Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 4 November 2013 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:MuZemike) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MuZemike. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Administrative hiatus

As of now, I am going on an administrative hiatus for the time being. I'm afraid that I have spent too much time as one and is beginning to burn out as a result. Moreover, I have made virtually no mainspace contributions, and I need to concentrate on that more, especially with the less time that I currently have to do so. In the meantime, please direct any other admin- or CheckUser-related to any of our other admins or CheckUsers that we have. Regards, --MuZemike 20:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ACE2012

I was wondering if you were planning to create the ACE RFC again this year. Your structure last year seemed to work well. Monty₈₄₅ 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In about a week or so. We started the RfC at around mid to late September last year, and it looks like that worked out okay. --MuZemike 20:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In a more perfect world, you could simply have an up-or-down "vote" on the idea of doing everything exactly the way it was done last year, just apply the time frames to this years calendar so everything is the same day of the week, with a package deal including the same voting method (support/(support+oppose)), SecurePoll, 50% threshhold, same handling of voter guides, and whatever else I am leaving out from last year's RfC. I don't see the point of taking all the pieces apart and putting them back together every year, especially when last year's RfC seemed to ratify (and in some cases slightly improve upon) virtually all the elements approved in the previous RfC's. We have a reasonable, working election system, I don't see why we can't just use it again. Of course, I realize that this is not a perfect world, and somebody(s) may insist that we have to re-invent the wheel again, and unfortunately there isn't time for a 30-day "repeat everything" RfC and then, if that fails, a second RfC with all the separate pieces like last year's. At least, I don't think there is. Neutron (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean, we can push it up slightly, but that means less time for the RfC, assuming everything went okay structurally last year and assuming roughly the same timeline. Perhaps we could do with less time, perhaps not. Also, there has recently been the discussion of organizing political parties, and while I have already made my stance clear personally on that issue, if they want to discuss about it for the upcoming ArbCom election, we shouldn't stop them from doing so. My concern is giving everybody ample time to discuss how the election should be run.

With any other issues that arise, such as the couple from last year, note that it's virtually impossible to come up with each and every contigency for every possible situation (such as sudden resignations and new seats); every election is going to have some different twist or turn that we (as a community) need to deal with. --MuZemike 23:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What I think we should do, and it was suggested in the feedback from last year, (sort of) is have the first topic of discussion at this year's RFC be a codification proposal. If the proposal is approved, last year's rules and structure would be set as the default for this year and future years. RFC proposals could still be made to amend the codified version if they develop consensus, and we would still want to have a yearly RFC to serve as a centralized place to make those proposals. That way we don't need to redo the discussions each year, and can focus on discussing proposed changes, and places for improvement. There are several items that from last year that need to be addressed regardless, such as Meta voter guides and unexpected vacancies. Monty₈₄₅ 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

On balance it probably makes sense to have one RfC rather than two (in succession) at this point. Monty, as for the codification proposal, are you suggesting that the RfC list all the elements that were decided last year, and ALSO have the separate elements as separate RfC questions? If yes, what happens if the "package" proposal gets a consensus but a separate proposal that is contradictory also gets a consensus? If no, what if the "package" proposal does NOT get a consensus? I'd be concerned that people might get confused and think that if they "vote" for the "package" they don't also need to vote on the separate elements, which might skew the results. Or maybe a "vote" for the package is counted as a "vote" for all the separate elements as well? That would need to be spelled out. As for the other issues: Were the "meta guides" listed in the navigation template last year? On the vacancies occurring right before or during the election, in an ideal world we would have a cutoff date before the due date for nominations, but the problem is that we have no vacancy-filling mechanism, so the earlier the cutoff the greater the chance that we end up with a vacant seat for more than a year. On the "parties", I think the "election system" should neither oppose them nor facilitate them, and should basically just ignore them. The examples of "facilitation" that I can think of would both involve the content of the ballot itself: Labeling of candidates by "party", and/or grouping of candidates by party. I would oppose either, and I can't imagine that any such proposals would get a consensus. If someone wants to have a "voter guide" that says "vote for these candidates because they are a member of X party", I don't see an issue with that, and they could be listed in the template along with the others. Of course, those are just my opinions. Neutron (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, we should have had an RFC on the codification proposal a month or so ago, I imagined it being just a proposal to adopt last year's system, without detailing every part of it, and subject to any other proposals gaining consensus that modify it. As for the problems, the alternatives are that we can have it only apply to future years, which would lead to us re-inventing the wheel one last time, or that the RFC is drafted as if it was already the case, (which was proposed in last year's feedback) which could undermine the legitimacy of the RFC in the eyes of some. The meta guides were included, as for the cutoff date, I intend to propose it be 2 days before the close of voting to provide the maximum opportunity to fill seats, while still allowing those who wish to vote strategically to amend their votes in light of the changes circumstances. (but thats a matter for the RFC proper, not about drafting it) Monty₈₄₅ 15:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the RfC should be the "standard" 30 days in length. Last year it was 45 days and I thought it dragged on interminably. Thirty days also leaves time for a "quick" follow-up RfC if there are any loose threads, but probably not a second full 30-day RfC. So I guess the codification and the separate options all get thrown into one RfC together, which hopefully won't leave too huge a mess for the closers to sort out. MuZeMike does a good job with the format -- unfortunately last year some people tried to create their own "counter-format" within his format, particularly on the issue of which voting system to use, but the closers were able to sort through it. For awhile we had a preference voting procedure going on the issue of whether to use preference voting. As I said last year, I think we could use an elected "Election Commission" to bring more order to the process (MuZeMike for chairman!) but as I also said last year, I know that idea would go over like a led zeppelin. Neutron (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Given how many proposals get added as time goes on, I think the 45 days makes some sense, but I will happily defer to however MuZemike decides to structure things. Monty₈₄₅ 22:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If we follow the same timeline as last year, here is how I have it all calculated for this year:

