User talk:Mufka

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mufka.

This is the user talk page for User:Mufka, where you can send messages and comments to Mufka.

PLEASE READ - Thank you Comments on my edits to date pages? Please leave comments on the respective page's talk page. I will see the message there. If the message is left here, I will move it to the subject's talk page. If I posted a message on your talk page, please reply there to keep the conversation together, I will see it. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Taking care of mass-vandalism

Hi there. I noticed you deleted a bunch of vandalism pages. Just a note, in case you didn't know, we now have Special:Nuke to get rid of such pages. Regards SoWhy 11:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just wondering how you did that. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It was only recently enabled here, so I guess most people don't know about it :-) Regards SoWhy 11:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:HarveyCarter

...is presumably the same as User:GranvilleHouston? (User:Granville1 has been listed as an HC sock, so I'm guessing so).

Is HC banned, or simply indef blocked? The reason I ask is that I have no qualms about reverting banned users, regardless of the apparent merits of their edits, but I try to avoid reverting blocked users if their edits have any merit. I'd prefer to revert all edits, to remove any gratification from sock puppeteers, but I understand that that's not OK for users who are merely blocked.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The only article that I've really looked at in this case is Marlon Brando. In this particular case I think that consensus exists for a community ban for his socks and IPs from editing that article. While the consensus may not have been drawn out in discussion, it is clear that it exists in practice. Any edits to that particular article by noted IP addresses can be reverted without discussion. HarveyCarter is not formally banned so blanket reverts by his socks site wide can't be done. He has been brought to WP:AN many times but a ban was never proposed. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith: Eric Clapton

The user continued to vandalize the page, after the other wiki user warned them against doing so. Checking the page history and the warning history will reveal this. It is obvious it is a vandalism only account, and it is safe to assume bad-faith in this instance. Please address accordingly, and block the IP. Srobak (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

See your talk. I must respectfully state that you are just plain wrong. Please check the contrib history more carefully. The vandal did not edit after the initial warning was left. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that is the case. Original user posted warn after 2 different sets of vandal reverts. Thought the warn was in between. 00ps. :) Reverted my warn Srobak (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

pirate guy

just look at his rev. hist. HE HAS BEEN WARNED ENOUGH, and still goes on. BLOCK HIM!!! Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 20:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The edits do not appear to be vandalism. Have you tried to discuss your concerns with the editor rather than issuing canned warnings? Looks like a good faith editor. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

'Private' article

Hi. Regarding this edit, you were right in that the IP needs to be warned more. I overlooked that because I was attempting to communicate with the person via edit summaries, in which I explained the policies that they keep ignoring.

However, you also mentioned that the edits "don't look like vandalism." Firstly, the edits contain unverified, controversial claims about a living person. Secondly, they are violating two of the core policies -- WP:V and WP:NOR. They are not good-faith edits; the editor is aware that the policies exist (as evidenced by their reply in edit summaries) and has chosen to ignore them. Anyway, I'll re-list the editor after they've received sufficient warning. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone violates wiki policies doesn't mean that the edits are vandalism. They could still be good faith edits by an ignorant editor. The editor only used one edit summary and saying "There are references" doesn't indicate a complete understanding of policy by itself. This is where we need to be careful not to bite the editor and help them to understand why their edits might not be constructive. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

• Regarding the GMA Fan message. He did to me first, I just did that to return the favor. Some people are just to vandalistic that they wouldn't easily be asked. Its the only way I can make him to stop. --Witchy2006 (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

FBrazil

Hi. Thanks for blocking Fbrazil. He is now IP editing as 200.201.194.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) if you could block that, too. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 15:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubos Na Ang Luha Ko / Ubos Na Ang Luha Ko

• Are you an administrator? If you are, please delete the article Ubos Na Ang Luha Ko because it is false and has no sources. Please Delete the article as soon as possible. The article's deletion case can be found here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubos Na Ang Luha Ko Thank You. GMA Fan 3:12PM 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My Response

• I was not canvassing you. I was just trying to look for an administrator that could delete the Ubos Na Ang Luha Ko. I am not trying to hurt you. I'm trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank You. GMA Fan 3:38PM 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cookies & cream photo licensing

Thanks for catching that. I removed my licensing/info from the other image, which is also mentioned on Witchy2006's talk page. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

E-mail this user

provide me with an email user link in toolbar. User:Maqsoodshah01 Thank you --Maqsoodshah01 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply

• Replied on my page.--NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

203.190.218.41

I noticed you gave them a warning about 3RR; however, the false information is still on the page. ––Türî∂n 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The content does not appear to be blatantly false. It appears to be a disagreement on wording. Discuss it on the article talk page. I'm not an expert on the subject so I can't revert it with confidence. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AIV

My note on AIV - here was incorrectly placed against the wrong listing. I've struck it out, but didn't want to remove it myself. Feel free to do so, if you think it clutters up the board, especially given the back and forth messages. The one that I did report on, was blocked. cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Dblazevski

About you choosing to delete the page on Nekhoroshev estimates I recently created: If you ask anyone working in dynamical systems, especially in the subbranch of Hamiltonian mechanics, they will tell you that this result is of central importance. I'm not sure in what way you think I am trying to "promote" this result, but I don't know Nekhoroshev personally nor do I know anyone close to him. Also, there was already a desire to create the article before I created it: There was a link to it on the "See Also" portion of the KAM theorem. Hence, there already seemed to be a demand for the article. Finally, on Nikolay Nekhoroshev's article, their is a mentioning of this result, and call's it his most important result. Dblazevski (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops...when I looked at my User talk:Dblazevski page, and saw that you deleted it, I thought that had meant you deleted the article I posted. Now I'm a bit confused (I'm new to creating pages on Wiki!), what exactly did you do, and why? ThanksDblazevski (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted your talk page because it was previously empty and someone posted a spam link on it. Now I've put a welcome message on it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to make Joseph Brant Arseneau compliant because it is belived it is notable

A new concern has been posted on the Joseph Brant Arseneau page regarding conflict of interest, can someone please explain more. Edits have been made only to add more reliable references to the work and research that has been done. These referneces include acedemic papers in the IEEE, a master thesis based on the work, a US patent based on the work amongst others, please help 67.84.71.42 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC) - Thanks

The primary contributor to the article is User:Bobuller who has admitted having worked with the subject of the article. This represents a potential conflict of interest and also could indicate that the editor is using original research which is not allowed. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Bobuller is doing development on the article at User:Jbarseneau/Joseph Brant Arseneau. The article was originated in substantially its current form by User:Jbarseneau. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case COI is definitely an issue. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I copied the "article", now on my USER/Page, from the Joseph Brant Arseneau page to my page because I thought it youd be good that they matched. Now I see that i is an issue. Who ever is editing the Joseph Brant Arseneau page, Bob Uller, Meg Riliey and others... did not get Thier content from me. Jbarseneau (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)