User talk:MuZemike/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MuZemike. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Sockpuppet case

You didn't need to start that case. New accounts who vote to keep without providing valid reasoning are ignored by the closing admin. Especially if the case is overly clear. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is still trying to game the system nonetheless. It is also unacceptable to create (at least, that is my suspicion) multiple accounts for such purpose. It doesn't make a difference if it's on a talk page discussion or an AfD discussion — it's still socking and consequently a blockable offense. MuZemike (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Tags

You would think after being on Wikipedia for 2 years + I'd known that. Sorry I forgot to add the subst to that tag, I'll remember for next time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. MuZemike (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PokeBattlers

Wait, do you support this article? Or what?

I just have to ask...DX-MON says you're an admin, I need some help here. This entire debate has started to take my enjoyment out of being an editor away. I'M looked at as the one breaking the rules here, when I'm just trying to do my job as a New Page Patroller.

--Mooshykris (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not one; I don't exactly know where he got the idea (maybe the giving advice thingy, which any Wikipedia editor can do). Remember I am still siding for deletion, but as I had explained on his talk page, it may be good for inclusion later on when coverage of the game through reliable sources start popping up. That is why I recommended userfication so he can keep working on the article in his own namespace until the time comes when the article meets the guidelines for inclusion. I think the user doesn't readily understand the guidelines and policies; we shouldn't be biting them as a result, which I think you might be doing. I hope that clears things up a little. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the idea of you being an Admin from your general attitude, and highly customised userpage, and large quantities of maturity. I do have to say that I feel extremely bitten, and ok, perhaps I mis-interpreted one or two things, but in the end my plea for you to just wait was as because of real-world curcomstances - perhaps there might need to be improvements made to the rules whereby people can ask for a deletion to be paused for a while so that the content can be moved, perhaps with a limit of 24 hours? btw, as so you do know for articles such as my libImage one, I have been programming for 10 years now (since I was 6), but because of my very technical mindedness, I need a non-techy to look into the article, which is why I started a talk topic for it on my talk page, I would appreciate somebody looking into that. DX-MON (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Thank you for the help you have given with the PokeBattlers issue. But I unfortunatly think it won't do much, as everything I've worked for seems lost now that I've been portrayed as the n00b in this situation :(

--Mooshykris (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Well, as for the "bitey" way, any behavior like that comes from being frustrated at going on this case for hours now. --Mooshykris (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Sometimes it takes another editor telling someone that he/she is biting a newbie. I know I have been guilty of the same exact thing. MuZemike (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, until recently I was totally unaware of them being new. I was just doing my job as a new page patroller. --Mooshykris (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, so am I. I know how hard it can be to AGF and not bite them, especially when they can be so delicious sometimes. Again, don't worry about it. MuZemike (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks,

On a lighter note, just curious, how do you make your user page look like that? --Mooshykris (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of tables and padding as well as taking advantages of Firefox's capabilities. You can look at the code on my main userpage if you like. MuZemike (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I use a modified version based on the base design of yours for my userpage? I've been looking for a template to make mine on for a while, and I really like yours. I'll even credit you if you'd like. --Mooshykris (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. It's more an implementation of wikitables and html code, in which the templates/userboxes/etc are thrown inside the cells. You got to play around with it a little bit to get what you like. MuZemike (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For consistently being logical, patient, and thorough in every discussion, especially in AFDs. You're never on some simplistic crusade. Your arguments are always reality-based, and highly rational. Most of all, you have the patience to engage people you disagree with in a thoughtful discussion. I was especially impressed with this. You earned this by being so damned reasonable. Randomran (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of why I awarded it. In all the haste to show the article didn't meet our guidelines, nobody really considered that the newbie had no clue what we were talking about. You took a step back and explained it. Thoroughly. And tried to "thread the needle", and find a position that would still help the newbie out. Very reasonable. You deserve this. Randomran (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (October 2008)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.

Thanks for your oppose. I will try to work on the issues that you have raised.
• If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy •
·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I surely hope you can prove me wrong and use the tools in the proper fashion. Congratulations, MuZemike (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerem Mete Ozmen

Re your comment on the AfD for this, I'm assuming you're referring to the author's amendment to Fenerbahçe S.K. to try and indicate the player is notable ? Or have I misunderstood that remark ? :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, forget that - I see what you mean now ! CultureDrone (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development history of the Final Fantasy series

Hi, you gave your input in the deletion discussion of this article; however, the problem remains on what exactly should be done with this article and the relevant featured articles. There is currently a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Eight featured articles to be demoted. Please stop by and participate. Thanks. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your nightclub is getting deleted.

