User talk:Mufka/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wonder what the reason is for your removal of popular culture references to November 5th. There are enough to support it as a subsection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.252.15 (talk) 03:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

New sections should be discussed before they are added to the Wikicalendar articles. Otherwise the consistency of the articles will be difficult to maintain. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

not aware there is any rule for that. For some dates but not others such a section will be relevant. DGG (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here. It is where all of the discussion on Wikicalendar content takes place and it's the closest thing to a set of rules. Basically changes in format or structure are frowned upon without consensus. This is mostly in an effort to keep the articles consistent and ideally changes would be applied to all 366 of the articles. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think i stumbled upon this IP dynamically [its a Verizon IP] ... how do i hide this message or somehow atone for the sins of the person before me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.211.202 (talk) 04:55, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the warning from December 2006. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Post

Where do I sign up for Wiki Post to be foreword to my talk page. Sory about poor writing, I havent been on here for a few months.User:HarebagUser:Wiki-wikifyUser:69.145.163.26 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to Signpost. Check out Template:Signpost-subscription. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:

The start date of the Olympics are very much notable as many independent, reliable sources document the fact — not to mention the numerous sources constructing the stadiums in Beijing. I also believe that the Olympics are notable enough to deserve a mention in the article even if they haven't started. Regards. –Animum 00:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting the most important bit: Wikiproject consensus — a wikiproject that only has 8 members, btw, so the term "consensus" is used loosely — does not dictate any form of policy whatsoever. –Animum 00:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the community discussion where the consensus was decided? (feel free to reply here, or at Animum's page) Martinp23 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The "membership" is truly a joke. I'm not really sure why it is there. Discussion on the topic takes place here. In my experience it is the understanding of all of the active Wikicalendar "patrollers" that if anything the future event rule is the one true "rule". I suggest any further discussion on this be done there. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion here. Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

births and deaths on date pages

Hi - I've been thinking about the date pages recently, and it strikes me that the births/deaths have mostly gotten out of hand. The rule "must have an article" helps, but it seems over time virtually all entries we have (on anyone) will turn up on a date page. We have about 100,000 articles on living people so even with just these we'll average about 300 per date (assuming the births are evenly distributed). We don't generally link from article space to category space, but what would you think about creating (and populating) births/deaths by day categories and adding links on every date page in the births/deaths section like:

For a complete list, see category:January 1 births

and then ruthlessly pruning the lists on the date pages to the unarguably most famous. To keep a by-year sorting we'd have to use sort keys beginning with the year (and to provide year markers in these lists we could categorize year articles in these categories). Just curious how this strikes you. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the pages are bloated, grossly. The spirit of the understanding that created the pages is not understood or applied by most editors. I think that part of the problem is a lack of dedicated editors who want to work to write out the guidelines for the pages. Years worth of discussions have resulted in only a loosely applied set of rules. I think the original intent was to have a "this day in history" article that was better than all the rest and only had really significant items in it. The problem with that is that the Wikipedia format isn't conducive to such an article because of all of the "but, what about what I think?". I'm in favor of ruthlessly pruning the lists regardless. The problem with that is that we'd get an awful lot of "where does it say it doesn't belong" which brings us back to firm guidelines. Your idea of categories makes sense but I'm concerned that it won't work. We'd constantly be dealing with people putting their favorite accordion player on the "arguably most famous" list. Then you're stuck with consensus arguments on every listing. I wouldn't 86 the idea, though. The more I think about it, them ore I like it. It needs to be brought up here. Then the formal process on getting consensus on it can start. I'm not sure I know what you mean on the sorting, but I can catch up later. Part of the discussion also has to be the fact that we'd be creating 366 new categories and adding those 100,000 bio pages to their respective categories - not a small task (and your 100,000 number is just living people - there's lots of dead people's birthdays on the lists). -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I realize this is not the official place to bring it up, but just wanted a quick sanity check. The sorting issue is that the lists as they currently exist are sorted by year first and, within a year, alphabetically. Categories are sorted alphabetically unless a sort key is provided to override the automatic sort by article name. I also realize the 100,000 number is low - I was just using this to get an approximate bound on the size of the issue. Creating the categories would not be a particular problem - populating them might be a little tricky but I'm pretty sure it could be nearly completely done by a bot. I'll bring it up at the project talk page.

