User talk:Mufka/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

#78

This is not vandalism. (just a tribute to Noomi Rapace) 92.116.222.110 (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

#79

This IS vandalism. (just a tribute to Noomi Rapace, born '79) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.135.26 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You protected a page from being create

This is a legitimate page for an artist named diabolic. It was repeatedly deleted and then you blocked it for being repeatedly recreated. Please understand that it was being recreated for legitimate reasons. Please reconsider as I am probably the only person who will ask you nicely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambalambam (talk • contribs) 03:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Legitimate reasons or not, it didn't meet notability requirements. The best thing for you to do is to create the page in your user space. There you can get it to the point where it meets notability requirements and then ask to have it reviewed and moved to the main space. Create the page at User:Bambalambam/Diabolic (rapper). It won't be allowed to stay there forever, so use the {{helpme}} template on your own talk page to ask for input on whether it meets notability requirements. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

suggestions

Hello ! Mufka Happy Valentine's Day I'd loved your help with things i edit ...of course , developing articles R. Parthasarathy , Vihang Naik while removing tags ...I am sure you'll help me out with Indian English poets bio that I indulge in ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuwanda360 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on March 14

What are your thoughts on semi-protecting March 14 for a month because of this Steak and BJ nonsense? Recent diffs are included. I'm not asking you to do it...I know where RPP is. I just want your thoughts. Normally I'm not a fan of semi-protecting these pages, but this has been coming around a lot recently. Diffs 1 through 4 were from this year but not in the last few weeks, diffs 5 through 10 have been in the last two of days or so. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Winston365 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being semi-protected. It's probably a good idea. This happens every year. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Favonian already took care of it. Not sure a week is gonna be long enough, but it should work for now. Hopefully there won't be too may more walls of text on the talk page, but we'll see. Thanks. Winston365 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Lane

Hello, I just want to let you know that I removed the prod from Andrew Lane. I added a ref verifying that he is the principal pops and resident conductor of the Orlando Philharmonic. If you don't believe this is enough to satisfy our notability requirements feel free to send the article to AfD. J04n(talk page) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Why is it that when i edit a page perfectly reasonably, some moderaotr always changes it even if its right? Barnyg (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources to support your claims. You won't have any problem if you do that. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry i should have given an example.

Kieran Murtagh

A footballer that recently signed on loan for Woking FC. The page was unchanged so i added a line mentioning his loan deal and later that day someone had changed it to something meaning the same thing but said in a different way. Weird? Barnyg (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mufka. You have new messages at Danielklotz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Turdpercy Gang

I was trying to create a subpage. Could you please make it a subpage for me? Agadabagada (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You can recreate it if you want, but please be sure to review WP:BAND first to be sure that the band meets notability requirements (it seems very unlikely if the band was formed in 2011). Otherwise, it will just be deleted again. Even if it's in your user space, it must show likelihood of being notable. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I used to hve another Wiki account and made as many subpages as I liked for my own personal use. Why not now? Agadabagada (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way you can leave an exact copy on my talk page? Agadabagada (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't just have a pile of subpages that have no encyclopedic value. See WP:NOTWEBHOST. I'll restore the page so that you can work on it, but please note that the assumption is that the page will be moved to the main space soon. You can't have permanent content in your user space that is not of encyclopedic value. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert Tickell

Hi Mufka, I created the page Robert Tickell but it seems to have been deleted by you. You sight A7, but he is a well known singer in California as the article stated. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can make the page more notable? Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyMoses (talk • contribs)

I'd recommend that you read WP:MUSICBIO and follow its recommendations for establishing notability. Try creating the article in your user space and then use the {{helpme}} tag on your talk page to solicit feedback as to whether it meets notability requirements. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dash

No problem, Mufka! Thanks. MusiCitizen (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Edible Book Day

Hi Mufka, remember back then when we are discussing about Edible Book Day, being 'either April 1 or different dates each year' contradiction? Well today, again the Edible Book Day is featured in the main page. So I think I am now positively sure that April 1 is indeed a widely celebrated day for Edible Book Day. What do you think? --Rochelimit (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the main page and OTD don't have any regard for WP:DOY. The article and web site still indicate that it occurs around April 1 and that it was celebrated on April 15 in 2010, April 2 in 2005, April 9 in 2011. Additionally, I'm not convinced that it is widely observed even though the web site indicates that it is celebrated in several countries. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange indeed. Do you know anything about who decided which observance should be featured in the front page? Just curious.--Rochelimit (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Without checking, I think it's from OTD. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that's kinda logical. Thanks. --Rochelimit (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the unexplained revert?

