User talk:Mz7/September–November 2015

How to delete an article?

How do you delete an article? Just want that one article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomebroboy1 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Awesomebroboy1. Normally, when the author of a page requests deletion of an article—either explicitly or by removing all of the content the page—an administrator will speedily delete the page under section G7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. However, this is only done when you, as the author, are the only contributor of the all substantial content in the article. Unfortunately, another editor, The sigman (talk · contribs), has also contributed significantly to the page, so we also need his OK as well in order to qualify for speedy deletion. This is done because the other authors might not want the article deleted as you do. Other deletion processes exist, however; another editor has proposed the article for deletion under the proposed deletion process. If no other editor objects to deletion in 7 days, the article will be deleted. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me again, or consider asking at the Teahouse, which is a friendly environment for questions about Wikipedia. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Five million

Hey, I saw your draft proposal for the 5 millionth article open letter. It's not bad, but I do feel that it could go into the positive aspects a bit more, and that it perhaps does have a slight "there aren't many more brand new articles to create" feel (which just isn't true ). I've written an alternative version here, which I think strikes a balance between recognizing that 5,000,000 articles as an accomplishment and admitting that there's still a ways to go. Thoughts? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jakec: Looks good! I think your draft and mine could be merged. I agree, mine definitely doesn't talk a lot about content creation as much as it does contributing edits in general. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to alert both of you that I've created a merged version of both of your drafts at User:Spirit of Eagle/5million. Feel free to make any changes as needed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: Thank you! I'll be sure to take a look at it. Mz7 (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks good to me. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question

I submitted an article under this user name that was accepted after two previous edits. Now I have a massage that there may be a conflict of interest because of this user name. Can I copy the article (Military Order of the Cootie) and submit it under my own user name? This is an important article that needs to be available to Wikipedia users. I don't want to see it removed because of my placing it under a wrong user name. Thanks for your help. Puptent1cooties (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Puptent1cooties. I appreciate your diligence in acknowledging your conflict of interest. Wikipedia strongly discourages conflict-of-interest editing, but we don't outright prohibit it either. Submitting the article to the Articles for Creation project, and thus having it reviewed by another editor before publishing was the right decision—upon accepting the draft you wrote, I edited it and took out what I thought to be non-encyclopedic language. As a result, I have fairly high confidence that your contributions to date will not be removed, regardless of your username. With that being said, it is possible to transfer your contributions to a new username—please read Wikipedia:Changing username for information on how to do this. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Thank you, and best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your tremendous contributions to my getting this article published. As a new contributor I felt quite lost in this process. Without your help I'm sure I would have still not been published. Thanks again. Puptent1cooties (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Marco Antonio Barrera / IP

Greetings. I feel the need to clarify as to what is going on at the Marco Antonio Barrera article, since you were the one who warned the IP for falsely labelling my edits as vandalism. The same IP (or person, rather) has a colourful history of doing the same thing for many boxing-related articles. In June, they went around making bulk-edits by inserting hyphens into weight classes without any attempt at consensus. When challenged, they became childishly hostile. See here for more of their potty-mouthed tirades.

Following that, I opened up a discussion at WikiProject Boxing, to no avail—just a few editors chiming in, but no actual WikiProject guidelines established or changed. Therefore, since the IP clearly refuses to participate in civil discussion (they either say nothing or hurl abuse), am I at risk of tripping 3RR if I continue to revert their edits which, in turn, claim my edits to be vandalism? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: I understand your concern. I don't think you will get in trouble, and I don't think you should get in trouble. The only basis for the editor's reverts of you are that your edits constitute vandalism, which any established member of the community would clearly say otherwise. (In other words, you can safely assume that consensus will almost definitely back up your reverts because policy is unambiguous that your position is correct.) Their refusal to even attempt to understand this is strong evidence of a pattern of disruptive editing, which is made stronger by the evidence of refusing to engage constructively in consensus-building. The behavioral evidence is to me a strong indication that the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, although I am trying to assume good faith by leaving those warnings in hopes that they might listen. You would probably have a strong case of WP:NOT3RR #4 (blatant vandalism), and if the bureaucracy gets in the way, it looks like a clear WP:IAR case to me. In the future, if the user continues to edit disruptively in a similar fashion and you are unsure if you should continue reverting, I recommend filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so an administrator can deal with the situation. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Much thanks for the advice and reassurance. Based on previous patterns, I'm certain we haven't seen the last of that IP, but I'll do my best to keep things civil and not get dragged down to their level—based on my last interaction with them, I won't even bother saying a word. As far as I see it, it's just a case of rollback/refresh/repeat and waiting to see what happens. I'm prepared to state my case to any admins if need be, as this is surely more than a mere content dispute. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for patrolling my page! Now, I feel a lot safer from being vandalized. OmegaBuddy13 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@OmegaBuddy13: I'm not sure if patrolling your user page is "random" more than it is a routine one-time check—see Wikipedia:New page patrol. However, I appreciate the thanks. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, guess I used the wrong barnstar!

