Misplaced Pages

User:MuZemike/Menu

• Deleted pages – if I deleted a page you were involved with in which you have an issue with, talk to me about it first here. I will be happy to userfy for you, restore the page if I believed to have made an error in judgment, or fulfill any other request within reason. If you would like a copy of any other deleted page to work on, also let me know. Keep in mind that I will not, for any reason, restore copyright violations or attack pages.
  • See Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted?

User page

Hello MuZemike, I am a user from swedish Misplaced Pages and I really must say that I like the design of your user page. May I ask if it´s ok to borrow it if I should trie to make my own one look better some day? Kind regards, Höstblomma (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and steal it if you like. It's not that difficult – it's basically a combination of usage of wikitables and CSS. Maybe you can improve on what I have :-) MuZemike 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Steal it..? ;-) Ok, if you say so.. :-) Thanks! Höstblomma (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew  at 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill Harry

I have to fly to the UK from Austria tomorrow for a week, and I wondered if there was anything more to do on the article?--andreasegde (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you addressed everything, then I don't think there is. I just got back from being away for a couple of days myself, so I still have to look at the article. Thanks, MuZemike 18:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind helping

Hi MuZemike. I need help dealing with this user and since you closed and blocked the IP's for one the SPI cases for this user, 23prootie, I thought maybe you could help out. I reported this user yesterday, 119.95.9.201 (talk · contribs), which is part of the range you ranged blocked for this user. This edit yesterday made from 119.95.9.201 was 23prootie by the IPs and the same behavior from the SPI you closed. This user, 124.104.34.236 (talk · contribs), basically reinstated what they did yesterday with this edit. Would you mind blocking or semi-protecting the talk page of Talk:Asian American? I know talk pages are rarely semi-protected, but it seems quite clear that 23prootie will continue to block evade. Elockid ·_Contribs) 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

IP switched to this IP, 124.104.42.21 (talk · contribs). Elockid ·_Contribs) 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ on this issue, this user who is attacking me appears to be a control freak and has an issue on owning articles. I am distraught by their constant badgering and I request that you disregard their request.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite hard to believe that is all coincidence as you put it. First off, you edit the same articles as 23prootie. Secondly, you voted for the same people as 23prootie and reintroduced the same subjects. Thirdly, you're obviously not a new user because one, you have knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and two and how to Wikilink and know where to go. This is highly unlikely behavior as a new user. The edits and the sockpuppetry I filed previously is enough to say that you are either a sock of 23prootie or editing on their behalf. Elockid ·_Contribs) 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Help

Elockid appears to be trying to own the Asian American talk page and is accusing me of being 23prootie. I feel offended and saddened by that gesture. I do not understand why there is controversy there. I only thought that I was just a passer-by trying to help. Could you tell this Elockid to leave me alone. I believe that he is quite annoying.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

POV sock

Hi, thanks for your reply. It looks like User:GoonerDP is back with a new sock: User:Crouchingdragon090. Check out these diffs: Nirvana888 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back earlier. Sock indefinitely blocked, sockmaster blocked 1 month. MuZemike 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. And you actually got back quite promptly so no worries. I'll keep an eye on this unhelpful and abusive editor and will let you know if something else comes up. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI Followup

As a principal in the past SPI related to user JuliaHavey, you might want to check the followup SPI report filed today. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth looking here too. --TraceyR (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still dealing with a bit of fallout from that, and am still convinced that Jackie JP (the one who declared her COI as a Juice Plus marketer up front, and updated an image) was unnecessary collateral damage. The behavioral evidence doesn't really implicate her as a sock puppet of anyone.

Last time I considered unblocking Jackie JP, the discussion was rapidly sidetracked by Julia Havey storming in and making legal threats toward Misplaced Pages. In fact, having seen Julia Havey's extensive network of sockpuppets, I'm convinced that Julia Havey is the source of basically all our problems with the Juice Plus article -- and that Jackie JP is very unlikely to be Julia Havey. For one thing, Julia Havey doesn't ask to be unblocked, she just shows up with a new IP and a new sockpuppet.

