User talk:Muchness/2010

AfD nomination of Computer role-playing game

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Computer role-playing game. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer role-playing game. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick thanks....

..for catching my error in Ronaldinho. Cheers. --Mosmof (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob. --Muchness (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. --Muchness (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Kig (Slur)

I really think Kig (Slur) is an attack page on somebody named Kig. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly so. At any rate it's deleted now so problem solved. --Muchness (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Marnier Companie

Hello, Muchness. You have new messages at Talk:Jacques Marnier Companie.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for the notice; I've gone ahead and listed it at AFD. --Muchness (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: The Saboteur

Ah, I was unaware that this feature of Wikipedia existed, I thought there was no other way to move a page once the redirect had been created at the other title. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Master Deusoma (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Muchness (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Elemental's reception section

Thanks for the help with Elemental. I figured it would be best to hold off on writing that part myself, for various reasons. GreenReaper (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, hope you guys can get the problems ironed out. Looks like a very cool game. --Muchness (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Episode anchors

FYI, anchors are build in the {{Episode list}} template, not the title but the episode number. As section #ep[#], "Hammer of the Gods" would be Supernatural (season 5)#ep101. Since these are section links you have to pipe them anyway so adding anchors to the episode title has no real benefit. It's also a cleaner link as the self made anchor links to the episode title, while the build in one links to the row, Hammer of the Gods (Supernatural episode) (also, the extra "episode" dab is unnecessary unless there is another Supernatural article about "Hammer of the Gods") links to the title which is slightly to low, and the user has to scroll a bit back up to be able to read the story writer. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, I was unaware of the anchor feature. As far as the naming issue goes, I was following the (apparently erroneous) naming pattern of various episode titles I've seen in article space. I'm not a regular contributor to TV articles and I appreciate your help and expertise on this. --Muchness (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction

Westley Turner here...on a different computer, so I'm not logged in. Sorry about the mess-up on the Chernobyl page. I only intended to change the time, but I wanted to go back in the history to find who/when it was done. Apparently, I actually changed that historical page. Can you clarify for me what I possibly did and let me know how to avoid it again?? I'll be more careful in the future.

Please respond at the bottom of my talk page (I'm still reading up on many of the links offered to me!) as I can't guarantee that I'll be back on this computer any time soon.

Thanks. 68.28.42.230 (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what you actually did was revert the article to revision 06:27, 5 September 2010, which is the revision immediately preceding the edit that introduced the incorrect time. What you perhaps should have done is just edit the current version of the article to correct the time. --Muchness (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I got the tabs mixed up. I had one tab focused on the current article and one on the history. I was viewing them back and forth, but I certainly would have remembered hitting a REVERT button. [shakes his head] At least you noticed and were able to unrevert me back to normal.  :-)

BTW how do you become a reviewer? I noticed that you recently received the honour, and with all these PC experiments, it turns out that a few pages I'm keeping an eye on are flagged as such. Is that what makes it so you're 'automatically checked' or is that something different?

Thanks again for helping me out WesT (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To become a reviewer, read the guidelines at Wikipedia:REVIEWER#Becoming a reviewer and add your name to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer if you meet the criteria. --Muchness (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You give excellent advice. Good luck in your endeavours! WesT (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. --Muchness (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The God Beneath the Sea

I stumbled across this article, and saw how much work you put into it and saw the fail at a peer review that happened, when you put it up for review. If you are still interested in improving it, I would suggest going through the WP:GA nomination process, which, even if it doesn't pass, will at least give you feedback where to improve, Sadads (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not very active on Wikipedia at the moment but I will look into it if I get some free time for editing. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. --Muchness (talk)

You've been helpful before...

First off, I want to thank you for being helpful in the past, but because you have been so helpful, I'm assuming that you will continue doing so.  :-)

As I was stumbling around Wikipedia, I came across an article with a 'fact' that doesn't seem to be substantiated (and seems highly improbable). Back in Aug of '06, a change was made ([[1]]) by User:Mckaysalisbury which had references, but they all seem to be invalid now.

I wasn't certain the process to 'refute' the info, and the user Mckaysalisbury seems to be sincere (and reminds me that I need to spend a LOT more time on MY user page).

WesT (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that WikiProject Law is the best place to look for expert help in this area. The two currently active refs for the repeal reference the same article, Edward Stein's "Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution Regarding Marriage" (full text in PDF at [2]). The article states that the act was repealed in 1978, but I'm not an expert in this field and couldn't tell you whether the journals that published this article (Issues in Legal Scholarship and Washington University Law Quarterly) are reliable sources for this kind of info. I also found this Deseret News article from 1978 mentioning that Jimmy Carter signed a bill repealing the act [3]. But as I say, I think WikiProject Law would be a good place to look for expert help in this area. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I couldn't get TO that article, at least not here at work. Yes, it really does say that that law was repealed in 1978, so the federal law unincorporating that church was actuall still on the books until then. I guess that means that for all the time in between, there really wasn't (legally) a Mormon church. Wow!