Well, I would thank you for watching my page. I will watch yours, too. OmegaBuddy13 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I see you moved part of the discussion at Talk:Mizrahi Jews under an invisibility umbrella, as being "off-topic personal attacks". Why didn't you also add the previous post "I do not understand why you insist on commenting on issues that you have no understanding about them." to that umbrella, being that that is where the attacks started? If you don't move the attack there, then please have the courtesy to keep my reply in place as well. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: I've moved the comment under the {{hat}} as requested. The entire exchange was extremely unfortunate, as it created animosity between two good-faith editors while simultaneously adding very little substance to the discussion. To avoid future conflicts, I would recommend avoiding the word "you" where possible. Addressing the other party with "you" is not a personal attack, but it makes it less likely for the other user to take it personally. The goal is to focus strictly on the content and not the contributors. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate both the move of the comment which I found insulting, and your advice. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

Hi, Mz7. Thank you for your full answer to Kaiwen0115 at WP:Teahouse/Questions#how?. As you say, IAR is indeed an important rule of Wikipedia, but I don't think it is appropriate to mention it as one of the first rules that a new editor sees, particularly if the new editor is young, as I suspect they may be from how they expressed their question. --ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. I appreciate your input. As you know, Wikipedia has a lot of policies, guidelines, and processes regarding editing and contributing, and I included IAR because I didn't want the editor to feel overwhelmed or obligated to follow every link at Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to contribute, and part of what "ignore all rules" means is that You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. However, I do agree that the way I phrased it makes "ignore all rules" sound like it might be acceptable to deliberately break rules because they aren't important, which is not the right message I want to send—rules are very important to how we do things here. Perhaps, in the future, I won't phrase it as "ignore all rules" at first. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wings for My Flight

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wings for My Flight you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wings for My Flight

The article Wings for My Flight you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wings for My Flight for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed redirect requests?

Hi - I recently added a number of redirect requests (you can see them here - the last 4, but it looks like you removed them. Why did you do that? All the requests are for the common names of the plants/animals, and some of them are even cited as such in the target article. Thank you. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I didn't mean to do that. It appears that about an hour ago, unbeknownst to me, my mouse accidentally clicked the "rollback" button, which automatically undoes every edit made by a user in one click. I think it happened while I was looking at my watchlist. I have restored the requests that I foolishly and unwittingly removed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Best, Mz7 (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good old autopilot? No worries - thanks for your speedy response and restoring the requests for me. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To prevent incidents like this from happening in the future, I have now disabled the rollback feature from being displayed on my watchlist. Mz7 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your over month-long contributions in planning the 5 millionth article celebration, which included writing one of the two initial letters to the community and handling the copyright issues regarding the logo change. Thank you for your help! Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Responded on your user talk page. Mz7 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your contributions to the Five million articles announcement. Pine✉ 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Pine! Mz7 (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wings for My Flight

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my Teahouse questions. I appreciate the help.Yfff (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Yfff: You're welcome! I'm glad to help. Mz7 (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

18 November 2015

I'm sorri about my last edit to annes page. I meant to say tumblr loves her, not that she loves tumblr. i was confuzed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveannefrank (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iloveannefrank: I see. Thanks for clarifying. However, I don't think we should include that in the article, because "Tumblr" is a rather ambiguous description that can refer to many things—the company, the collective Tumblr community, specific communities on Tumblr, etc. Additionally, because Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts and not editors' personal opinions, if the claim is true, we should probably cite a reliable source to back it up. I appreciate your interest in contributing to this project! I invite you to read our welcome page to help you find your way around. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Content Dispute, Please take a look

Hello,

Your neutral opinion on the content dispute currently on-going at Hadith and Criticism of Hadith will be appreciated. The discussion thread is at: Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks. The main issue is the material sourced from Wael Hallaq's paper, sourced from JSTOR, but is also available at: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html