Hi. Why did you revert my edits - [11]? And why did you provide no explanation? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. The diff looked odd but didn't show both parts. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mufka. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 19:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Charles Harrelson and User:Sam Degelia

Hi, its been a while since this was an issue, but I wondered if you could keep an eye on the article on Charles Harrelson. User:Sam Degelia, who also appears to have been using his IP address to edit, has been trying to re-add edits that were removed last year under your guidance. I wasn't sure the best plan here, especially given the user's history of offenses, like sockpuppetry, edit waring, and generally ignoring what's probably a conflict of interest in their case, given the choice of username. Thanks!--Nkgal (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Matrix of all the current events pages

Check this out: User:Waldir/DateMatrix. Looks like entries have been created for as far back as 1998! (I wonder if something like this already exists?)

Also, what do you think about having pages like Portal:Current events/Turkey/2007 August 7 moved to Portal:Current events/2007 August 7/Turkey? That'd make it easier to sort them in subpage listings. (And Portal:Current_events/Turkey is not really a nav page, while Portal:Current events/2007 August 7... also isn't, but could (should?) easily become one.) --Waldir ^talk 03:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen a date matrix like that for P:CE. I don't know about moving the pages. There may be some reason that they're sorted by country now. I haven't followed those pages so I'm not a good source for comment. My brain is a bit of a walled garden when it comes to the date pages. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 05:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Annalisa Ericson

Hi, would you be so kind to check this article. I have bad English (I use google-translator) so that I cant make that page correctly. I wrote the correct date of death Annalisa according to this references [12] and here Annalisa Ericson at IMDb, but it was reverted. I believe that you will find out right information and help to do that correctly. Have nice evening. --Jirka62 (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC) thx --Jirka62 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Tickell

I deleted the page on Robert Tickell because it did not assert significance. Can you explain to me how he is notable? Thanks. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me. I deleted that one a couple of times too. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! The original author left a hangon reasoning on the talk page, which I deleted along with the article, and I accidentally posted this on your talk page instead of his. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 15:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

MF Crommie

I remade the deleted page for Michael F Crommie. Hopefully the information on the page now justifies its existence and that it won't be speedy deleted. It's not a whole lot of information (in fact, I just copy and pasted text from Wikipedia's article on Quantum mirage), but at least you can't say that there's nothing about the significance of the topic anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenzzz (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

article rejected

Hi!

I wrote an article about an existing band it keeps being rejected. I'm told it's because there's nothing explaining the relevance of it, or something like that.

What should I do so my article isn't deleted?

Thanks!

Charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.255.15 (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What was the article and under what user account did you create it? Have you read and understood WP:BAND? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning to stop mass PRODing of articles

Stop your mass BLP-PRODing of articles that I have created. Each of the articles that you have prodded contain links to verifiable sources as is required for biographical articles. I do not know what WP:POINT your are trying to make, but your edits are disruptive. If you continue to make such disruptive edits you will be reported to WP:ANI. Dolovis (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Dolovis (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I will honor your request to not post anything further to your talk page. I do find it odd that you have reverted my removal of all of the prod notices that I removed from your talk page and I'll ignore the refactoring you did by moving my comment. I recognized them as useless clutter immediately after they were put there and I left one with a follow-up personal message which I thought was more appropriate than a bunch of canned notices. Perhaps you are trying to make a point? You'll notice that I didn't tag every article you created but instead I stopped when it became clear that there wasn't just a few of them and a personal note was needed. And your claim that I was "only stopping your massive prodding after I sent you a warning" is a bit of an exaggeration on your part. I had clearly stopped at least 5 minutes before you left a message. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 03:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

But didn't attempt to revert them, as you ought to have done. Nor did you make the slightest attempt to source any of them, which you certainly ought to have done before prodding them. As it happens, since almost all of the 17 dePRODS I just did claimed that the players had played for their respective IIHF national teams, it took me all of about 15 seconds to surf over to the IIHF website, pull up the respective rosters and verify that they were members. That's lazy, sloppy prodding.  Ravenswing  08:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. While there can be no argument that the articles all qualified for BLPPROD (and still do) my execution was evidently a bad idea. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: September 11

Well 2 split opiniosn warrant a talk page discussion and consensus then, no?(Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)).

