rationale to oppose spoilers at the RfC. In an early draft of my closing statement, I believe I cited these lines of the guideline specifically, but they got cut in the interest of concision.
The core of the result is that editors roughly agree that spoilers (i.e. information about characters/plot not immediately known to viewers) aren't necessary for this particular subject to provide the reader with a basic understanding of each character. For other subjects, spoilers might indeed be necessary for such a basic understanding, and that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Essentially, the decision whether to include spoilers should be based on encyclopedic presentation (e.g. neutral point of view, tone, real-world perspective, concision), which is, in my view, the spirit of WP:SPOILER. I gave little weight to arguments that we should remove spoilers solely because they spoil, which is also, I believe, the spirit of WP:SPOILER. Perhaps, later down the road, the guidelines could be clarified to solidify this kind of thinking, but at the same time, I don't see this RfC as going against what they already say now. Mz7 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for the explanation and again, thank you Mz7 for taking on the tough task to close the rfc. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 05:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for pinging you so many times in the Westworld talk page, but i believe there is some clarification needed there, regarding the RfC closure. Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 19:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Responded there. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Mz7, was it your intention to ban basic casting information from the article?

I have zero edits to the Westworld article, so wasn't involved in the editing conflict. I showed up as an uninvolved RFC participant. And as an RFC closer myself, I value as much respect as possible for reasonable results. I also understand this RFC is an ugly closing-case. However in this case I think the close result is self-contradictory.

  • Actor Jeffrey Wright plays Arnold Webber, co-founder of Westworld.
  • Actor Jeffrey Wright plays Bernard Lowe, current head of Westworld Programming Division.

If we provide that basic casting information, anyone with an 85 IQ will quickly realize that a founder of Westworld could only be human and that the duplicate role must obviously be an android. It is impossible to present the basic casting information without it constituting a spoiler. People are stripping the basic the casting listing based on your close.[3]

The article now excludes any cast listing for Arnold Webber. Was that your closing intent?