BTW - any particular reason you're not an admin? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. I don't think I would pass an RfA. I don't write much, mostly remove. People don't know me. I've gotten away from direct vandal patrol so I don't know what good the tools would do me. Oh, and most important, I'm here too much already. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You seem to primarily focus on vandal repair, so the revert button and ability to block might be helpful. If you don't want to, that's fine. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I liked to say to Mufka that what i have been putting on the birth pages is helpful! So stop taking them off please! -Brittany S. 10:24, 29 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by X0xIceDreamx0x (talk • contribs)

MOH pic removal from recipients' articles

See here. My primary reason is, what's the point because the MOH is linked to, and especially if there's an infobox pic of the recipient, it is really extraeneous. A lot of them don't have it. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work!

Hi - just wanted to say I appreciate your edits, esp. on the date pages. I see you've already received an award in the last few days so I'll just add my name to Deiz's as someone who values your contributions here. Thanks again, Hu Gadarn 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

re: SundarBot

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I'll ask some bureaucrat to set the bot flag. Thanks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1990s

Could you check that one, also. I'm at 3RR, and it's not entirely vandalism. (February 8 is also on my watchlist.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim Gulley

Can you please put a lock on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gulley and remove the Alan08 link? I don't want to get into a reversion war. --WilliamC24 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like just linkspam and minor POV pushing. The users have been warned. Doesn't really warrant protection at this time - besides, I'm not an admin. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

October 23

You wrote "adjust to conform to template - references are not needed here - the event might make a good addition to the Phillips 66 article though." Thanks, Mufka. I do appreciate the correction as well as the advice. Please do likewise with my recent changes to 1989 in the October 23 section. Thanks.

Rather than modify the Phillips 66 article, what I'd really like to do is start a new stub article on the disaster itself (the 23-Oct-1989 explosion that killed 23 and injured 314 in Pasadena, Texas). That chemical plant is no longer called the Houston Chemical Complex, and it is no longer owned by Phillips 66.

I've never created a new stub article. What do I need to do? Please advise. Thanks again. -- Art Smart 12:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The welcome message I put on your talk page should point you to some information to get started. Let me know if you still have questions. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephens City Talk Page

When all have been resolved (and two are from almost 6 months ago), then they are not current and being resolved, they are also no longer relevant and required archiving. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They are still relevant and there is no need to archive them except to hide the conversation. The conversation from three months ago certainly helped in the latest conversation. I have no problem with archiving if there is a need to archive such as a very large talk page. Not every talk page needs to be archived. And as far as the issue being resolved, who said it's resolved? Resolved how? Also, please discuss that talk page on that talk page, not here. It makes it easier for everyone else to follow along. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Being that the permission thing has been taking care of, that makes all discussions moot and resolved. The initial review was something that I asked for, so since that has been worked out, that is resolved. But hey, if you would have held up your end of the deal three months ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the permission issue is resolved. The permission confirmation has not been posted. Besides, the history of the issue is valuable for the future of the article in the event that anyone tries to add the material back again - like the anon IP here. I don't know what you mean by my end of the deal. I was trying to help you and I did the digging that you should have done to find out what the problem was. I had never dealt with a permission request before. You can read directions just like I can. If I led you to believe that I was connected somehow to the process, I apologize. Like they say, no good deed goes unpunished. None of that justifies you coming back three months later and posting the same content hoping no one would notice. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"I'll check in and get more detail after the weekend. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)" I was waiting on you to tell me why the previous permission was rejected, I never heard from your or ComComm (still haven't from ComComm), that's what I am talking about "dropping the ball". Had I figured out in July what was missing, this could have been taken care of in a matter of minutes, than months. After being lied to, being stonewalled, hell, I just gave up (hence the three month absence from the article). This should ahve been taken care of in July, not in November.

But as I have said, the gentleman in charge of the Newtown History Center will be contacting ComComm directly (if he hasn't already) and will post the permission himself with the template (that I wasn't told about for 3 1/2 months), so...it's resolved. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like through all of your archiving of your own talk page, you missed this on July 30. Hmmmm, that looks like the response you are talking about, huh? So what was it that you were waiting for again? I assume you weren't calling me a liar. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so (if you also notice I got slammed that day as well) but I asked how it wasn't formatted properly. You just said it wasn't. That doesn't help me. Hence why I just gave up. I can say this, when someone asks me for help, I make absolutely sure they know exactly what they are doing and not giving them some half-assed answer. Might be my fault, but I sure as hell at the only one at fault. You and Will need to be a little more patient, a little more helpful, explain things ALOT better, and get your finger off the "revert button". - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

oh ha ha ha, ain't you funny. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

