Jump to content

User talk:Mifter/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 14

Hello! Welcome to one of my Archive Pages. This page contains all comments and discussions that took place on my User Talk Page, were inactive for 15 days or more, and have been archived by a robot. If you would like to leave me a new message or revive some old discussion please leave me a note at my current talk page found here. Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)



WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Poland Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and Canada Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter

WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter

Quarter 3, 2013

463 124 5.13 50 30% »
Full edition
Unassessed Articles Coordinates Needed WikiWork Load Project Members B&M articles are GA or FA

22:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Canada Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, London Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Poland Piotrus (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

STiki emergency

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4. Canada Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Poland Piotrus (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), Michigan Dana boomer (submissions), Prince Edward Island Status (submissions), United States Ed! (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Template

Hello, Mifter,
I came across your template for the First Day of Spring and wondered if you created one for other seasons of the year. I'd love to use it later this week. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 14:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I do happen to have templates for all four seasons, they can be found at {{First Day Of Fall}}, {{First Day of Summer}}, {{First Day Of Winter}}, and as you already have seen {{First Day Of Spring}}. Do remember to Subst them so that they display correctly, and I hope you enjoy using them (They've been a blast in previous years). If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK review

Hi Mifter, I found your name on a list of active DYK reviewers. On September 6th I submitted the Charles R. Chickering (artist) page for DYK review. At first it was approved by two other reviewers and was approved and promoted (closed for discussion) by a third, but shortly thereafter another reviewer was concerned about a couple of "near" paraphrasing issues, which I have since dealt with almost two weeks ago. Now it seems the nomination has been forgotten about, even after reminders, so I'm hoping you (or someone) will finalize the matter for better or worse. If you have the time could you give the nomination a peek? -- Gwillhickers 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Canada Sasata (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and New South Wales Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Beast54643

I noticed that you blocked the user for 72 hours, but I would think it should be indefinite, given that I also blocked him on Wikidata for similar offenses, implying that this user is only going to continue vandalizing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I opted for only a 72 hour block because the user had received an insufficient number of warnings for his edits. Blocks are meant to be preventative, and in my estimation, 72 hours is more than enough to discourage and prevent negative behavior while also allowing the opportunity of positive contribution should the user have made an honest series of mistakes. Should the user not wish to contribute positively, it is a simple matter to revert and indef block with no long term damage. Best, Mifter (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
My rationale for an indef in this case is that additional warnings would not make a difference, given that the user went as far as going to Wikidata to do the same thing. I don't think this user is here to contribute in good faith, or he/she would've taken note of the notices and stopped the vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
While that may be true, we have little to lose should he vandalize again. It is as simple as a revert and indef block, but I believe that assuming good faith is more important in this case than the relatively minor risks. Best, Mifter (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

  1. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)
  3. Canada Sasata (submissions)
  4. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
  5. New South Wales Casliber (submissions)
  6. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions)
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions)
  8. Poland Piotrus (submissions)
  9. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

  • New South Wales Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
  • Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
  • Portland, Oregon Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
  • Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
  • Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
  • Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
  • Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
  • United States Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
  • The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to British Empire The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
  • Finally, the judges are awarding Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup award

In recognition of your participation in the 2013 Wikipedia:WikiCup. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 15:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3

Hey Mifter! I am Petrb, one of core developers of Huggle, the antivandalism tool, which you are beta testing (according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers). I am happy to announce that Huggle 3 is ready for some testing. You can read more about it at WP:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta. Please keep in mind that this is a development version and it is not ready for regular use. That means you must:

  • Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug
  • Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lot

If you find any problem with a feature that is supposed to work perfectly, please let us know. Some features are not ready yet, it is listed in known problems on Huggle3 beta page, you don't need to report these - we know it! So, that's it. Have fun testing and please let us know about any problems, either using bugzilla @ http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or #huggle connect. Please respond to my talk page, I am not going to watch your talk page. Thank you Petrb (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3 beta is out - and we need more feedback!