If I may, I believe the problem is that we didn't actually have Most participants agreed... spoilers aren't required to give readers a basic understanding. What we had was a local majority who felt avoiding spoilers was more important than following the spoilers guideline in this case. Guidelines allow exceptions, so a plausible result could be to call it a consensus to make an exception from the guideline. That would be a direct and understandable justification for excluding the cast listing above - we would be making an exception to sacrifice encyclopedic coverage due to strong spoiler concerns. That thought makes my head explode, but at least part of me prefers a consensus I disagree with to an inaccurate one. The alternative (which admittedly favors my position) would be that the majority side either made a factual-error that there was 'no encyclopedic purpose' for the information and/or they failed to justify an exception to the global-consensus guideline. Alsee (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: I think I understand the problem you're seeing: Arnold Webber is a significant character in the series, so he deserves inclusion in the characters list in order to give readers a "basic understanding" of the cast, but the mere fact that he is played by the same actor as Bernard is enough to tip readers off to the fact that Bernard is an android. The RfC isn't clear about this specific point, since the question was about spoilers in general rather than specific ones. However, there was one exchange regarding Bernard and Arnold, where Radiphus asked whether Flyer22 Reborn thought it was necessary to include that Wright plays both characters, and Flyer22 answered no. In other words, other editors may not agree with you that it is necessary to include Arnold in the cast list to provide readers with a basic understanding of the cast.
I don't quite agree with your interpretation of the consensus. I don't perceive that the opposers were trying to argue that this article should be an exception to the WP:SPOILER guideline. They did cite specific language in WP:SPOILER regarding "encyclopedic purpose" and argued that the way that spoilers were being included in the section was—to quote Sergecross76—"truly terribly writing". The issue was not that the content spoiled the show for the readers (the article still spoils the show for readers in the plot summaries), but that it wasn't presented in a sufficiently encyclopedic manner. Mz7 (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean that opposers were explicitly arguing for an exception to the guideline. I think they recognize that would be a pretty gross argument to make directly. I think they're stuck between a good-faith desire to protect readers from spoilers, and a guideline that says complete&encyclopedic coverage takes precedence over those concerns. I was trying to avoid merely arguing for 'what I wanted', I was trying really hard to acknowledge an outcome against me. A 'majority consensus to override a guideline' has more legitimacy than 'majority consensus to assert a falsehood'.
The basis of your close is (1) we are going to follow the spoiler guideline, and (2) spoiler-information isn't serving any encyclopedic purpose in this case, therefore (3) this article bans these spoilers. If 2 were true, the logic would be correct. If 2 is false then the close is asserting a falsehood. That traps editors in an incoherent situation.
Can you think of any case where an encyclopedia article deliberately excludes a cast listing for an important character? If we're going to ban that cast listing, we at least need to be honest enough to admit why it is being banned. Alsee (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Either that, or we have to accept that the nature of the work means any encyclopedic coverage of the topic is unavoidably littered with spoilers. Alsee (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Do look at what SnowFire stated. Or what I and others have been stating (including above). This close is not overriding a thing. People interpret WP:Spoiler differently, and this is also due to the vague wording in the guideline, which I attempted to remedy last year. What is a needed spoiler to you is not always going to be a needed spoiler to others. Furthermore, Mz7 was clear at the talk page that he doesn't "believe anything in [his] closure prevents you or any other editor from continuing to propose the inclusion of specific spoilers case-by-case on the basis that they are necessary to describe each character—consensus can change. However, [he thinks] (based on the comments of others both in the RfC and in this thread) you will find that now may not be the best time to do so. [...] it is accurate that there is a consensus to not include any spoilers that are not considered necessary to give readers a basic understanding of each actor and their overall role in the series, but what [he] also meant when [he] stated there's a consensus 'not to include spoilers' is that there was a rough agreement that, indeed, no spoilers are necessary to give readers a basic understanding of each character." And if that was not enough, he clarified further. Time to leave the man alone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, regarding this edit by a newbie, it is most likely that the newbie was unaware of Mz7's close.