• Nominations: Sunday 00:01, 18 November - Tuesday 23:59, 27 November (10 days)
• Fallow period: Wednesday 00:01, 28 November - Sunday 23:59, 2 December (5 days)
• Voting period: Monday 00:01, 3 December - Sunday 23:59, 16 December (14 days)
• Scrutineering: Monday 00:01, 17 December - ??? (whenever the Stewards are finished)

The dates are moved back just a little so that everything starts and ends on the same days of the week as last year's election, (i.e. last day for voting is on a Sunday, like last year). This timeline should stay as it is, or it can be moved back a full week; that decision should be left for ArbCom so that they can determine how much time they feel is enough to get the new Arbitrators settled in by January 1, 2013.

We may not need a 45-day RfC for this if all it comes down to having less stuff to discuss and verify. The RfC could realistically be started in early October, though I'd like to see it ended about 5 days before the nomination period so that everything can get ironed out before that. --MuZemike 21:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As an inductee of after the last election, my opinion may be useful: the time between the appointment announcements and 1 January was of ideal length. I would recommend you leave the same number of days between when the scrutineers finish and the new arbitrators start. AGK 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey MuZemike. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

AN#Volunteers needed for ArbCom Elections in December..

Mentioned the discussion that occurred on your talk page (now archived) in response to WP:AN#Volunteers needed for ArbCom Elections in December... Just an FYI. Monty₈₄₅ 04:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference Library request

Hi MuZemike, I was wondering if you could supply me with some articles covering the game, Galaga. In particular, I can see that you have:

• An issue of Nintendo Power (Issue 2, September/October 1988) and
• An issue of VideoGames & Computer Entertainment (Issue 3, April 1989)

that cover the NES version. In addition, I would be interested to see material on:

• Road Blasters (from Nintendo Power, Issue 10, January/February 1990),
• Gauntlet (from Nintendo Power, Issue 1, July/August 1988),
• Gauntlet II (from The Games Machine, Issue 1, October/November 1987), and
• Pac-Mania (from The Games Machine, Issue 4, March 1988).

If you can provide me with scans, text, or possibly even a summary, or anything else then please let me know. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, I've contacted a few of the other editors who have also agreed to serve as contacts for a few of the above sources at the WP:VG Reference Library project. One of them just got back to me so I've struck the article he provided. I will strike the others as they come in if anyone else gets back to me before you do. Incidentally, if you are too busy to help me then I'd appreciate a response to that effect as well just so that I don't end up wasting my time waiting on you. No rush if you do intend to get around to it eventually, though. Either way, thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

ACERFC draft

→ For the ACE2012 and other talk page stalkers. --MuZemike 19:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Where would be the place to suggest changes before this goes live? Here, on the talk page for the sandbox page, or elsewhere? Neutron (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC). The biggest comment being, the threshold for election chosen at the 2011 RFC, and used in the election, was 50 percent, not 60. Neutron (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it can't be discussed here. This is going to go live in about 24 hours, anyways. I have also corrected the one error that you mentioned. --MuZemike 23:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Signpost mention