Thanks. I have voted. :)--SkyWalker (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linoesilva

Thanks very much for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.242.178 (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again... I feel many people on wikipedia are so hostile. Thanks for being constructive! It does help.

--138.251.242.178 (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)-[reply]

No problem. Biting the newcomers does occur from time to time by more experienced editors. It shouldn't be done if possible, as new users have the potential to become good Wikipedians. MuZemike (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeyou

Thanks for the suggestions with Seeyou. I'm going to push Seeyou to tell us what language he/she is fluent in, so we can get around the language problems. If that fails, then I'll request a ban from ArbCom. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be the best way to go, especially if no progress was made with two RFCs and four trips to mediation. I understand it sucks to have to take it to the "big wigs," but I don't think there's too much other choice, and I would rather see an arbitrator, compared to any old admin, deal with something like this. MuZemike (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Are you an admin?--JMST (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. MuZemike (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I know you marked the Shocker Toys article for speedy keep. But it has been 5 days now and without COI votes it adds up to 3 keep and I wanted to get the AFD removed and start working on it again. If you know of any admins who could remove the AFD that would be super if not sorry for bothering you.--JMST (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only !voted to speedy keep; that is, given my rationale as to why the article should be kept and closed ASAP. The AFD started on Nov 8, so my guess is that sometime tomorrow an admin will drive by and make the call; I seriously doubt the AFD will be extended as this seems more like a semantic dispute than anything else. MuZemike (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy... meep meep

I take it I'm not supposed to put something nominated for AfD up for speedy deletion? I've seen several AfD's closed speedily, so I didn't realize this was a no-no. Please advise. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no; you can. However, I would only do it if there is a consensus (or bloody obvious, such as with patent nonsense or word-for-word copyvios) to speedy the article. Otherwise, there is nothing in the deletion policy that says you cannot. And sometimes that is not a bad idea to do so; have an admin who trawls around the speedy list deal with it and move on with other AFDs that need attention. Hope that helps, MuZemike (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty nose syndrome

You might want to consider refactoring your comment over there. I also fairly regularly find myself debating DGG in deletion debates, but not to the level of disruptive editing. Please just take this as a friendly reminder to assume good faith, or at least give the appearance of doing so. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is trying to stymie deletion arguments by intentionally !voting the opposite the majority every time, in which he is not contributing to consensus building per the WP:DE guideline. I don't understand what his agenda is, but I consider it disruptive editing in doing that. MuZemike (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing turning list of DS games w/ rumble into category.

I'm making this proposal here. Feel free to discuss. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I won't be able to chime in right away as I am very busy, but I will get to it. MuZemike (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAC

Hi, I do in general stick with what is said at WP:NAC, but after all, it is an essay. Also, where does WP:SK say that a nomination has to be "vexatious or in bad faith" to qualify? Yes, that is one of the criteria available, but it is not a requirement as such. Whilst the guideline does indeed not list the snowball clause as a reason to speedy keep, it does list it in 'See also', demonstrating its similarity. My reason for closing it was that it was uncontroversial (aside from nom), and that notability is not temporary. — neuro^(talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd criterion is where it mentions bad faith nominations. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's my point. — neuro^(talk) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the nom's reason for deletion was so erroneous that a speedy keep was necessary? MuZemike (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point is that it is a criterion, not the criteria. — neuro^(talk) 03:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FightBack

Hello,

I have added several sources to the Fightback article, which I believe are sufficient to establish its notability and verifiability. I would request that you review the article and reconsider your support for its deletion.

Thank you,

Sickle and Hammer (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomers

Thanks for taking a second look. I know it's easy to get adrenaline going on all sides at AFD; have to step back a moment and revise to be meticulously kind. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman121212

Thank you for your concern over this editors comments in Russian on my talk page. I have looked at the comments and see that it is tagged as resolved. I am surprised as Roman121212 states he has apologised, he has not, indeed he has left another message in Russian since. I find it very unsatisfactory the way that this has been handled, one contributor to the debate even seemed to find it funny. I am also fairly sure that Roman121212 is a sock of the creator of the original article Andy Matthews. Paste ^Talk 23:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Besides, I didn't even know the KGB was out business. That tells you how far behind the times I am :-) MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello,

I am a player of the online game Travian and have done lots of editing to it in the past. I was wondering if you could possibly make a checklist (or whatever it is) that would get it on it's way to becoming a better article and maybe even one of Wikipedias best articles.

Thank you

(Please answer on my page if you can, Stealth (talk)

Alright thank you, and feel free to take your time, I am sure there are many problems, and I am ganna go fix some soon. Again thanks anyway!