And as noted by Sergecross73, this spoilers matter can be remedied by writing a Plot section for the article. Maybe Sergecross73 would be willing to write one? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: Sergecross73 has said that If someone wrote some decent combination of premise/plot/story/synopsis type sections, and then dropped that bombshell, hypothetically, 2 sections in, 2 paragraphs in, 4th sentence in, then I wouldn't so opposed, because the proper context would be there. and that if the article was properly organized and written to fictional media guidelines, I imagine the spoiler content could be re-added without much/any contention. I believe this means that if there was a "plot/premise" section, before the "cast and characters" sections, he/she wouldn't have a problem if the spoilers about Bernard, William or any other character were re-added to the cast section. Is this your opinion too? -- (Radiphus) 20:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not. And I'm not interested in continuing this debate with you. You are WP:Bludgeoning this. It should be clear to you that I have been agitated by you. Responses like this certainly show that we have not been getting along. And you should know by now that there is no need to ping me to discussions I am actively engaged in. As for Sergecross73, we should let Sergecross73 speak for himself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I asked you what you mean and on what exactly do you agree with Sergecross73. It is obvious that you prefer creating animosity instead of discussing. -- (Radiphus) 21:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Sighs. Isn't it obvious that you created and maintained all of this drama and animosity? I discuss just fine. You bludgeon and bludgeon until editors want to pull their hair out. Go ahead, look at that RfC. Almost all of the drama is your doing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel this way. I have not offended anyone. All i'am trying to do is discuss about things i don't agree with. -- (Radiphus) 21:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Regarding WP:Bludgeon, I count about 38 posts for Radiphus and 33 for Flyer. From where I sit (6 posts), you're both in a similar ballpark.
Flyer, I'd like to note that you again have been stirring up drama tossing off frivolous pings trying to summon allies to bludgeon-by-proxy. You did a frivolous mass-ping on the article page, and there was no more reason to ping Snowfire to come here than to ping anyone&everyone else in the RFC.
Your linking to Snowfire's diff was also nonsensical. No where in that diff, or anywhere at all that I can see, did Snowfire offer any argument for excluding a basic cast listing from the cast section. In fact a substantial part of Snowfire's argument was to cite WP:TVCAST which states Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast" or "Cast and characters", indicate the name of the cast member and his or her noteworthy role(s). Actor Jeffrey Wright plays Arnold Webber, co-founder of Westworld. That is quite obviously a noteworthy role. That quite obviously belongs in the cast section. You're blowing holes in your own case, highlighting the false premise that a cast listing somehow serves no valid purpose in the cast list. And while I'm "replying" to you, this topic is really for Mz7. I'm interested Mz7 views the arguments&consensus regarding removal of a cast listing from the cast section. I just don't see how the arguments can be reconciled, other than a direct conflict with the spoilers guideline. Alsee (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Alsee, your "stirring up drama tossing off frivolous pings" commentary is invalid. I already replied to your "oh, no, not the pings" complaint on the article talk page. When we have an editor, who is on the opposing side of the debate, speaking for the other side of the debate (summarizing those editors' views in ways they clearly or are likely to disagree with) all in an effort to make the closer change his mind about how he closed, those editors should be pinged to clarify and defend the way they voted. It's simple, really. As for pinging SnowFire above, since SnowFire quite clearly objected to the way that the aforementioned poster characterized his vote and challenges the notion that the RfC overrides policy, it was more than valid to ping him. I'm sorry (no, really, I'm not) that you hate valid pings, especially when they go against your viewpoint, but I will continue to make them. And there is nothing noted in WP:Canvassing stopping me from doing so. In fact, WP:Canvassing supports the notification of involved editors in cases such as these. But then again, as has been discussed on that guideline's talk page, it doesn't explicitly cover pings (and for good reason). Either way, had both sides been mischaracterized, I would have pinged both sides. Otherwise, there was no need to do so. Neither me nor my supposed allies have been the ones doing the bludgeoning. Mz7 didn't have to suggest that any of the opposers move on, because it's not the opposers dragging things out and trying to get an experienced administrator to change his close. I made my arguments in the RfC and left it to others to weigh in; I did not bludgeon. I did not revisit the RfC until seeing wording for an initial closure request that I disagreed with. And after the close, I did not become involved again until there was a failure to adhere to the close; it was PizzaMan who started the discussion on the talk page about the failure to adhere to the close. And as for this section on Mz7's talk page, I have not bludgeoned a thing either. Responding to an editor's comments on different matters is not bludgeoning.