Hi, hope you don't mind if we mention this at the Signpost in the "In brief" section of "News and notes". If you don't want this, please let me know soon. Tony (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC) PS, ah, thought it hadn't been launched and was still a draft. Tony (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 1 – October 2012 September-December 2008, 2009, 2010, January-April 2011 | November 2012 Project News There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help! The oldest unreviewed articles are: General sejm, Prime Minister of Vietnam, Tanisha Thomas, Kosta Pećanac, and Jilly Kitzinger. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections. There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better! Member News There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed! This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page. GA Task forces There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions. Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon. Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive. Good Articles of the Month Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month. Barry (dog) I Love Bees Miles Copeland (Home and Away) London Country North East The Daily Show Some Tips About References/Sources Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Misplaced Pages! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Misplaced Pages probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth. The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it. For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing. Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed. Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article. Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Misplaced Pages says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." From the Editor After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page. Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!! PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above. Contributors to this Issue Dom497 (Editor of this Issue) Did You Know... ... that 2,100 articles have been reviewed during all backlog elimination drives combined? ... that out of 4,055,039 articles on Misplaced Pages, only 15,846 are good articles? ... that there are currently over 400 video game good articles? Notes As of October 2, 2012 at 19:05 (UTC). Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing. Improving Misplaced Pages one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages. Nominations: Climate change feedbacks (talk | history | start review) • Interstate 85 in North Carolina (talk | history | start review) • Rico Krieger (talk | history | start review) • Maisi (talk | history | start review) • Big Raven Plateau (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho • WSJ Magazine • World Chess Championship 1972 • Green Lantern (film) • Cú Chulainn • Wings (1927 film) • Electric vehicle warning sounds • Vampire folklore by region • Henry VIII • British Library • Mikhail Gorbachev • Bleeding Through • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hi. In response to this, if still needed, I am offering help on next ArbCom elections. Regards.‴ Teles «Talk ˱_{@ L C S}˲» 22:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, ignore my message above. Stewards are discussing that. Sorry.‴ Teles «Talk ˱_{@ L C S}˲» 05:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi MuZemike. We have a team of volunteers for the arbcom elections: Pundit, Teles, Laaknor, Mardetanha, Millosh and Quentinv57. Trijnstel_talk 19:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, good. I'll ask you folks (the Stewards) if 3 or 4 are enough to manage the election, as we had 4 back in 2010 and 3 last year. While a team of 6 is great, we also need to look forward to ACE2013, and we would prefer to not have Stewards to scrutineer the results for two consecutive years. A slightly smaller team leaves a couple Stewards open for next year, assuming the same Stewards are around. --MuZemike 06:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. I send an email to the other stewards so we'll discuss this. Trijnstel_talk 08:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Election RFC

One issue that has been discussed, but not included in the RFC so far, is the issue of "parties." It appears that discussion of the "Reform Party" is still going on, so it is possible that there actually will be at least one "party" endorsing candidates in this election. For that reason, I have written up a list of "ground rules" for the treatment of any "parties" that do support candidates. It is still in my user space here and I would appreciate your comments, especially on some of the one or two "technical" questions that I have in the footnotes, before I post it in the RFC. Or if you believe that the whole thing is a bad idea, I would like to know that too. This is intended to be a compromise between having a "nonpartisan" election but also permitting editors to form affiliations and communicate about them to the voters, and to put as much of the "party business" as possible in user space rather than on the Wikiproject that was recently "kept". Anyway, your thoughts would be welcome over the next two or three days while this is still in my user space. I am also going to post this message on two other editors' talk pages. Neutron (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As we default to the status quo on things not discussed at the RFC, I think most of the points in your proposal aren't strictly necessary. The voter guide point is very interesting though, and could well be an issue. Prohibiting a wiki space voter guide in the template could actually make it worse. Supposing they do endorse a sleight of candidates and have more then a couple editors supporting it, the supporters could each copy the sleight into their userspace, and then list it as a voter guide. Having a large number of guides in the template that are either identical or if not identical similar and that all endorse the sleight would be very problematic. They could essentially drown out all other guide writers given the historical volume of guides. To me that would be worse then a single Misplaced Pages space guide. Monty₈₄₅ 02:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As I predicted last month, I knew the issue of parties would be a potential issue regarding to ACE2012. I need to read the developing statements a little more before I say anything in that space. Also keep in mind that I have already made my opinion clear about political parties; people may (and will likely) consider me partial with regards to the discussion. However, as I have emphasized before starting the RfC, if users wants to discuss politicization of ArbCom, they should not be restricted from doing so. --MuZemike 06:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure whether I even want to post what I have written. I am not trying to encourage parties, but I thought maybe there should be some ground rules in case any party actually does field candidates. Posting this may create more issues than leaving it alone. Neutron (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Retro Gamer

Hi MuZemike. You seem to have the March 2009 issue of Retro Gamer that I am interested in. This issue contains an article called "The Making of Full Throttle", and I would like to know if the game in question is the same Full Throttle that was designed by Tim Schafer. Thanks in advance, Electroguv (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have that one; I'm missing issues 56 through 76 right now. --MuZemike 16:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Q3 Newsletter Feature