Looks like you are unlikely to abuse admin tools, so would you like to be nominated to be an administrator? NHRHS2010 talk 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I would find little use in the tools and have no interest in studying enough Wiki BS to make up good answers to pass an RfA, I guess no. But thanks for the offer. I appreciate it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Still completely your choice (per above), but I do think you'd find some of the tools useful (the power to block could be yours!!!). I know you currently focus mainly (exclusively?) on the date pages, but the range of things that would be open to you as an admin is quite large (user:kbdank71 recently resigned as one of the main WP:CFD closers, for example). Although your self imposed 1000 edits a month limit might be an issue ;). I'd be happy to co-nom. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but getting raked over the coals in an RfA isn't very appealing. People seem to accept the work that I'm doing now without much conflict and I'm happy just trying to make the project better. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 04:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I don't want to be too pushy (there's a user box for "don't want to be an admin", see User:Octane/userboxes/Admin-no). If you ever find yourself interested, please let me know. Chances are I'll still be around. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you any sense of humor? Evidently, something of consequence occurred in Venezuelan history on February 20, 1859, as the date is enshrined on the country's coat of arms. 66.245.20.168 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Date Articles

Sounds interesting. How do I join? Just add my name to the list? I hope you don't need a song and dance; 'cause my singing is like nails on a chalkboard and dancing is, well...., embarassing. :p (Sorry, I had to write something weird, I can't do it on the date pages, I'd just end up reverting myself) Grouf^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, start by adding your name to the list. Have a look at the project page and, to the extent that you're interested, have a look at the talk archives. You'll see that a lot of recurring disputes with date article content have been discussed to consensus there. Participate however you can. The more editors who are familiar with the aims of the project, the better. Most date page editors don't know the background of the project and the "rules" for inclusion of content - for example, most assume that the Wikicalendar articles are governed solely by WP:Notability like everything else. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 03:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For reverting the IP editor of General of the Armies who clearly cannot read the notes about GeoWash's 1976 vs 1776 date of rank. Glad to see someone else is on top of this too against the anonymous masses. (-: — MrDolomite • Talk 13:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How to use Popups for reverting vandalism

Greetings, Mufka: I have noted that you use Popups to revert vandalism ... and I would like to learn how to do that. Would you be so kind as to explain it to me, step-by-step? I will watch here for your answer. Thanks in advance and regards, - mbeychok (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple to get started. Just open up your monobook.js and add {{subst:navpop}}. Once it's installed, you can start messing with it by mousing-over things to see what options pop up. I prefer the way it works under Firefox rather than IE, but try for yourself. If you need help from me, just let me know. See details and options at WP:POP. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Justifying my redirects

I know you said no response is required but I felt like responding because you wrote such a message that seemed very civilized, which seems different than most people! Thanks for showing me that information, because I've never heard of or seen that. Wikada - Talk Cont ISU 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Still dont wanna be an admin eh mufka? I do agree the questions they ask you are stupid and a waste of time though.User:HarebagUser:Wiki-wikifyUser:69.145.163.26 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time

A Good Day to you; as we seem to make no progress at the page mentioned above, any ideas how we might get this going? (and no need to hurry, really, as I only just noticed your edit to the talk-page from November 29th). BTW, about your comments above concerning adminship, you're spot on there....I remember the good old times when I was made admin...way easier than nowadays, anyway, enough blather. Cheers and happy editing..and: keep up the good work. Lectonar (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Work needs to go into that page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. It seems that there are not many people interested in working on them, though. If we could get a few editors who are familiar with what goes on with the date articles to hammer out the guidelines, we could then ask for input at WP:VP. Ideally, I'd like to just be able to revert an edit and point to the guideline as an edit summary. Only rarely does good new information get added to the date articles. Somehow it needs to be established that the Wikicalendar articles have special rules - otherwise, our efforts are for nothing and the project members will just be on constant clean up duty. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mufka, on December 19, what do you think about "2007 - Jamie Lynn Spears announces she's pregnant"? Please advise. Thanks. Art Smart (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not notable. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