Thanks. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Code16. I read the discussion and unfortunately, I don't think I have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to formulate a worthwhile contribution to the debate at this time. I noticed that a few other editors and administrators whom I trust have stepped in and offered their neutral third opinions, and that a request for mediation has been filed. With this in mind, I think it's best if I abstain on this one. I appreciate the invitation, and best of luck in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution to the dispute. Mz7 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thanks anyway. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 04:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Checking

Hi! Can You check for me, if this edit (from me) "ok" is? Thanks! Fauvirt (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Fauvirt. Your edit added a "red link", or a link to a page that does not exist. The page you edited is a "disambiguation page," the purpose of which is to direct readers to the correct article when one title has multiple meanings. The page MOS:DABRL describes why your edit needs to be tweaked a bit. Entries to disambiguation pages should typically have at least one "blue link" or link to an existing page. If it is a red link, then also include a link to an existing article that mentions or discusses the red-linked subject. On the Bill Pierce (disambiguation) page, look how the entry at the top is set up as * William G. Pierce, in United States Senate elections, 2006. Notice how it has one red link, but also one blue link that mentions the red-linked subject. If there are no articles that discuss or mention the subject you want to link to, consider writing about it first before adding a red link to it at a disambiguation page. See WP:AFC for how to create an article. Additionally, entries to disambiguation pages shouldn't be bolded except for the primary topic, if there is one. In this case, it is Bill Pierce, whose name is bolded at the top of the article. I hope this helps. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask me for clarification. Mz7 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In the hungarian Wikipedia are disambiguation pages too, but i do: other Wikipedia - other habits. And my english is... So thank you, for this "crash-course"! So... Bill Pierce, the jazz saxophonist is now the "primary topic", Chris Michaels (″Birth name Bill Pierce″) and 2 "Bill Pierce (American football)" (from: Template:Austin Kangaroos football coach navbox, one is in Template:Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks football coach navbox too) are doesn't on this disambiguation page and Bill Pierce, whom I wanted to add to the page can't be there, because there is no article ("red link") or part article (as by your example with William G. Pierce) about... and if it were, then were the bolding wrong... Is this right? If 'Bill Pierce (photographer)' were blue, were "See also" the right place? (Sorry for my english and for the many questions...) Fauvirt (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: his photo is this: File:Thomas Kuhn.jpg. Fauvirt (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ps2: Is this User:Fauvirt/Bill Pierce (photographer) ok?... Fauvirt (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

PS3: Is this so right? Fauvirt (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fauvirt: I apologize for the delay in responding. Yes, Bill Pierce (disambiguation) looks good as of now. With regards to your draft for a Bill Pierce article, it looks okay format-wise. I would remove the words "award-winning" in the very first sentence, since it is what we call a "peacock" term, a term that seeks to promote the subject while imparting very little actual information. Also, be mindful of our notability guidelines. Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The source from The New York Times that you found is great, but are there more like it? If so, it is important that you add it to the article. Quality of sources is crucial for the survival of an article on the English Wikipedia. If you have further questions, feel free to ask me, or you can head to the Teahouse, where other experienced editors can weigh in as well. Best, Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. :o) And thank you! With my experience in the Hungarian Wikipedia I think I understand almost all things what you wrote. But my english is really bad... this is, why is difficult to me find adequate sources.. and to write own text in articles... I find even these: https://www.google.hu/search?q=%22Bill+Pierce%22+site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers; https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=130; https://books.google.hu/books?id=yegsCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=%22Bill+Pierce%22+photo+time+magazine; http://www.allmusic.com/artist/bill-pierce-mn0001516376; http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-candid-frame-a-photography-podcast/e/tcf-ep-247-bill-pierce-35258854 (http://ibarionex.net/thecandidframe/2014/8/31/the-candid-frame-247-bill-pierce) - but I'm not sure which is reliable source amongst these.. can you help me in this? And I don't understand that "Overseas Press Best Photoreporting from Abroad" and the "Leica Medal of Excellence" what for awards are, if they..? Feel free to enter into it, or repair! To be a real Article, I need to click "Submit your draft for review!", or I move it to (Article)? And thank you very much for your help once more! :o) Fauvirt (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fauvirt: To be a real article, there are two methods on English Wikipedia, and you can choose between them. Firstly, clicking "submit your draft for review!" will submit your draft through our articles for creation project, and it allows experienced editors to review your content before it is published to the main article space. This typically decreases the chance of deletion once the draft is accepted, but if the reviewer finds issues that may cause the article to be deleted if published, the draft will be declined. (Typical issues are non-notability, lack of reliable sources, advertising/promotional content.) The second method for publishing is, as you mentioned, directly moving it to "(Article)". Do this at your own risk, because unlike the articles for creation project, if our new page patrollers find issues, the article will be tagged for cleanup or possibly nominated for deletion, depending on the issue. I will help look into your sources as soon as I get the time. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation of sources

@Fauvirt: I hope the following evaluation helps.