I'm not blowing holes in anything. And no one's argument has been "a cast listing somehow serves no valid purpose in the cast list." That is your interpretation of some arguments and yours alone. We have the closer disagreeing with you, and a number of experienced editors (including myself) who clearly do not see things your way. Disagreement with how the WP:Spoiler guideline is interpreted was more than clear via the aforementioned RfC and now this one. This topic is for more than Mz7, and it was PizzaMan who started this section. I commented here before you did and have been watching this page since. If I see something I disagree with, I'm going to comment; so perhaps we have that in common. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I apologize for my delay in responding to this thread; I'm pleased to say that the real-life work that was holding me up is now over, and I can dedicate some more time to Wikipedia-related matters. @Alsee: I do think you make a valid point regarding the cast listing, and it's unfortunately one that wasn't discussed in-depth during the RfC. That Arnold is "obviously" a noteworthy cast member wasn't clear to me when I closed the discussion, and as I mentioned, at least one editor thought that the character's inclusion was actually unnecessary.
With that being said, I still believe that the general argument against spoilers is based in accordance with WP:SPOILER, not against it. WP:SPOILER discourages removing spoilers solely because they spoil, but the guideline is careful to qualify this advice by indicating that spoilers could be removed if they don't serve an encyclopedic purpose. Here, a good number of experienced editors argued against including "information revealed to the viewer throughout the series" because they felt that this information did not serve an encyclopedic purpose. I still think it would be misconstruing them to say that they were implicitly arguing for an exception to the WP:SPOILER guideline entirely. I think you'll find that they agree that spoilers could be included in the article if they are shown to be encyclopedically necessary, though it seemed to me that most editors agreed that they weren't.
So on that basis, I would cautiously start a new discussion, the scope of which would be limited to whether it is necessary to include Arnold in the cast list, and, if so, what the best way to do so would be. As Flyer22 noted above, I did tell Radiphus that now may not be the best time to start such a discussion, but it's plausible that this specific issue is important enough to discuss now. Personally, I don't think it is obvious (to the extent that anyone with an 85 IQ can see it) that Bernard and Arnold are necessarily connected if we only state that they are played by the same actor. If this weren't true, wouldn't viewers have caught onto the spoiler early in the season by just looking at the credits of the show? An alternative solution (not sure if this is the best) that PizzaMan proposed in the thread at the talk page was to include Arnold in the "Recurring characters" section, rather than the "Main characters" section.
Regarding the animosity in this thread—it's unfortunate. Let's try to take a few steps back and see if we can still resolve this without pulling out our user conduct policy cards. Sure, the questions regarding my close are challenging, but I don't mind taking the time to answer them as long as they lead to a better understanding of the article for everyone. Mz7 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Mz7. Sorry for the bickering on your talk page. I admire your ability to calm situations. In the RfC, I stated, "I don't think that there is a need to note in the Cast and characters section that Jeffrey Wright portrays Bernard and Arnold. And, really, Bernard is, in simple terms, a different version of Arnold." But I don't strongly oppose mentioning that Jeffrey Wright portrays Arnold. I understand why PizzaMan is concerned that this hints that Bernard is an android, but we can perhaps reach a nice compromise on this aspect. And I know that Alsee means well, and I certainly don't mean to be in a war of the words with Alsee. Alsee and I disagree at times, but it seems that we try to respect each other for the most part, like Alsee's initial response to me on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Flyer, I think this is a rare case of disagreement between us. I generally recall you as a respected ally. Consider this a friendly sparring match in the eternal Wiki-dispute-resolution process, chuckle. Alsee (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Mz7. It was an unusually challenging matter to close, but well handled. Regarding viewers catching the Bernard/Arnold cast issue: The broadcast deliberately and cleverly concealed this. The opening credits feature the bare name of star actors, while end credits show crew and supporting actor+character names.
I'm not sure if you're interested in better understanding how this all arose, but I'll try to offer a brief explanation. The series plays a clever and complicated game with the viewer. You meet the actor as Bernard. The name "Arnold" is mentioned as a faceless and long-dead person. Whenever you see this actor, you naturally believe you're seeing Bernard. As episodes progress you discover that the show has been silently mixing current-timeline scenes with flashback scenes from 30(?) years ago. The viewer is unaware that the narrative is jumping between timelines for a few reasons. Androids don't visibly age, hiding the 30 year jump. Bernard-today is a replica of long-dead Arnold. The androids themselves are unable to expose any of this to the viewer because they live inside a timeless cycle of memory wipes. They believe the wild-west setting is reality, and memory wipes cut them off from any timeframe beyond a few days.