Hey Mifter, how are you? I am Petrb, one of huggle developers, and you are currently subscribed as a beta tester of huggle on meta (meta:Huggle/Members. You may not have noticed, but this week I released first beta precompiled installers for ubuntu and microsoft windows! Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta has all the links you need. So if you can, please download it, test it and report all bugs that is really what we need now. Don't forgot that as it's just a beta it's unstable and there are some known issues. Be carefull! Thank you for helping us with huggle Petrb (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Mifter:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

RFA

Hi. I've been considering putting myself forward for adminship, and was wondering if you would review me to see if I'm ready. I've put myself forward a few times now, under my old username Wikiwoohoo. The last of these was in March 2009. I'd only really consider the third and fourth ones to be the most serious attempts. The links to these attempts are as follows:

Thanks in advance for your help. Cloudbound (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent Warning

Hi Mifter, I recently got a warning for editing a page that listed the names of hands in Texas Hold'EM because it wasn't constructive.

There was an alignment problem on the list, where the description ran into the column of the name. I deleted the only difference I saw on that line compared to the others, previewed it, and the problem was fixed. I changed no content, and was only trying to help the readability of the page. I apologize for any inconvenience that might have occurred due to the edit, but I didn't see any other than fixing the alignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.178.113 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! After looking at your edit again, I realized that I reverted it because you accidentally deleted some wikimarkup from the page (likely not even your fault). I have gone through to try and refix the alignment on the page, and apologize for any confusion that my message has caused. We really appreciate your edit and contributions, and hope you decide to continue contributing. If you have any questions or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.178.113 (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

RedChocobo

I am trying to call out to RedChocobo. He apparently left Wikipedia after making that audio file. I think he probably looks at that page from time to time, and I want to encourage him to join Wikipedia so he can make more audio files. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.64.233 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that I removed the comment is because the actual article is not the space for such a request, but rather his talk page. Should you need any other help, I would be happy to assist. Best, Mifter (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor call

[1]. Sorry. You've left poorly sourced contentious information in a BLP and only one editor was calling others vandals and accusing others of nationalism. --NeilN talk to me 07:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the content more closely now. The civility warning was general and to everyone, in heated situations, it can never hurt to tacitly remind people to step back and take a breath if they feel things starting to get heated (it was not meant to imply or indemnify anyone, just caution against inciting conflict). Best, Mifter (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I saw your addendum after I posted this. No quibbles about what you said now. --NeilN talk to me 07:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, on a slightly less serious and more humorous note (while I look at the article more closely) see meta:The Wrong Version. Mifter (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes (sigh), I know. I wouldn't have said anything if it wasn't a BLP. --NeilN talk to me 07:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem, after looking at it, it is clearly something that could be (and in this case is) contentious so I've removed it for the time being while everyone (hopefully) talks everything over on the talk page and figures out the best way to deal with the issue. Best, Mifter (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 07:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Whuh?

I blocked him for a combination of edit-warring and personal attacks - you cannot re-warn him for something he's already blocked for...I recommend you undo that DP 17:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I added the warning primarily because after reading your block message, I was concerned the user wasn't specifically being told that their civility was also an issue (above and beyond their Edit Warring) and wanted to add that so should any he have any future issues, an uninvolved admin would easily be able to see the prior civility issues (including the mention to some of the other times he has been warned for civility) as the Block Log and talk page both mention Edit Warring as the primary justification for the block. I am not opposed to removing it, but wanted to ensure that the clear distinction between edit warring and incivility as separate but both serious issues. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Mifter! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Leaky Caldron

I know all about edit warring and I'm not. I've been here for 8 years and I don't appreciate standard messages "welcoming me" to a place that I've worked for longer than you. I have reverted 2 wholly inappropriate sections of material (one on 2 occasions) with appropriate message left for the editor and in the edit summary. The page has been subject to heavy POV sentiment from several unregistered editors for a considerable time, as a cursory examination of the history will show. Now, please go and disrupt someone else's afternoon with your ill-judged advice. Leaky Caldron 17:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