date article user template

Hey Mufka, I know you're big into the date articles, so I wanted to ask your advice on this template in my userspace I just made: User:delldot/date. Can you think of any policy or common sense problem with it? Advice for changes? If you're still on the wikibreak, no worries, you can get back to me after or ignore me entirely ;) Thanks. Peace, Delldot on a public computer (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Personally, I shy away from pointing editors to the WP:N or WP:BIO when dealing with calendar articles. It tends to confuse people because those policies don't directly apply to the Wikicalendar articles (but certainly indirectly). While birth and death dates only require an article, the spirit of the project is that the listings would be especially notable (which means going above and beyond WP:N). That isn't really practiced though and there aren't enough active project members to form a good consensus. Check out my warning templates here, here, and here. Feel free to use or copy them. I tried to craft them like the other warning templates. I haven't come up with an inappropriate event warning yet, only a future event warning. By the way, keep up the good work. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for the input! Yeah, the notability thing gets me a little too; how important should a person be to have the day they were born or died on be associated with them? It seems like folks are going overboard adding slightly notable people, but it's also not the cross I want to die on. Anyway, thanks again, have a good rest of your wikibreak, hope to see you active again soon. Peace, Delldot on a public computer (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back

Thank God :) delldot talk 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I hope others feel the same way. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

THANKS, BUT NO THANKS.

Prick vandalized the Feb. 14 article. I gave him a good piece of his mind and reverting is just a waste of time. However, if you think that I made a bad impression on the Wikipedians by putting the universal prfanity on the edit summary part, concentrate some of your thoughts here: is vandalism much worse than profnity? We should be concerned in eradicating vandalism wherever we find it on Wikipedia. iaNLOPEZ1115 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would consider unnecessary profanity on the same level as vandalism and will treat it similarly. Using profanity is unnecessary and unproductive. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks and profanity usually indicates a personal attack. You will find yourself blocked if you insist on using profanity in edit summaries and elsewhere. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Inadvertent major/minor edit confusion

Thanks for clearing this up. Am a relative newbie, and I had not appreciated this distinction quite as clearly or vigilantly as I should have :(

No offence meant - and it hopefully won't happen again...

Boethius65 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2

I think we had an edit conflict so I reverted your revert. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was sort of an edit conflict. I removed two things but my summary only referred to the one that might have been questioned. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Warning

In that same respect, how could they get confused if the time and date do not correspond to when they have been on. Leaving the warnings there serve to show if there is persistent vandalism from a specific IP address. Transcendence (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It usually happens for new users who don't know how it all works. They see all the messages and get worried that they're going to be blocked. See this in response to this (notice the 8 month time difference). Vandalism that occurred 6 months ago definitely isn't persistent and generally doesn't apply to the current user. If the vandalism was persistent and there was a history of blatant vandalism, I'd leave it (or if it was a static ip or school). This goes along with the whole assume good faith thing. I like to give anon users the benefit of the doubt due to the dynamic nature of anon ips. IP addresses are not vandals, users are. If the user has moved on, there is no need to keep the IP tagged unless it is persistent. Warnings do not need to be left forever, especially if the offender has moved on. Anon users are not likely to clean their own respective talk pages. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

supposed vandalism

hey mufka i would like to inform you that if i am a vandal then i could do alot worse than giving the correct name,date and profession of a living person who is afforded his own wikipedia page.i am new to editing but also there seems to be no way of highlighting the name other than the colour red instead of our favoured blue.perhaps you could be a pal and read the wiki page of the person i was editing and try to find out why? his name can't be highlighted with a link.or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.110.155 (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello 89.125.110.155. Spelling is very important. I suspect that you are trying to add Liam Brady. I have added the entry for you. In the future, you need to be careful with spelling. Otherwise it just looks like an entry that does not have an article. I have also removed my warning from your talk page. Feel free to ask any other questions. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 03:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

vindication

thanks mufka for correcting my edit it was a simple case of capslock forgetfulness and a lesson has been learned,thanks also for removing the vandal tag i feel now like Andy Dufresne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.110.155 (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gulf War, January 22, 1991

Pkay, I added a link to the Gulf War article. Das Baz, aka Erudil 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protocol for Handling Warnings

I'm new to issuing warnings. See User talk:C west2640 for my latest "subst:uw-vandalism2" warnings, regarding April 21, April 18‎ and September 2‎. Am I acting appropriately, or should I escalate? If so, how? I'm assuming that there's a bot that detects vandalism warnings, so that those with blocking authority can take appropriate action, but I don't know that for sure. Please advise. Thanks. -- Art Smart (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you have the right idea. But, as you probably are aware, giving the same warning for subsequent vandalism doesn't make sense. The warnings escalate by number (1, 2, 3, 4). The format is {{subst:uw-v1}}. The first level is a general "welcome, but you did something wrong". The second level is a little less welcoming and is sometimes a reasonable first warning "hey please don't do that". The third level recognizes that the editor probably knows they did something wrong but continue doing it anyway "stop or you'll be blocked". The fourth level is the last warning and tells the vandal "do it again, and get blocked".

