User talk:MuZemike

Template:Fake Admin This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

House Rules

Discussions — If you start a discussion here, it shall remain here, unless for extraneous reasons.

Archiving — Inactive discussions shall be archived on my discretion, normally if they have been inactive for a week or more.

The Obvious Rules — Place new discussions at the bottom, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), assume good faith, and no personal attacks, please. Any such disruptive comments or comments made in bad faith shall be removed and the offending user appropriately warned.

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The WPVG Newsletter (November 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 20:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

{{not a vote}}

Hi,

Regarding this edit, I'm just curious about what led you to add the template. I'm new to AfD, so I'm just wondering if you feel my or someone else's actions constituted canvassing (I did leave a message about the AfD at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities, but only because I assumed people there would be more familiar with the topic and would be able help form a well-informed consensus; I'm not a member of that WikiProject so I wasn't soliciting allies or anything), or if it was because of something else.

Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I normally add that or the similar {{rally}} or {{not a ballot}} templates on top of the AFD discussion when it is clear that canvassing and/or increased SPA or meatpuppetry activity is going on in the AFD. It serves to let users know that such activity has been going on, let the closing admin that certain !votes may need to be weighed less/discounted as opposed to !votes by established users, and it lets those (normally new) users in question how the deletion discussion works. Hope that answers your question. MuZemike (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)