When this is revealed, the viewer discovers that they were cut off from any reliable knowledge of time - just like the androids. The viewer discovers that their own memory is unreliable - just like the androids. The viewer remembers seeing Bernard in various scenes, but their memory is wrong. In some of those scenes they watched Arnold, 30 years ago. They can't trust their memory. They have to review, re-interpret, and re-integrate their memory. It all has new meaning when you sort out who did what, when and why. The viewer and the androids are on the same journey, making similar discoveries, trying to break free and connect to reality. It's a masterful narrative achievement. Alsee (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a great breakdown Alsee. I would like to add that the same technique of jumping between timelines is used to make viewers believe that William and the Man in Black are two different characters, while in fact the "Man in Black" (portrayed by Ed Harris) is William at an old age, and Jimmi Simpson plays William at a younger age. William first appears as a kind visitor to the park, but he gradually becomes the sadistic Man in Black. -- (Radiphus) 17:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
What Alsee stated is correct; the series fools us dumb folk. There had already been speculations on the Internet that William is the Man in Black, though. See this and this YouTube video, for example. I didn't see these speculations because I watched the series after the whole first season aired, and I went into it without knowing anything about it. But I do want to go ahead and note that William and the Man in Black are two different characters. The series is pretty clear that Old William is nothing like Young William. They are portrayed as two different characters because they are; the park changes (or molds, if you prefer) William into a dark, cold and sadistic person, who becomes known as the Man in Black. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
To further get at what I mean by describing William and the Man in Black as two different characters, which is how they are treated in the series even when the Man in Black is describing to Dolores how he became what he is; see this Vanity Fair source, which states, "In one loop—set about 30 years in the past—she’s accompanied by Jimmi Simpson’s character: William. And in another loop, her adventure through the park is bookended by two traumatic encounters with Ed Harris’s character: the Man in Black. The twist within that twist? William’s experience in the park hunting for Dolores only to find she had been wiped of all memory of him twisted and damaged him to such an extent that he transformed from a gentle white-hat-wearing hero into the emotionally closed off Man in Black." It's similar to the "Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader" matter. Before those two Wikipedia articles were merged, there was substantial debate on Wikipedia about the two being two different characters. This archived discussion shows one debate. There are sources that describe them as two different characters. We know that, within the stories, William and the Man in Black, and Anakin and Darth Vader, are the same person, but, from a writing standpoint, they are different characters. The cases are also billed as such, in part because of the different actors. Many editors also don't see the "Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader" aspect to be a spoiler because it's such a well-known popular culture fact. Meanwhile, the Clark Kent and Superman articles are still separate, and this is yet another case where two identities are considered to be two different characters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alsee, Radiphus, and Flyer22 Reborn: Thank you all for this information; it's definitely helpful to me in better understanding the context of these discussions. (In fact, Alsee, if we could find reliable sources for your breakdown, we could think about adding it to the article under an "Overview", "Premise", or "Synopsis" section... food for thought.) With this new understanding, I can definitely see how it might be considered a spoiler just to include Arnold in the cast list, but indeed, our encyclopedic desire for a complete cast list overrides our desire not to spoil our readers (spirit of WP:SPOILER). I had gone ahead and already started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:Westworld (TV series)#Arnold in the cast list. Mz7 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that if it's a new viewer simply looking for basic information about the cast, it's likely that he or she won't care much when seeing "Wright also plays Arnold Weber, the co-founder and developer of Westworld alongside Ford." They might not even remember reading it. If it's a new viewer further into the series, they will very likely catch on to the mention and deduce that Arnold is an android. It's certainly a surprise for viewers that Bernard is Arnold (a version of him). But either way, this isn't the same thing as stating "Bernard is an android," which a number of RfC participants were against including. As for an "Overview," "Premise," or "Synopsis" section, I would not choose the "Premise" or "Synopsis" headings since "Premise" and "Synopsis" sections are brief descriptions of the plot. What we need is a Plot section. The masterful way that the series fooled viewers belongs in a different section, such as "Writing" or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jon Schmidt concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jon Schmidt, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