For users who have been recently blocked, you can just issue a "only warning" {{subst:uw-v4im}}. For particularly blatant vandalism you can issue a {{subst:uw-bv}} warning.

An important thing to remember is that warnings must be escalated properly to be fair to the user and to support a block. An admin won't block unless a level 4 warning (or a bv) has been left for the user and the user still vandalized. Another thing that needs to be watched is that the warnings are left after vandalism. That might sound simple, but you have to take into account whether it is possible for the user to have read your warning before vandalizing again. Some vandal fighters will leave a warning, then see a new vandalism and immediately leave another warning even if the vandalism took place before the first warning was left (this happens if the user vandalizes while you are leaving the warning). It's not fair and doesn't assume good faith even though you "know" that the user wouldn't pay attention to the warnings anyway. Have a look at WP:TT for more on the user warnings. You can also use my custom date article warnings {{subst:user:Mufka/uw-date1}} and {{subst:user:Mufka/uw-date2}}. I use these because the generic vandalism warnings don't help the user to know what they really did wrong.

Lastly, some of the vandal bots do take previous warnings into account before suggesting users for block but vandal fighters like you put vandals up for block at WP:AIV after the user has violated a level 4 warning. Feel free to ask any questions. I'm glad to help. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Extremely helpful. Thanks for taking all the time to explain everything. Exactly what I needed. Very much obliged. -- Art Smart (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question: When dealing with flagrant sock puppetry, is there no other way than progressive warnings? Please take a look at User talk:Emil rothe, and compare it to Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Sports Nuggets and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sports Nuggets. The level 1 warning to a blatant sock puppet of a multiply-banned sock puppeteer just looks silly. Please give me your thoughts. Thanks. -- Art Smart (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always found the sockpuppet reporting process painfully cumbersome. In the case of a new sockpuppet of a banned user, I'd just go straight to putting it on WP:AIV and brace for a possible scolding. I've never been scolded for it though. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in a couple places, I'll personally permablock the Ron liebman (Sports Nuggets) socks - and have been for around six months now. Regardless, you should not be getting a fight at WP:AIV. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. I'll continue using progressive warnings for most suspected vandalism, but turn to Wknight94 for quick help with really obvious sock puppets of repeatedly-banned users. Thanks to you both for the excellent guidance. -- Art Smart (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"figurenude" in Art nude & elsewhere

See here for background on a relevant content dispute. Pseudomonas_(talk) 08:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

SUPPOSED VANDALISM

HI, I AM WRITING THIS TO YOU SINCE YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO ACCUSE ME UNFAIRLY OF VANDALISM. THE LOGIC BEHNIND MY CHANGING THE ORDER OF THE PEOPLE ON THE BIRTH SECTION OF JANUARY 13TH, 14TH AND 23RD WAS THAT I WAS PUTTING IT IN ORDER OF DATE OF DEATH SINCE USUALLY IF SOMEONE DIES LET'S SAY IN 1980 AND SOMEONE ELSE THAT HAS THE SAME BIRTHDAY DIES IN 1999, THEN OBVIOUSLY THE ONE THAT DIED FIRST WOULD BE ENTERED FIRST, RIGHT? DON'T YOU THINK THAT THIS IS LOGICAL? NOT ONLY THAT BUT WHEN I STARTED USING WIKIPEDIA THAT IS THE WAY THAT I NOTICED THAT WHOEVER PUT THE PEOPLE IN ACCORIDING TO DATES OF BIRTHS DID IT, SO I WAS JUST FOLLOWING SUIT. I WAS TRYING TO HELP OUT SINCE I ENJOY KEEPING THINGS IN LOGICAL ORDER. I AM A MATHEMATICIAN AND LOGIC IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AND I WOULD NEVER DO SOMETHING TO VANDALIZE ANYONE OR ANYTHING. SO PLEASE NEXT TIME TRY TO ANALYZE AND LOOK OVER THINGS BEFORE WRONGFULLY JUMPING TO AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION ABOUT SOMEONE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW. YOU COULD HAVE VERY SIMPLY SAID THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY SOMETHING IS DONE AND NOT ACCUSE SOMEONE. Redlady1 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit for which I left the first note on your talk page was this one. The edit seems to have no logical explanation. It changed the order of the entries putting Hubert Humphrey after Joe McCarthy. The entries were already listed in correct order by year (both were 1978) and they were in alphabetical order. My note was not accusatory and I was asking for explanation so that I could understand. Since you did not respond to the first note that I left and you made a similar edit to this article about a week later, it seemed to me that you were not interested in discussing your changes and that the changes were therefore vandalism. The key to Wikipedia is that editors are willing to discuss changes that they make with other editors. When an editor makes suspicious changes that don't make sense and then the editor does not respond to questions, the editor is often a vandal and has to be treated as such. In cases when the editor is making good faith edits, a succession of warnings usually prompts the editor to talk about things (as it clearly did for you). An editor can make good faith edits all day, but if they look suspicious and the editor does not respond to questions or warnings, the editor will get blocked. That is how the logic of a vandalism fighter works. I hope this makes things a little clearer for you. Please ask any questions you have. Oh, and PLEASE DON'T YELL on my talk page. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