If that is what you would like to do, certainly. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

good point, forgot about it, but im a little under the weather ill get to it in a day o r 2 if you haent already.(Lihaas (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).

sock puppet (disambiguation)

i dont understand why my speddy deltion nomination for sock puppet (disambiguation) was dismised as invalid. there is no reason for it being there. it only links to two pages other than sock puppet and could easily be confined to a hatnote at the top of that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username1234567891011 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There are really three different links on that page: one to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, one to Sock puppet, and one to Sockpuppet (Internet). It has been deleted and restored in the past. A dab page is appropriate. Take to WP:MfD if you feel otherwise. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

really its 2 because sock puppet is the main page Username1234567891011 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Bengal Tennis Association Removal

Hi Mufka, the article Bengal Tennis Association which was previously written had copyrighted text, but the one written newly had changes in the language as compared to the original and was also made short. Anyway the council members with their designations cannot be changed.
With regards,
Iamgymman123 (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There was still content copy/pasted from the web site. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

InjuryFree

You deleted a page I started on Friday called "InjuryFree" saying that it wasn't clear why it was relevant, etc. I wasn't finished with the page, first of all, and second of all the purpose of the page is for someone to be able to search for it on Wikipedia and find out about the company. Not really sure why that isn't relevant?

JoOnion67 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to promote the company? The article appeared to be promotional in nature and did not sufficiently establish that the company meets WP:CORP. Whether you were finished or not, the very first thing that you must do when creating an article about a company is establish why it is notable. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to promote the company. I am trying to create a page that informs readers about the company's existence and the specifics about the company. It is notable because it exists and there is no existing page about it. If you would remove the deletion tag, I will go back and edit it so that will not be "promotional in nature." JoOnion67 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not notable just because it exists. You misunderstand how things work here. Please read WP:GNG and WP:CORP and ask questions if you have any. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for removing your report to AIV

I was in the process of refusing the request, on the basis WP:VANDAL clearly states that the other party is intending to damage the encyclopedia, when you self reverted. Try getting a couple more editors involved in the discussion, and see if you cannot work things out. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If the user is being disruptive and unresponsive, and two different administrators have taken notice, it certainly meets the requirement. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Genetic Anomalies, Inc ??

I have no idea what that is or why you posted a PfD on my talk page, maybe you can explain why you did that? Govvy (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You created that article on March 3, 2006. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, maybe you can double check that!! Govvy (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually very simple. It is a fact that your account was used to create the article. Perhaps someone else was using your account? If you don't believe me, ask another administrator to check the deleted page history and your deleted contributions. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Swagger Jagger

I just provided two reasonable sources (a noted newspaper and one of the UK's top gossip mags). I'm hardly attached to the article, but I think it has a fair claim to notability... J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Those links were not added as references but external links. Even with those links as refs, it still doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONGS. But I'm not going to watch it any more. It hit my watchlist when it was tagged A9 before she had an article. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes... Notability is not dependent on how many reliable sources are listed in the "references" section. I put them there so that people could see there were some sources before loading the shotgun. I am not quite sure why you believe that the two sources listed do not demonstrate that the song has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but whatever. As I say, I don't really care, but I don't exactly consider your move wise. Now you've "explained" it, I consider it even worse... J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

About: Bengal Tennis Association

Hi Mufka!
I want to re-write the article Bengal Tennis Association, so I wanted you to userfy the page for me.
Thanks!
Regards,
Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{11:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

I can't really do that because it was all copyvio. The content is all at [13], [14], and [15]. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Days of the year

Hi, Mufka. I've recently run across a situation where a user is deleting blue linked individuals from various "Days of the year". Is there an established rule of thumb regarding listing individuals on these lists? I was under the impression that a Wikipedia article was sufficient to establish notability. I checked the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year and did not find anything conclusive. Since the user in question has not responded to my inquiries I'm seeking guidance as best I can. Thanks Tiderolls 23:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind

Don't bother responding. The answer, if one exists, is not important to me. Regards Tiderolls 01:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was relevant content deleted?