@Slightlymad: Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Happy birthday! :D TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

–Miles Edgeworth Talk 00:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Miles Edgeworth: Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!

Just wanted to say happy birthday to you! I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. :) Hummerrocket (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Thanks so much! Mz7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Biography Per Villand

Dear Mz7 I have got a message in my email address about the page about Per Villand, signed by Rfdpro who cannot be found on wikipedia. There is a message on the wikipedia page that I do understand, and agree with. I am rather new on wikipedia, and learn. Please offer me some time to find independent sources, For the week to come I will search for them. Until now I have not found anything, otherwise I would have added these sources. DutchColours--DutchColours (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi DutchColours. The Wikipedia user Rfdpro (talk · contribs) nominated your article Per Villand for "speedy deletion" on the basis that the article did not credibly indicate the importance of the subject. I declined this request for speedy deletion on the basis that the article did credibly indicate the importance of the subject – so at the moment your article is not at risk of imminent deletion. Definitely take the time now, however, to find independent reliable sources about Per Villand to add to the article. Subjects are generally presumed to be notable for Wikipedia if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, if other people have written extensively about a subject, we can presume that that subject is worth writing about in Wikipedia as well. If you find that you need help, feel free to ask me, or you could also ask at the Teahouse, which is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new contributors can receive help from more experienced ones. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Mz7, I apologize if my nomination was hasty- I was unaware of any significance and felt that with the lack of strong sources attached to the new page it should be deemed superfluous beyond any presumption. Have a good day, Rfdpro (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy birthday

Many many happy returns of the great day.🎂 Pl98Send me message 15:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pl98: Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Tennis

I don't feel my "unsourced" tennis rankings (which AREN'T unsourced; I've added the source MANY times with other users undoing any changes I've added anyway) should be removed.

"http://live-tennis.eu/en/atp-live-ranking"

These are the supposedly "unsourced" rankings -- which can show IN DETAIL who is going to move up or down the ladder the next time said ranks are updated and I don't need uneducated fools like "J.M" correcting my wrongs when there simply aren't any.

I will BATTLE any ban that is placed upon me in the future and I will do so with legality. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.204.0 (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue actually isn't just the content you're adding, but primarily your overall conduct while participating in Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project, meaning you are expected to work with others while you are improving the encyclopedia. In such an environment disagreements are inevitable, so you are expected to listen to your peers and seek to build consensus. Consensus need not be unanimous, and in this case, multiple editors asked you to stop adding content based around live-tennis.eu, yet you continued to do so in spite of them. I initially described your edits as "unsourced" because you were not providing citations to your sources, which is very important in Wikipedia as it upholds verifiability, one of our core content policies.
Editing against consensus or refusal to listen to others is considered a form of disruptive editing, so I recommend that you stop inserting your content and try to collaborate with others. Convince the community that live-tennis.eu is an official, reliable source of information for this information that is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If the editorial community is unconvinced, then you will have to respect that; continuing to insert your preferred version of an article against consensus is disruptive, so it can and will lead to a block from editing not to punish you, but to prevent disruption. I'm not sure what you mean by "legality", but please be aware that threats of legal action are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, and the policy is to block editors who make them while the threats are outstanding. Mz7 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
"Convince the community that live-tennis.eu is an official, reliable source of information"
Do not. It is a waste of time. live-tennis.eu itself does not claim to be an official, reliable source. Because it isn't. It is just an anonymous site that has no official status whatsoever, nothing to do with the ATP (and is not usable as a source for Wikipedia at all, just like all anonymous sites). The live calculations presented there are just interesting stats for tennis fans and just that: calculations. Not rankings. Calculations. Rankings and calculations are two different things. live-tennis.eu lists the official ATP rankings, too, but these are not the live calculations. There is nothing to prove here, really, the facts are unambiguous and easily verifiable (ATP Rankings are released and updated by the ATP, not by live-tennis.eu), and all rules accepted on Wikipedia (including the Wikipedia tennis guidelines) are very clear about this.—J. M. (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for teaching me through the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy!!! Hummerrocket (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hummerrocket: It was my pleasure! Thank you for the barnstar. Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Mz7, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Pokemon