and that level of protection you have set is completely erroneous. Leaky Caldron 17:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, after looking at the article again, it does appear that you are engaging in an edit war with this Anon. His is adding a sourced contribution to the article from a reputable news outlet that is not outwardly labeled as an opinion piece and you are reverting him with only an edit summary for justification. Being that both of you are continuing to undo each others edits without starting a discussion on the Articles Talk page or either of your talk pages, that makes it an edit war. In this case, deciding if certain information is relevant for inclusion is worthy of discussion and does not justify continuing to revert; as multiple Wikipedia policies must be interpreted in order to reach a consensus, edit summaries are hardly enough space to have the necessary discussion. Secondly, I chose that warning template, because the other standard one available to me is much more stringent and stern and was not the message I wanted to convey. I was simply trying to nudge both you to discuss the changes with a friendly reminder as things were starting to get heated without jumping to a full warning. I have now protected the article for two days and strongly encourage both you and the Anon to discuss this addition on the articles talk page so when the protection expires this edit war does not continue. Finally, while I understand you are upset, I don't appreciate having insults thrown my way. I am ALWAYS open to civilly discussing any and all decisions I make both as an editor and as an Administrator. However, while I am open to a civil discussion, I will not tolerate any conduct that is uncivil or personally attacks myself or any other editors. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, for an edit war where any involved user is autoconfirmed (as you are), full protection is the correct course of action as otherwise it would just block the Anon from contributing, which would not resolve the edit war, but rather only silence one side of it. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion it is clear beyond peradventure that this is the latest in a string of IPs adding the same preposterous content and unfair use image as part of an insidious group intent on influencing the neutrality of the article. I intend to discuss the content with no one, I will simply remove the article from my watchlist and let the vandals flourish. Your assertion of edit warring is groundless. Leaky Caldron 18:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I am extremely sorry to hear that you feel that way. A cornerstone of Wikipedia is to wherever possible assume the good faith of our contributors, both experienced and established editors (such as you) as well as Anonymous editors and to discuss contentious changes to reach a consensus. In this case, it appears to me that the Anon was adding a perfectly sourced statement (that was not overly biased or preposterous, nor added an unauthorized image) and both of you had differing views on if it should be included. This is the perfect opportunity to engage in a discussion and reach a conclusion that helps enrich the article, and maybe encourage the Anon to become an editor and create an account. If you make a good faith effort to justify why you believe the content should not be included and the Anon refuses to discuss the content, then it is a simple matter to remove the content and warn or block the editor for edit warring against consensus and not justifying their changes. However, walking away helps no one because despite a string of bad faith Anons, there is always the chance that this user wishes to contribute constructively, and despite the bad, the goal of everyone here is to help build an encyclopedia. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, respectfully, claiming that calling this an edit war is groundless is inaccurate. The first sentence of WP:EW states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Where does this definition not fit in this situation? You both were reverting each other, citing policies in your edit summaries instead of discussing, and you now refuse to discuss the content. I really do not like having to level accusations of edit warring because it often leads to strong feelings on both sides (precisely what I was trying to avoid by using the less accusatory warning), but I am at a loss for seeing how this does not fit the bill of being an edit war. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Nokia Lumia Icon

The DYK project (nominate) 18:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Mifter:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
  2. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
  3. United States WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

List of largest companies by revenue and Nelson Cruz

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to be nominated bryant.claire

Dear Mifter, 

      I would love to be nominated for an administrator position on this awesome website. I chose you to nominate me for an administrator position because you seemed so much better than the other people who were willing to view my pages. I hope you will nominate me for administrator position

From bryant.claireBryant.claire (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're about 5,994 edits short, and since 4 of those 6 were obvious vandalism, you're more like 15,994 edits short. See you in a few years DP 21:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Nokia Lumia 505

Allen3 talk 18:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PC-protected pages

Extend PC time for UFC 170, drought, List of VeggieTales characters and Henri Rousseau? --George Ho (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We need your help testing latest huggle

Hello,

I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see https://github.com/huggle/huggle3-qt-lx for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!

Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's United States ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Washington, D.C. Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Canada Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Minas Gerais Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Nepal Czar (submissions) and Indiana Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Mifter:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Mother India.jpeg

I got this image from Google. It's not my own. So how can I post it? Svpnikhil (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You would have to post it under our fair use policy with limited uses in line with copyright law. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

image without copyright.