Would it be a problem if I unblocked Jackie JP, and then watched carefully what happens? I'd tell her she has to stay away from any Juice Plus-related edits, even when following WP:COI's recommendations to the letter, until the Julia Havey situation resolves.

rspεεr (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I already emailed you a while back on that, but if you feel I erred in my judgment, then go ahead. I just hope that this isn't another attempt to try and make the page their own. MuZemike 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also going to sit out of the current SPI case currently up due to my apparently poor handling of the case; another admin will hopefully look at it in a different view than I have. MuZemike 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Britisher

The user has requested unblocking. The reason for their block is socking, though the SPI report doesn't show a checkuser or details on how you arrived at the conclusion. Could you comment on the talk page on how you came to the conclusion so the request can be handled? Cheers, NJA (t/c) 07:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot speak for MuZemike obviously, but I can elaborate further on the evidence. Please see the now deleted history of GBNI. After initially trying to create a one sentence article about Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Britisher then attempted to turn it into a disambiguation page using Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Girls' Brigade Northern Ireland, which in itself was a redirect to the main Girls' Brigade article created by Britisher. This kind of pointless disambiguation using redirects is Mr Taz down to a T, see for example the history of Separatism in the United Kingdom where he creates a disambiguation page made almost exclusively of redirects he had just created. Then there's this edit where apparently "Great Britain and Ireland" (which would be GBI if such an acronym was in use at all) is added to the GNI disambiguation page. Mr Taz had a long history of nonsensical redirects and causing problems with disambiguation pages, many of them were deleted so I am having trouble providing diffs. Britisher's comment of "i am on wikipedia to show Great Britains place the UK and in the world" in his unblock request is also similar to something Mr Taz said on his talk page while blocked, sadly the history of that page is also deleted so I cannot provide a diff. O Fenian (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. After looking over the now deleted page for the sock master, I'm satisfied that this was an excellent block. Well done. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Future Ads entry

Hi MuZemike, Thanks again (in advance) for your review of the Future Ads entry. Looking forward to your feeback. User:Mwebbcom/Future Ads. Take care! Mwebbcom (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a few minor corrections to better balance out the tone of the article, but I think it looks acceptable enough for the mainspace, and I moved it back to Future Ads. MuZemike 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much MuZemike. The page looks really great! Thanks again for your help!! I appreciate it. 68.4.4.203 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mario vs Donkey Kong Minis March Again.jpg

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

RfA thankspam

Hello, MuZemike! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

RE, your "warning"

I removed your warning from my page as it is simply untrue. Please be more careful when accusing people of sockpuppetry in the future. Thanks. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. A CheckUser has confirmed that you have used another account (User:Frvernchanezzz), which I have already blocked. I will block you if you are caught using other accounts again, plain and simple. MuZemike 16:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong (again). So before you reply to me with your bullshit about "CHECKUSER WAS POSITIVE LOLOLOL", sit down, relax, and have a think about it. The only things that your pathetic attempt at harassing someone you don't even know, who has not edited in months, has proven is that you don't understand the concept of universities, and the fact that they have more than one person attending them (shocking revelation, I know). A lot of people make the mistake thinking that a positive CheckUser means they are "proven" to be the same person. This is incorrect. It simply means that in the two weeks prior to the CheckUser being performed, both persons had logged on from the same IP. That is all.

If you persist with this libel against me, I will be forced to take legal action, much like I did in a similar situation back in 2007. The other party thought they couldn't be found over there in Greece, but they were, it went to trial, and the verdict was in my favour.

People make mistakes, and you need to learn to accept it when you've made one. Just take it in stride and move on. This could be a life changing experience for you. Cheers. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S, if your reply is just going to be more false accusations, denial of truth, and just plain old harassment, don't bother. It'll inflame a situation that I'm willing to let rest. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI on 173.81.182.46‎

Thanks for blocking that user. One question, should I go through and revert all the current "top" edits the anon user has or just leave them be? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's they're incorrect or wrong, then go ahead. Technically, there's no ban in place, so there's no urgent "revert on sight" need here. MuZemike 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted some blatantly wrong ones, most are this "back and forth" changing of things over and over that gets annoying. There is really no rhyme or reason to the anons edits. What he does for one station page, he doesn't do for another. It is good that he is blocked. I will keep an eye out in case he pops up under another IP. Again...Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin intro

Ha. Thanks, for the intro and the laugh. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Norway spiral duplicate articles

It seems I created an article when one already existed. We'll just have to merge them. I was going to add more to the one I wrote, but that will have to wait until tomorrow at least. __meco (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started a section at Talk:Norwegian spiral anomaly of 2009#Duplicate page (history merge will be needed) to facilitate discussion as to what the article should be titled. MuZemike 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"12qq" unblock

Hi, Mike. Actually, "12qq" created all the other accounts. I can unblock those as well if leaving them blocked will prevent the original account from contributing. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If he's able to edit right now, then he's not under any autoblock apparently, so we might be OK leaving the blocks as-is. MuZemike 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...except I didn't realize the account was under a sockpuppet investigation. I hit the "last change" link when I saw the new message banner and I didn't see the link to the investigation on the page itself. If you reblock the account as a sock, believe me, I won't accuse you of a wheel war.  :) Have a good one; signing off for now. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)