There are 3 reports of twitter vandalism link-jacking on the Pokémon talkpage, but I (and it looks like Farix) have been unable to work out whats happening. You protected the media franchise template, can you confirm if its related to that? I cant replicate what the reports are reporting at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Yes! That template is precisely what the issue was. A vandal edited it so that clicking anywhere in the article body will take you to a Twitter page that asks you to tweet something. Purging the cache should clear up the issue, and I’m a little surprised because I thought I specifically did purge the cache for the Pokémon article well before those reports were made to the talk page. I’m not sure why some readers are still being affected. Mz7 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As I recall mobile view and mobile app caches purge separately - so just purging it standard doesn't always cover it - as per WP:PURGE, it works off the URL (and the URL is different for mobile etc). I will drop a reply at pokemon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Although that reminds me, is there a reason we cant extended-confirm protect templates that affect a lot of articles? As semi-prot was insufficient here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: Actually, before this incident the template was completely unprotected. It was only after I had blocked the editor responsible (who wasn’t yet autoconfirmed) when I placed the semi-protection per WP:HRT. That’s an interesting point regarding the mobile links, and I’ll try to look into it from that angle. Mz7 (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Well at least there's another example for the argument all the widely used infoboxes should be protected as standard... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Template

Hello Mz7. I'm having some issue about creating template in other wiki so I'm hoping that you have a suggestions. I'm trying to create template by coping from enwiki and paste it other wiki then doing lang changes. However a problem occurs and it fails. Isn't this how it's done? If not how can I fix it? --Mehdi4444 (talk) 3:23 PM, 26 october 2017 (UTC) --Mehdi4444‎ (talk • contribs) 12:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mehdi4444: It depends on the template. Some templates depend on other templates, for example by calling another template within its own code. In other words, you may have to either import several templates into your project or substitute those other templates into the code of the template you are importing. If you could specify which template exactly you want to copy to another wiki, that would help me identify what the problem might be. Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It's Template:Infobox media franchise I just copied from enwiki and pasted to azwiki then did language changes. However it didn't work in azwiki. --Mehdi4444‎ (talk • contribs) 7:15 PM, October 27, 2017 (UTC)
@Mehdi4444: Sorry for my late response. I took a look at Template:Infobox media franchise, and it looks like the template is actually just a wrapper for Template:Infobox on the English Wikipedia, meaning the template itself is just a modified version of Template:Infobox. On the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, Template:Infobox's counterpart appears to be Şablon:Infobox. Make sure that the parameters you are copying over from Template:Infobox media franchise fit with the parameters at Şablon:Infobox. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
All right. I will give a shot. Thank you very much for your help and happy belated Halloween --Mehdi4444‎ (talk • contribs) 9:15 AM, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Mz7:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

PS: belated happy b'day. Was it 15th or 16th? —usernamekiran(talk) 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Usernamekiran! It was on the 14th. Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure. :) You unofficially were/are my mentor. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Mz7:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you, TheSandDoctor, and likewise! Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Mz7:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – LinguistunEinsuno 19:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
@Linguist111: Thanks, and likewise! Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your fine close at the UPolicy RFC.Regards:) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Winged Blades of Godric. Mz7 (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange

Hi, need some help please. Oshwah was on this one but seems to have gone missing the last couple of days. See, User talk:Oshwah#Talk:CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange and User talk:Oshwah#A charm.... I reported a second sock in the first thread and a third one in the second. Now there is a further sock here. Think some action needed, but the disruptive editor seems to keep creating further accounts. Page itself is currently protected. Thanks. Best regards, Eagleash (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eagleash. I've blocked the PHILIP12345678 account, and I've also gone ahead and protected the talk page of the article in addition to the article itself. Mz7 (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've only just realised the other ('intervening') socks had actually already been blocked. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

CVU

Hi Mz7, I am interested in joining the Counter Vandalism Academy as I would love to help out with Reviewing Pending changes and general vandalism in Wikipedia. Kindly accept my request and thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I'd be happy to help! I've created your course page for you at User:Mz7/CVUA/CASSIOPEIA. Please take a look at the information there, and I've also included the first assignment, which has you answering questions about differentiating between good faith edits and vandalism. Let me know if you have any questions! Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: Thank you Mz7. Appreciate you would take the time to mentor me.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Lil Peep

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidushyant (talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've replied. Mz7 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Your Suggestion

Hello Mz7, I hope you are doing well. Since graduating from the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy, I have done extensive work in fighting vandalism using Huggle and Page Curation. In fact, I am considering becoming an instructor for the Academy. I was just wondering your advice on whether I could proceed with this or wait a bit, especially with the recent demand of students.