Hi. I agree with your petition for speedy deletion of ShimronElitBrandImage.jpg because it was duplicated by mistake by me while trying to insert BrandImage.jpg, which has valid copyright, into my page. ShimronElitBrandImage.jpg is redundant and can be deleted immediately. Thanks for noticing. Shimron Elit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimron (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, just remember to always add a license tag to your images, if you need one deleted you can use {{db-self}} to tag it. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello-

I have uploaded an image to my Wikipedia page and am having a problem trying to locate exactly where to place the copyright tag. I proceeded to repeat the process by uploading the same image file and adding the proper copyright tag under 'Comments', but it still said the image has a copyright issue. Where exactly do I place the tag? Please let me know what needs to be done to fix this issue. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianne Calvo (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you added a correct license tag to the image, however as the image was taken from a website without a free-use copyright policy you need permission of the original rights-holder to use the file. That is why it was tagged the second time. To use the image, the original rights holder would have to email OTRS to verify their willingness to release it under a free license. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, Rcsprinter123 (chatter) @ (16:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

Fernando Errazuriz

Dear Mifter

Thank you for your message The truth that I've had pretty bad as a simple Wiki contributor. Please see the discussion with Mr. Kuñall both English and Castilian and draw your own conclusions.

Moving on to what is relevant Article: I think Kuñall a workshop here [[2]] please if you can help me in what {you appreciate the many, please if you do not mind. If you could replace the above improvement by this. This is if you are concerned.

Please one thing, the common name is Fernando Errazuriz Aldunate and not as the article says, you can name countless history books where it is shown above.

Thank you

--Historiador1923 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

estimated Lord This is the Sandbox [| Workshop Historian] created by Kuñall, I develop it, please if you could assist I would appreciate so as to improve the article thanks you --Historiador1923 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry its taken me so long to reply, I've unfortunately been busy these past few days. I'd be happy to take a look at the sandbox when I get a moment. Let me know if you need anything else. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and Happy Adminship Anniversary

--Historiador1923 (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Mireya Baltra

Dear Mifter

Please if you can review the article that believeth; I did what I could but, please if you see something wrong please tell me to fix it. Thank you very much for your reply.

--Historiador1923 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you and Happy Adminship Anniversary

--Historiador1923 (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Your bot is messing with my time and efforts. If it can not provide specific, clear and precise details regarding a concern it has about a file I have uploaded then it should not be used. The automated threat to take down a free-use photo on an article I am completing has forced me to spend 2 hours trying to figure out what problem there is in my upload or attributions. I see none. I have uploaded a half dozen other files for this article with no problems. If there is a problem with this instance it appears to be solely in regard to a poorly constructed bot randomly barging into my work.

Please explain, and more importantly please tell me what the specific problem is with the copyright of this file Indian_women_building_airfield_WWII.jpg

cheers Robert Brukner --Brukner (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon

Hi Mifter, we are to release a new major version of huggle, but we did receive almost no feedback from our beta testing team, which you are a part of (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members). It would be of a great help if you could download it (if you have windows, all you need to do is getting http://tools.wmflabs.org/huggle/files/huggle3.1.0beta.exe and putting it to a folder where you have installed huggle) and test it. You can always get a help with making it @ #huggle connect!

Major changes:

  • Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.
  • Ranged diffs - you can select multiple revisions and get a huge diff that display all changes done to them.
  • Fixes of most of bug reports we had so far

In case you found a bug, please report it to bugzilla: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?product=Huggle&list_id=147663 thank you! Petrb (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have released all my rights for this image as well as for another image named Shri Dev Rameshwar Temple Building. I have also added a copyright tag as

for both images. Still I got a message about speedy deletion of the page. The images taken from the blog solely belong to me and i intend to release it for public use. Please let me know how I can use other images from the blog for updating the page. Thank you. Abhishek Pujari (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Corralejo in 1920 photo

I don't understand how it can be considered "evil" showing a very interesting probably never seen before photo of MY town. MY TOWN!!! It's interesting to the people researching the town, and you baffle on about licence! Fine, if you think your clever, YOU put a licence on it, and show everyone how good you are! I re-inserted the photo. Let's see if you'll take it off AGAIN.