• Google Newspapers search results – ? this is a list of search results for "Bill Pierce" in Google's newspaper archive. It's possible there may be reliable sources here, but it is not clear which ones are about the Bill Pierce you want to write about. A lot of them are about Billy Pierce (an American baseball pitcher). The second one is apparently about an insurance agent named Bill Pierce. Consider refining your search.
• RangeFinderForum.com – N this appears to be an Internet forum that anyone can post to. per WP:SELFPUBLISH, this is not a reliable source.
• Photojournalism: An Ethical Approach by Paul Martin Lester on Google Books – Y appears to a notable mention in a reliable, published book
• AllMusic entry – Y AllMusic is generally considered a reliable source to verify biographical information. However, there is not a lot of information there; thus, I'm doubtful as to whether it contributes much to notability.
• Stitcher podcast "The Candid Frame" interview – Y very in-depth interview and coverage of Pierce from a reliable Internet radio source
  • Ibrarionex.com – duplicate of "The Candid Frame" podcast above

The "Leica Medal of Excellence" appears to be an annual photography award presented by Leica Camera. I'm not sure what the "Overseas Press Best Photoreporting from Abroad" award is. Since these don't appear to be very notable awards, I am not sure if I would include this in the article. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

From the list i used just this.

Is it correct, if i don't use an "potential source" i writing it in the "external links" section? If it's, i click & try "Submit your draft for review!" :o) Fauvirt (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fauvirt: I think it's okay to leave potential sources in the external links section. Our guidelines at Wikipedia:External links are a helpful read for determining what would be best for this section. Best, Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, meanwhile I worked on the article... Can you look at it? Aaaand... I contacted Bill Pierce personally. :o) I will try first to get from him "secondary sources that are reliable", then... if it is necessary... for example he will pictures... can I him direct to you somehow?... I'm not sure, that I am the right person to explain what to do...? Fauvirt (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fauvirt: I definitely think you've improved the article since it was last declined. I'm not sure how much help Mr. Pierce himself can provide. If he is aware of newspaper, magazine articles, or books written about him, then I suppose he can provide those. Ultimately, the question with notability is how much coverage in secondary sources exist, and if additional sources do not exist, perhaps it is too soon to write an article about Bill Pierce. If he wishes to donate pictures to Wikipedia, directing him to our page Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials might be best. My Wikipedia email is mz7.wikipedia@gmail.com. I'm starting to become a little busier since the weekend is over now, so I don't have enough time to conduct a full review right now. I will try this weekend. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! & I wish you good luck! Fauvirt (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fauvirt: Went to go check up on the article, and saw that it had already been published! Bill Pierce (photographer). Congratulations! I will keep the page on my watchlist for future development. Mz7 (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes! :o) Without you it had not been so! So: Thank you-thank you-thank you!!! Fauvirt (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited On Writing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Should be  Resolved. Mz7 (talk) 00:14, 23 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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

NONADMINARB RfC

Hi Mz7, before I file a phabricator request could you please clarify whether you mean by this that there is not a consensus for 'abusefilter-view-private' to be added to the CU package? Also just to clarify, none of the proposals needs WMF foundation involvement as they've already stated that they'd allow it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: There is a consensus to add 'abusefilter-view-private' to CheckUsers as well as oversighters. My diff there was to note a minority opinion for the record. Thanks for clarifying on the WMF. Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

• Op-ed: Wikidata: the new Rosetta Stone

• News and notes: Fundraising update; FDC recommendations

• In the media: Erasmus Prize awarded to Wikipedia; trouble on the Russian Wikipedia

• Recent research: Do Wikipedia citations mirror scholarly impact?; co-star networks in silent films

• Featured content: Caves and stuff

• Traffic report: J'en ai ras le bol

• Arbitration report: Third Palestine-Israel case closes; Voting begins

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland urge Reiss Engelhorn Museum to reconsider suit over public domain works of art

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)