• In the article International Coffee Day, what is the reason that you deleted 2/3 of the content, and all photos? The only reason stated is 'content not relevant to the topic'... But the content which was deleted was directly related to the topic. If you thought the content was biased or had no logical connection that you could see, then that can be discussed, and certainly leaves room for editing the wording to make it more fitting for the encyclopedia... (see [WP:FOC])... or if you felt there weren't enough references, those can be requested... after all this is a project that we all work on, on a voluntary basis, in our spare time... but to have a mass of content deleted and then the article nominated for deletion without much explanation, makes me want to ask why...

Notice I am not claiming that you are vandalizing pages or whatever else... and I haven't reverted the page back to pre-content-deletion, because I wanted to ask your reasoning for this... I think the content that was there, as well as the photos, were all relevant and directly related to this notable topic.

Please also notice that I am not asking about the discussion regarding the name of the article. That is being discussed fairly, and I don't have a problem with that, whether it ends up as Coffee Day, National Coffee Day, or International Coffee Day.

What I plan to do after hearing back from you, is working on that article some more to draw a better link between the information presented, and in a more neutral point of view, and whatever else needs to be done for it to be a great article. And after that, probably edit or submit another article. I have discovered something I enjoy here... Sorry if this isn't the proper page to discuss this on... Thanks for your time. Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The content was about coffee itself not about an observance. We already have an article on Coffee so this content was misplaced. There were also some elements of original research, unsourced speculation, and pov. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I understand. Perhaps I will work on developing this article in a way that is more to the point, and maybe contribute to [Coffee]. If some content has unsourced speculation, isn't that what the {needs citation} tag is for? Thanks. And by the way, why were the photos removed, and replaced with another photo? If the photos that were on there don't violate any rules, then why should they be removed, and just replaced with another photo? If they do violate a rule, then that should be noted so that we can all learn and improve. The first photo depicts someone enjoying a coffee beverage (as an example of someone enjoying a coffee on International Coffee Day); the second photo is coffee beans (I understand if that doesn't belong in this article); the third photo shows a standard fancy coffee drink (caramel latté I think it was). According to some sources, only about 35% of coffee drinkers drink black coffee regularly. The majority of coffee drinkers drink the sweet, fancy coffee drinks. Would it not be appropriate to show one or two different variations of coffee drinks? Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation can potentially diminish the quality and reliability of the article. In some cases, it's better to remove it rather than tagging that it needs sources. The judgement needs to be made whether the pictures are appropriate to the article about an observance. The quantity of pictures also needs to be considered. Also, read WP:NotEarly to answer your question about the current AfD on the article. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing me to the article WP:NotEarly. That answered my question.
  • My opinion about the photo that replaced the other photos is that it is less appropriate for this article, and more appropriate for the article [Coffee], as it simply depicts 'A cup of coffee'. The article is about International Coffee Day, which includes coffee, the drinking of coffee, the history of coffee, coffee beans, coffee processing, and other points surrounding coffee culture and coffee knowledge. In the article [Christmas] there are a wide variety of photos, all relating to the subject, but one could argue that some of the photos belong under 'holiday foods' or 'nativity' or some other topic. If the photo was not inappropriate, and was not a low-quality photo, then why should it be changed? Changing one coffee photo for another coffee photo seems to be only a matter of point of view.
  • In regards to unsourced speculation, there's a difference between deleting details which support the overall theme, and deleting statements like 'this holiday sure is awesome'. In the previous, the mass of details being deleted leaves the article looking like a stub or just a thought... In the latter, that would be someone's speculation or point of view, and should be deleted. The details that were there are mostly relevant to the article, but need to be drawn together to logically connect them to the observance of International Coffee Day. Thank you for your time! I appreciate it. (Oops, forgot to sign...) Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

October 5

Before removing phrases you at least explain why. Thank. --J.Rayan (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Here on Wikipedia, we use what's called an edit summary to explain what is being done in an edit. The summary of "rm unsupported" indicates that the entry was removed because it wasn't supported by a link to an article that explained the entry. On the date articles, all entries must contain links to articles that provide referenced support for whatever claims are made. See WP:DAYS for more info. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)