Woodywyatt (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! There are three things you should be aware of regarding your image. 1) I did not personally place any tag on your image, it was done by my automated robot which checks to ensure all images have an appropriate license tag per our image use policy. 2) Image License tags are critical to ensuring that images are allowable for use on Wikipedia and for those who would reuse images off Wikipedia so they may follow the terms of the appropriate license. And 3), at no point was your lack of a license called "evil" or any other negative adjective. My bot provided a simple notification that your image was missing a tag, nothing more or nothing less. Your hostility is unwarranted and violated our policy on No Personal Attacks, Civility, and assuming the best of intentions. I can understand your frustration (we were all new to Wikipedia at some point), but I cannot help you if you are attacking me and if you continue to do so you will likely be blocked for your attacks as our community cannot function if people are constantly insulting one another when they have issues. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or at the helpdesk. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

About the Corralejo 1920 photo...

I'm truly sorry for my small outbreak earlier about the Corralejo photo I tried to upload. I'm just VERY proud of my hometown and can get easily offended sometimes. I got the photo from a friend of the family, so what do I put in the licence so I can keep this precious photo online? (How do I do it even? I'm new to Wikipedia)

Woodywyatt (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
  2. Scotland Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
  3. Nepal Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
  4. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
  6. Florida 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
  7. Colorado Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
  8. Canada Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Herm Matty.007 (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), United States WikiRedactor (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), Portugal Prism (submissions) and Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Bot broken

Your Bot is broken. It seems to put a no copyright and license tag warning on every photo that I upload even though they all have that information. Please fix it, as this is getting annoying. Sf46 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize for the briefness of this message, I am currently travelling and typing on my smartphone. I took a look at the images my bot tagged and it appears to be functioning normally. The reason it is tagging your images is because they do not have an image copyright template on them. As your images appear to be public domain due to age, simply adding {{pd-old}} should be enough as the image policy requires license tags on all images (which is what my Bot checks for). If you have any questions please don't hesitate to let me know. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

mifterbot malfunction

MifterBot incorrectly identified this file as having no copyright tag. Jstuby (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my bot did not make a mistake with your image. According to the version of the image that my bot saw, the image did not have a copyright tag when it was tagged. You added one to the image when you removed the tag. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

MifterBot

Hi, The bot tagged File:Woolwich Central Tesco.jpg with F4 - I'm not sure why, when the page clearly shows CC-BY-SA-2.0. Maybe it does not recognise that Geograph template used by the uploader? Ronhjones  (Talk) 10:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you are exactly correct. MifterBot determines if an image has a license tag based off any templates on the image page are in the Image Copyright Tag Category. Because the Geograph tag was not in the category my Bot didn't recognize the license. I've since added the template to the category and this should not occur again. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Source for image of Abu Anas al Libi

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/10/07/al-libi-ap-328.jpgJogershok (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 September 2014

Source for the image of File:Al-libi-ap-328.jpg was AP Photo/FBI.

I do not see how I can add this.

Jogershok (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for communicating with the user Mifter (talk · contribs). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hersh Davis-Nitzberg

The copyright holder gave me permissions to use the images on his Wiki If its not right please help me to correct it. I'm trying to create a wiki for Hersh Davis-Nitzberg. Thank you for any help you have to offer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zar07 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Scotland Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mifter. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

  • We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
  • In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
  • The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Huggle message

Hey Mifter! You are receiving this message because you are subscribed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers

I have recently launched a new downloads for beta testers that contains nightly builds of huggle, eg. versions that are built every day from our master branch and contains latest huggle. These builds are currently provided only for Windows and Ubuntu. You can find them here: http://huggle.wmflabs.org/builds/

Please keep in mind that these don't have any automatic updates and if you download and start using nightly build, you will need to update it yourself! So don't get yourself to running old version, it's possible to install both stable and nightly huggle, which is what I suggest.

Keep the bug reports coming to phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?projects=Huggle Many thanks! Petrb (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone ever told you...

Not to template the regulars? And if you must do so, please ensure you know what you're talking about first. Said IP has been doing this for well over a month, across numerous IPs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't believe in that idea that we shouldn't template the regulars (see WP:TR). However, I am concerned that your edit summaries, and general decorum (which I am assuming is sarcastic in nature) are straying close to being personal attacks and are assuming the bad faith of others. Finally, after looking over the articles you had requested to be protected, the IP which I suspect you are concerned about appears to have only started really editing yesterday. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The IP has shown precious little interest in sourcing things over the last month. Yes, that IP started editing yesterday, but they have a combination of a dynamic IP, and moving around the country a lot. Which is why they are not a new user, and why I am not treating them as such. They've hopped to another location on a totally different range. They've also been blocked under a few of the IPs before, but it would take me hours to list every single one they've used. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why small=yes?