If I have any more questions in that vein, I'll direct them to the law folks.

Thanks again for being so helpful, WesT (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mount Shasta mess

Hello, At the moment, the main article about the California mountain is inaccessible. It redirects to a list of five topics, and clicking on the first results in a redirect back to the same darned list. I know you didn't start this but would appreciate your help cleaning it up. Other mountain articles have suffered similar ill-advised moves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the article's been fixed up now. Thanks for helping to resolve this. --Muchness (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Renames. Thanks! Did you get them all?

Wow! I watch a couple hundred mountains and a little while ago when I checked it, my watchlist blew up with all these page renames. Then I checked the responsible users contributions and realized this was just the tip of the iceberg! I didn't know what to do at first but by that time you were well on your way to fixing it. You must be tired! You deserve a very well earned break. Just thought I stop in to say "thank you" and hope you got them all switched back.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I think I got them all but I'll check the editor's logs later to make sure. I left a note on the editor's talk page so hopefully he'll propose future moves on talk pages rather than moving articles en masse. --Muchness (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. You did excellent work here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Muchness/2010! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Page moves. Somebody did it again and we need help!

Please visit Shishabangma if you have some time. The page went through a bunch of renames and we now have it all screwed up. Also the contributions of user:虞海 need a good once over as the user has made a bunch of page moves over the last 24 hours. There are language barrier issues too, just to give you a heads up. You came though brilliantly in the past with a series of renames so I am hoping you can help us out again. Thanks in advance.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Reckoning of Hell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reckoning of Hell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reckoning of Hell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Neelix (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reckoning of Hell

Hi. Do you remember writing the original version of Reckoning of Hell in 2005? I was investigating some of the text in Zariel and found that its History section came from the Reckoning of Hell article. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I wrote the initial version of the article. --Muchness (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I had found a copy on another site, so I tagged the talk page with {{Backwardscopy}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

rockism

hello, about the article rockism is easy to see that the article is not impartial. has a tendency popist. Referring to Rockismo Perceived biases? ... This is a critical popist. It is very impartial.

Everyone knows that most rock musicians are men, caucasians and heterosexuals. So it is obvious that most artist considered more authentic, are men, caucasians and heterosexuals. But Rockism supports musicians. afro- descendants as Jimi Hedrix or bisexual as Freddie Mercury.

And the criticism against Rockism are known as Popism, that already in the current sources of the article. (source number five)

Sorry for the grammatical errors, I used google translete.

I reverted edition, so if you can, please fix the possible grammatical errors. Wisehelp (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say that criticisms of rockism are known as popism; popism is a contrasting ideology, not an umbrella term for all rockist criticism. And your argument starting "Every one knows..." is an opinion that needs a citation from a reliable source. --Muchness (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok,I include a source with lists of rock musicians by subgenre. (on topic: Criticism)

Now it is possible to verify that most rock musicians are men, caucasians, heterosexuals and rock musicians afro-descendents or gays, are consistent with the fundamentals of Rockismo. Wisehelp (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can't be used as references within other Wikipedia articles (see WP:CIRCULAR). A reference is needed for the statement "these popist criticisms make no sense, when it is considered": this is an opinion and needs to be referenced to a reliable source. --Muchness (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Muchness. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a fun WikiProject, but I don't really have the time or expertise to participate. Good luck with it :) --Muchness (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chaos Overlords, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Human Factors Lab

I have gone ahead and posting my views on why Human Factors Lab should not be deleted and examples of how they do meet the notability guidelines on the human factors lab page. Could you please remove your attempt to delete that page? Thank you do much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that you've addressed the nomination's notability concerns but let's let the discussion play out. --Muchness (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dungeons & Dragons: Dragonshard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rubber science

The article Rubber science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to be a fairly non-notable term. There are only two references to its existence, the first being an essay which is near-impossible to track down, and the other is an arbitrary article in the Los Angeles Times. No real evidence of this term being used beyond that.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Richard BB 07:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Odd, I have zero recollection of starting this article. I'll have a look around and see if I can find some references to establish notability. --Muchness (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Rubber science for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rubber science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubber science until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Richard BB 07:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Strut (Sheena Easton song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop song (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carbon nanotube quantum dot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nanotube (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)