first, i did not realize that using capital letters was considered yelling. i was not yelling on your talk page. i was just typing without realizing that my caps lock key was on. second, what i was trying to do was put things in logical order as it had been on other dates and pages that i had noticed on wikipedia. hubert humphrey died after joe mccarthy so therefore it would seem correct since wikipedia is putting things in number order (years) that it would also like to have people who die first to be first. i hope that this makes things a little clearer f0r you.Redlady1 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand your logic, but let's keep it to the way that it is widely accepted. The entries should be alphabetical and the examples that you used for putting the dates in order of the death date are abnormal. If you wish to propose that the entries should be ordered by date of death, please make a proposal here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 23rd

I am curious why you removed the reference to Andrewary. It does not seem logical to require an internal reference. I think that you are creating a double standard. The internal link for the reference to Saint Lazarus below doesn't even mention February 23rd in the internal article. I will admit that Andrewary is an obscure feast, but that is what makes wikipedia great. Perhaps it may even get its own page someday.

If you are interested, Andrewary was celebrated by early Christians in the Roman empire in honor of Saint Andrew. Saint Andrew was an apostle and the younger brother of Saint Peter who was the first Pope. Early Romans celebrated their faith on the occasion of Terminalia which coincided with the last day of the year in the early Roman calendar. Rather than celebrate the New Year by honoring the Pagan God 'Terminus', they chose to acknowledge Saint Andrew.

Please see excerpt below from Wikipedia article on the Roman Calendar

Some dates are sometimes known by the name of a festival that occurred on them, or shortly afterwards. Such dates are known for the Feralia, Quirinalia and the Terminalia (though not yet for the Lupercalia). These dates are all after the Ides of February, which suggests that they are connected with resolving an ambiguity that could arise in intercalary years: dates of the form a.d. [N] Kal. Mart. were dates in late February in regular years but were a month later in intercalary years. However, it is much debated whether there was a fixed rule for using festival-based dates. It has been suggested that dates like a.d. X Terminalia (known from an inscription in 94 B.C.) indicated that the year was intercalary, that it was not intercalary, or that it could be intercalary.

I look forward to your comments and although I disagree with your removal of Andrewary, I salute your diligence to protect wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.231.232 (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the removal is that it does not link to an article that mentions it (including the date). I noticed and removed your entry because it was new. Other entries will be removed in time, but there are hundreds of articles and thousands of entries that need to be checked but the newest always get attention first. Please have a look at WP:DAYS for details on adding entries to the date articles. It is established that the date articles do not use standard references but all of the entries must link to an article covering the subject. One of the reasons for this is that if something is not mentioned in an article, it probably doesn't warrant being listed as a significant observance on a day of the year. It also keeps things orderly and self-contained. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry for the mistake

sorry I put my comment on that archived page. that was completely a mistake. I was going to do delete it when i suddenly saw it magically walked to the right place. so it was not any magic. thank you. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I transfered your comment

I transfered your comment on "what should be listed for births and deaths (2)" to its proper place in the same page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year
Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help! Sorry, I am kind of new to Wikipedia.
Hportfacts5 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Hportfacts5 (talk)

THANKS

Thanks for the help on the Nick "The Goat" Thompson page. This is my first day adding or editing here and I was in shock :)

Joh02639 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)