In your edit of 22:23, 17 May 2015 of Chinx, you added {{pp-pc1|expiry=7 June 2015|small=yes}} at the top. Given that template pp-pc1 defaults to small=yes, what is the purpose of adding small=yes? I'll look for a response here. Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your note. The "small=yes" is added automatically by Twinkle (a semi-automated piece of software designed to streamline maintenance functions) when it tags the page after I have protected it. As not all protection templates default to the smaller padlock, the software always adds it as a precaution unless I specify otherwise. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic

So next you are going to tell me the avengers are not real? Let me guess you are a DC fan! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jt211630 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

regarding edit

Hi, Thanks for the edit on the page Pandaga Chesko. Actually some anonymous user did that I was just trying to revert that due to slow internet connection it took time..But,Thanks to you you did it fastly..

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijitrath75 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your help, I've also removed the warning from your talk page. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello mr.mifter :) , I totally agree with you protecting the Messi's page , but i feel it is misunderstanding and very unfair to tag me as I was in editing war with someone as what mr @Qed237: suggested ,because all i did is I restored the page to Carlos's version which Qued did it TWICE himself , while i have done it once. but i dont know how to jump edits so i had to do it one after eachother until i have reached Carlo version like him, but i have done it once he even has done it twice , and when i felt this user doesnt want to listen i even posted on Qued's page my self .and when he removed other information after qued restored it , I didnt do anything just posted on Qued page again telling him he did this . So to tell me i was risk being blocked it is unfair and i didnt break any wikipedia rules as i believe ! So hope you understand. and explain for me what i did wrong . or just tell me it is misunderstanding :)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Qed237#Hello

I am very honest person and i like to be treated fairly thats all .

thank you

Adnan (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you don't see it before RFPP archives it

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you declining the protection request on Titus Bramble. Since then, the user beyond the IP has hopped to a new one. However, for you to say "not enough activity" doesn't really show any sign that you've analysed the history; the previous protection was for a year (hence why the last request was in 2013), and since then, almost every single new user or IP has been a vandal on this article. As this is a BLP, I'm fairly sure that this article easily justifies an indefinite semi-protection, based on this history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luke, thanks for the note. After looking at the page again, I still believe there is not enough activity for indef semi-protection. There have been less than 50 edits since October of last year (the previous protection expired in September as you pointed out), and while a number of the edits made by unregistered contributors are not constructive you cannot infer the actions of future unregistered users from the past. I do not believe that the sporadic editing and issues are prevalent enough to justify prohibiting unregistered and newly registered contributors from editing and contributing to the page (to quote directly from the protection policy "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view)."). That being said, it is a BLP and noting that there have been some more disruptive edits since I declined the first request I've decided to implement temporary pending-changes protection on the article which will still enable all to edit, but provide another level of assurance before such edits are displayed publicly. Best, Mifter (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If it was anything other than a BLP, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But look at it from this angle, and from my perspective (which may be slightly more informed than yours, given that I expect my familiarity with association football is probably greater - no offence meant here. Bramble was not a particularly well-rated player during his time at Newcastle); it is a BLP, with a long protection log, and the previous protection length was a year long. This generally means that the next protection level is indefinite. In addition to this, he hasn't played professionally since 2013; so there is little chance of the article needing that much in the way of updating (and, by extension, most IP edits will probably be vandalism). In my opinion, once the vandalism started again in November 2014, the page should've had a protection request that resulted in an indef protection, given the prior history. And there hasn't been a single good new user/IP edit since that protection expired. The fact that this article has been poorly patrolled is evident when you consider that [3] has not been oversighted/revdelled as of right now (just emailing Oversight as I type this to get it nuked) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Request to reconsider