Thank you for your input. Hummerrocket (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Hummerrocket. I don't have any loud objections to you becoming a CVUA instructor, though it will not hurt to wait a bit. If you're confident you're up for the role, go for it. If you would like, I can help out with your first few students and share advice, e.g. to catch things you might have missed (if any at all). Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: Thank you so much for your assistance! I would appreciate this if you have the time (occasionally). Hummerrocket (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

CVUA

Hey Mz7,

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Wikidushyant | talk 05:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 Thanks for revert! - Wikidushyant | talk 07:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply

I would explain, except my feelings were hurt from bossiness and rudeness and they still hurt. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt by this user. If you would like to hear my advice: I wouldn't take their words personally. All of us get upset sometimes when our edits are reverted, and that's probably why the user was upset here at you for reverting. Try to see it from their point of view; if you disagree with the edits their making, calmly explain why on their user talk page. Oftentimes that is enough to diffuse the situation, whereas leaving personal attack warnings only make the problem worse. Mz7 (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
As long is that user learns the same. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@FilmandTVFan28: I've left them a note. Mz7 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/Discussion

It's a bit of a mess, but I guess you're working on it still. And Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/The Rambling Man doesn't have the talk page header the others do. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller. Regarding The Rambling Man, it looks like Alex Shih beat me to it, so the talk page header is visible now. As for the messiness, I'm not sure how that can be helped; as far as I can tell, this is the same way the page was structured last year, the year before, etc. It is still early in the election season, so many of the discussion pages are still empty. Mz7 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I guess that's the best that can be done. I can't figure out a better way, sorry to bother you about that. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for letting me know. Mz7 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Redaction of user creation logs

Please note that in the case of user creation logs, you generally need to redact the "editor's username/IP address", and not the "action and target". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: Ah, I see now. Thanks for correcting that. This was my first time applying such a case, and I appreciate you letting me know that I had made a mistake. Mz7 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. My purpose here is to help keep Wikipedia clean of this junk - and making sure you know how to do it correctly is part of the job. Yes, I can fix these mistakes when I see them, but if you do it correctly the first time, we're better off. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

I want to say thanks for giving me another solution to a problem. My feelings have been hurt by that user since last year and I thought for sure it would learn from its mistakes in manners, but I don't see it happening and my faith in that person is long gone. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, boy

The user I had a problem with at Fievel's American Tails removed my message explaining my reason why I reverted its edits and it wasn't even a false warning. I won't let it get to me, but it still hurts that it jumped to conclusions again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: Yeah, I saw that. My advice, as before, is to not take it personally. Of course you don't have to be an administrator to give advice or collaborate with others. Note that the IP address has now been hardblocked per {{webhostblock}}. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of rights

Hi there. I requested New Page Reviewer rights back in June and was granted them by you. I had intended to use it to improve Wikipedia and help the backlog, but after actually trying the right I found out that I wasn't really interested in doing it, and I have no intention of trying it again. Therefore, I am requesting that you remove my userright, as I have no plans of using it again. Thanks. SkyWarrior 02:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@SkyWarrior:  Done. Thank you for your contributions while you were in that role. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Musumet

Please revise my page on Musumet instead of deleting it. Musumet is one of the few late night anime released in the 2000s not to have its own Wiki page. It was an extremely unpopular series and its wiki page is only available in few languages so instead of outright deleting it, just revise my page in case you're telling someone who watched it to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisaoFan (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi there, MisaoFan. Unfortunately, I'm not the person you need to talk to in order to avoid the article getting deleted, but I can help you, if you would like. The main concern right now is whether Musumet has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the show itself. If you can, try researching some critic reviews of the show, or perhaps articles written about the show in Japanese media. If you find any, list those sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musumet, which is where the deletion discussion is taking place. Feel free to leave any other comments at that deletion discussion that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who will determine the result of the discussion. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7/September–November_2017&oldid=1143186298"