Stealth (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard MacDonnell (scholar)

I note that you recently closed this AfD as a snowball keep. You may well be about to do this, but it would be helpful if you could also do the associated housekeeping (ie, remove the AfD notice from the article & place the appropriate template on its talk page); there's some step-by-step instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_deletion_page. It's all too easy for the AfD template to get forgotten and hang around for ages! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for letting me know; I plumb forgot. MuZemike (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Golden_Axe_characters

Just as a heads up, the nominator had actually previously merged that information (see [1] and [2]} to the section where he says it already exists (that's why it exists there) and thus per the GFDL, my understanding is that the contributions of the various editors who originally wrote that content must remain visible, so when he says it is already covered in that section in the nomination and himself merged the content a few weeks ago to the area where he is okay with it existing, the nomination strikes me as odd, because if he believes that section should exist, then we cannot delete the article, rather only redirect the article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a closer look at it when I can. MuZemike (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pe De Chinelo's RfC

looks to me the latest links you put up were after the RfC was started. I don't know if you are meant to highlight this fact in the main article, so I have put it on the discussion page, if you are able to put it on the main page then please do. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the user is still engaging in said questionable conduct even after the RFC has been initiated, then diffs can still be added to provide further justification of the dispute or failure thereof to resolve. MuZemike (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool, its the last edit on the Shakira article you just put up, looking at the times (I could be wrong as my default time is GMT) it was modified by him after you put the RfC up. thanks mate chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC got four signatures within 48 hours, so it has been moved to the active list. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain's Josef Fritzl

I don't see anything about banned user nominations in WP:NAC. Surely the comments themselves are now valid; we now have to start the process all over again for a page consensus says should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this was going to happen. Banned editors are not supposed to edit. Period. All and any of their edits are supposed to be reverted on the spot; that comes from the banning policy. The speedy keep guideline calls for AFDs nominated by banned editors to be closed as such; something which I see as consistent with the ban policy. I was thinking about ignoring the rules for a bit there, but letting a banned editor make such edits (i.e. AFDing articles) sets a bad example for other banned users. Their edits might happen to be constructive, but, are still not wanted by the community. I can ask over at WP:ANI and see what they think, and maybe I'm incorrect on my interpretation of the banning policy as well as closing as a speedy keep in this situation, but it's still clear that banned users are not supposed to edit on Wikipedia under any circumstance. MuZemike (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at this ANI thread to see if my close was proper; that is, I am open to reverting it if consensus determines that I was in the wrong of doing so. MuZemike (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards received by Total Annihilation

Just pointing out that you merged to the wrong article here[3] which should have been merged to the Total Annihilation article, not the TA:Kingdoms article. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 02:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me! These articles need to be disambiguated more! (just kidding, I happen to be having some trout this evening, anyway :-) MuZemike (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't read my response on my page, here it is for you. The garbage was the list of locations, not the awards. I erased the list of locations, which in fact was garbage, it doubling the size of the article with things you never needed to know in the game or anyone would care about. No problems with the awards being there since that is relevant to the game. But its for TA, not TA: K. Oh well. Dream Focus (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The fact remained that it had to be merged as a result of the recently-closed AFD. I would otherwise very much agree with you that it's unnecessary and excess information. But hey, that's what happens sometimes when users want such information merged just for the sake of inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 29 in rail transport.

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so. Tavix (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (November 2008)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 20:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for IP checkuser

Clerk note: I have moved your request to active status and it will be handled by a checkuser in a short time. Please note that the request for an IP check is prepared a bit differently. It is entered as a subpage of the IP check page and not as a stand alone page that is transcluded. If you wish to make additional updates to the report or you wish to monitor its progress, please go here and not to the page created when you filed the report. Changes made elsewhere may not be seen by the checkuser.

This is kind of an oddity of the process. We're sorry for any confusion. JodyB_talk 11:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TTN

I saw your comments on DGG's talk page and figured you'd be interested in this:

Since you have had repeated experience with this user's AFDs like, I thought I'd contact you. This user's AFD behavior is appaling especially how he refuses to bundle nominations in the same universe for which he uses identical reasonings. He also continually fails to consider the option to merge or redirect without intervention of deletion and makes no evident efforts to look for sources himself (there's a difference between unverified and unverifiable), instead preferring to force the issue by nominating for AFD (which causes a 5-day deadline for improvement) and which is specifically considered to be improper.

The articles in question might well require care, merging or even deletion, but the way he goes about it is unneccesarily terse and bitey.

I think it's time to launch an RFC. Would you consider helping gather evidence and supporting it? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I you so wish to, then do so. However, I will not try to gather evidence, nor will I favorably support it. I have already made it clear on the previous trip to ArbCom my position (i.e. the previous request for extension). MuZemike (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just want to make sure two people are actually willing to certify a case before I spend time making one. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]