While "the spirit of an open encyclopedia" is a fine sentiment, "the spirit of an open forum to continue character assassination campaigns and harassment and casting unsourced aspersions " are not. If they are truly here to build an encyclopedia rather than evade detection as part of continued coordinated off site harassment campaigns, they can create an account and be accountable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, I appreciate the candor and the opportunity to discuss this further. That being said, while I understand your sentiments, I disagree with them. Our encyclopedia welcomes anonymous editing, was built around the idea that "anyone can edit", and the fundamental assumption of good faith. Having the article being full protected for a number of months is already something I find concerning (personally I believe Pending Changes Level 2 combined with semi-protection would be the ideal solution here if the community was not so split about using it). Blocking anonymous/new users from even being able to suggest an edit or make a comment on the talk page is something I find contrary to our goal here. We were all new once and while AGF shouldn't be taken to detrimental levels protecting a talk page is something I believe blanket assumes the bad faith of new/unregistered contributors and is a little biting. The talk page is not something a reader would normally see unless it was sought out and it is the forum for discussion to take place about changes to the article. I believe it should remain open for that discussion in all but the most exceptional cases. Best, Mifter (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This is quite obviously an exceptional case, as the number of deleted and suppressed revisions relating to this person should make plain. She has been the victim of a long-term abuse campaign and your refusal to recognize this fact does not reflect well on the encyclopedia. Highlime (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there and Welcome to Wikipedia! In this case we have already taken the fairly extraordinary step of fully protecting a mainspace article for a period of months due to the horrific harassment/abuse this individual is facing. By protecting the page, the article's talk page (which is an internal project page) is the only place an unregistered or newly registered editor would be able to discuss and provide input to recommend changes to the article. Without restating my rationale above too much, our encyclopedia believes that this input is valuable in shaping consensus and improving the article and I believe protecting a "non-front facing" discussion page blanket assumes the bad faith of new/unregistered contributors and is contrary to the goal of this project. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Message

Hi - Thank you for your message. I've just been working to made the article readable by reducing the length but ensuring all points are retained and POV is not changed. It wasn't a mistake. I felt the point of the paragraph was covered, and in better detail in the following paragraph - and the paragraph I removed was not relevant to that section. I have spent a lot of time on this trying to make it readable. What level of detail in the comment is necessary? 131.111.141.163 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the note. After looking at your edits I realize that you are correct and making positive changes to the article. I apologize for reverting your edits, the tool I was using (called Huggle) only shows the last change made and in isolation your cleanup looks like content removal vandalism which is why I reverted the edit. Thank you for your work on the page, looking at the changes you have made it has drastically improved the readability of the article. Please don't hesitate to let me know should you have any questions or need any help (if you really like it here you can also create an account which would decrease the chance of future mix-ups such as this.) Best, Mifter (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I feel really terrible. I have an account LOTSScholar but often forget to sign in. My IP is fixed by my university so I am not operating anonymously. I just discovered a whois would reveal my email address! Perhaps you could offer some general advice. With regard to lengthy articles how can you go about drastically reducing word count - and even blanking sections - without looking like vandalism? I tried to raise the issue on the talk page but no response from anyone. That page in particular contained so much double ups and referenced every single possible thing, some relevant, some less relevant and some just not even relevant. The problem appears to be that the issue is so contentious that both relevant POVs just add more content, citing more sources for their side, instead of actually incorporating the contrasting POVs into the existing framework. 131.111.141.163 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Please help. Another user has just reverted again without explanation! I thought this was resolved? 131.111.141.163 (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm writing a note to the editor who reverted right now. Mifter (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I've left a note, we'll see what the rationale is and if it was similar to my original misconstrual of vandalism or something else (in which case we would have to discuss how to proceed). And, editing logged out is perfectly alright, the advantages of being logged in are the ability to edit semi-protected pages, upload files, and a number of small things like advanced editing tools, etc. Another bonus as you are now seeing is also a lesser likelihood of being accidentally seen as a vandal as you can build up a history of positive contributions. Personally, I am an advocate for being bold when it comes to fixing issues (including removing content where necessary) and editing while logged in is probably one of the easiest ways to minimize or avoid things like this in the future as editors are not as likely to revert an established user without looking in more detail first. Also, utilizing detailed edit summaries can be helpful to conveying reasons for removal making it less likely your edits are misconstrued as vandalism as they provide insight at a glance at what you are trying to accomplish. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
He has put an IPA on my talk page? This is really unfair. I was just trying to contribute and now he has accused me of vandalism and made my personal details public? 131.111.141.163 (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
How long will this take? I feel really uncomfortable about all this. You will note I have been working on that page for weeks. This is not some hit and run vandalism. I need to get this resolved.131.111.141.163 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally such notices are merely for information, there is no connotation of vandalism nor is it making any details public that would not already come up through a WHOIS or similar search. I truly don't think that the user is being malicious. Without trying to sound like a broken record, editing logged in (especially when working on things that can be accidentally misconstrued as vandalism) would make most of these issues moot (logged in users IP's cannot be pulled except under extreme circumstances). We'll get this all straightened out, I apologize for the headache I'd imagine this is causing you. Mifter (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This is what the page looked like before my vandalism Before I started edited weeks ago . Perhaps he should just revert everything I have done. This is not a nice way to treat people. 131.111.141.163 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm just sitting here waiting. Can you do anything? This is causing a panic attack. 131.111.141.163 (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I suspect the editor had similar logic for reverting as I originally did, I've undone their edit. Should they have an opinion that the content should be restored then we will have to discuss to determine how to proceed as warring over content never ends well. Once again, thanks for your work. Mifter (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I said above, I truly do not believe that the editor had bad intentions. The work we do here (yourself included) for the most part is thankless, just as your edit appeared at first glance to be vandalism to me I suspect that this editor made a similar mistake. They were very likely just trying to protect the encyclopedia and the hard work of others from those who may wish to harm it, and it is not in any way personal. We all have the same goal, to build an encyclopedia and Wikipedia's unique aspects are what make it such a great tool and place to contribute. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
He could have at least responded. Some people have health difficulties and when you imply they are vandals and don't even respond it makes the problem worse. You responded. He didn't. 131.111.141.163 (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
My fast response time was because you caught me right before I was about to do something else and I had some extra time I could shuffle. We are all volunteers and I would suspect that if we sent the editor a message just as they were finishing up they may have not seen it or they may not have had time to respond fully. It helps for piece of mind to assume the best until you have concrete evidence to do otherwise. Mifter (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
My health means I don't always think that way. I hope you understand. He keeps putting an IPA on my talk page. I really don't want it there because it can identify me personally. Am I required to have it there? I am required to be identified personally? 131.111.141.163 (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have had a user revert months of work on the Enrica Lexie case article describing them as repetitive disruptions. I have reverted that but I am afraid they will do it again and I don't want to enter into an edit war. Can you suggest anything? 131.111.141.163 (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remove false information

Check this link: http://footballdatabase.com/league-scores-tables/spain-liga-bbva-2011-12 (Clearly, ozil has more assists than messi in 2011-12 season) So,

Clearly this record in messi's page: (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lionel_Messi#Spain) Only top goalscorer and top assists supplier in the same league season: 2011/12 (50 goals and 15 assists)

is FALSE!

This is one of the frivolous and fan made lies about messi among many!

The references to many of messi's page records are based on fan run fcbarcelona website and clearly have wrong stats as proven by this example.

Please delete this immediately. I ask you because you have protected the page. SupernovaeIA (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How it is clearly..? the website you provided doesn't mention anything about assists..and I dont understand your point about barcelona website..why does it matter? and how a global wide club website shouldn't be count for unknown other website ? if they are listed something as national record..and CLEARLY stating it is tied with Ozil at 15 assists each..why should we doubt it ?

also my friend check Ronaldo's page you would find some of the records i have added my self to his records section ..I was the one who checked messi page also and marked the records which didn't have a reference so they were deleted . I have deleted the fastest hat-tricks record at his page because it was wrong , so i am not sure what you were implying , and as an advice always assume a good faith in other editors we are here all to improve the page , it wont really get anyone good in making messi o ronaldo better .

here is other examples : https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Mosmof#Hello_. seriously my friend don't let this debate turn to assumption and why we are doing this . thank you . Adnan (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mifter (talk) can you please move discussion to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football so other editors have their opinion ? I dont know how to do it and it doesnt seem right to move it from your page without your consensus . thank you

Adnan (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to United States Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), and New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by There's always time for skeletons Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with Lancashire J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination

Hi, Mifter! I've moved you to the "inactive" section at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination because you don't seem to have been that active recently. Feel free to move yourself back at any time. APerson (talk!) 17:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mifter/Archive_8&oldid=1090545014"