Hi MuZemike, per your suggestion regarding a feature for the Q3 WP:VG Newsletter, User:Torchiest and I have drawn up a possible article. Neither of us have had much involvement with the newsletter before so we weren't sure how to proceed from here, but if you'd like to look it over and/or include it with the newsletter then you can find it here. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I made 1 more change to the feature. here. Still time to update before sending it out? -Thibbs (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm loading the stuff into the newsletter right now. Once I verify the numbers on the front, I'll send it out. However, if you have something else in which to send, I can wait a little bit. --MuZemike 14:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, no. That's it from me I promise. :) It's ready to be shipped. -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reminder about SecurePoll

Hi, Tim Starling, or someone else at WMF who can do it, needs to be alerted to the probable timing and asked whether he'll be on deck to help with the routine tasks he's done twice before. Best not to ambush the techs with little notice. Tony (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I just emailed Tim, seeing if he can volunteer again to run the interface. --MuZemike 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet on the loose

Another sockpuppet of the banned vandal Fragments of Jade is at it again, this time under the name of Zhoban (talk · contribs). This time, she has the same habit of blanking her talk page, called me a fruitcake (a derogatory term for a homosexual) and removed the sockpuppeteer notice. Judging by the same editing style, same interests, same attitude, same incivility, same blanking of personal talk pages and the same geographical location as last time, I believe that it is Fragments of Jade, the same user who abused me and Hula Hup. Can you please block this sockpuppet? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought last time it wasn't conclusive that we're dealing with the same user (and the user just came from a 2-week block). In any case, I no longer have admin rights, so I can't do anything about it directly. Sorry, --MuZemike 15:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

. Thanks for the well-timed response. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

On "Hope"

I respect you a lot, Muzemike. But without fail, every single time I see you pursuing this line of reasoning, I think of this movie scene. Sorry, but I can't help it. Don't be Denethor. Don't give up hope, as it is demoralizing to hear it from you. Chin up! Doc talk 06:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to confirm information re ILT socks

Hi, sorry to do this, but could you have a look at this conversation and this conversation. I'd like to consolidate the many conversations (this is now the 6th) to my page to provide information re ILT to those who don't understand. Can you please post to my page that Susanne2009NYC was in fact an ILT sock - although I see that page has been tagged. Still I guess I need confirmation or something. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Steve Shepherd entry

All of the criticisms of this article cited in the recommendation for deletion were addressed on October 7th and thereafter. Steve Shepherd is a legitimate major historical figure in the history of the sport of kickboxing. The majority print sources cited are authentic and, largely, come from contemporaneous reporting. Nothing has been plagiarized. I was one of the national reporters who covered this man's career. Whoever recommended this entry for deletion, quite transparently, has not looked at the present version of the entry or is uninformed about the history of this sport and its prominent champions. Paul Maslak (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

From looking at the article log here, it was deleted back in October 2008 because of the plagiarism problem that you mentioned. Other than that, I can't recall working on that article at all, nor have I made a single edit to it. Did you get me confused with someone else? --MuZemike 22:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm new to Misplaced Pages editing. Apparently the flag I was referencing applied to a 2008 version of this entry; not to the new 2012 version. Thanks for your explanation.

Paul Maslak (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. The most important thing is that the current version is good to go. Keep in mind that anyone is able to edit the article that you created, our licensing and policies do place restrictions on what you can and cannot do, as we are an encyclopedia. --MuZemike 03:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hope everything's all right

Between the image change above and you archiving of everything, not to mention your handing off of your advanced permissions a few days/weeks ago, I'm a tad worried that something's wrong. Just wanted to stop by and check in on you, make sure you're okay. Let me know if you need something. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is now engulfed in a humongous flame war. Nobody is going to leave unscathed. I doubt anything will put this fire out. (And certainly anything I say, being a former admin, will only add to the turmoil.) --MuZemike 05:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I do wonder if that will happen. --Rschen7754 06:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's my opinion, at least. I'm not going to get near that cluster with a ten-foot pole. --MuZemike 15:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the one at A*****. If not, somehow I missed one. The thing is that Misplaced Pages is always getting into flame wars over one thing or another. I remember getting involved in one of the NFCC enforcement dustups and in the last two Betacommand dustups. Since then I've just avoided major dust ups, which is remarkably easy to do. Considering that there are still people that are bitter with each other over dust ups that happened before I joined the project, and yet Misplaced Pages does continue to function, I wouldn't get too worried about it. As long as you're still able to find enjoyment in the project, a massive flame war that doesn't involve you shouldn't be a reason to head for the hills. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

ACE2012

It took a while, but as a response to this: Pundit, Teles, Quentinv57 and Mardetanha will help the en-wiki community this year. Trijnstel_talk 12:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Mtking 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Sasata (submissions)
3. Grapple X (submissions)
4. Casliber (submissions)
5. Muboshgu (submissions)
6. Miyagawa (submissions)
7. Ruby2010 (submissions)
8. Dana Boomer (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 (submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose (submissions) (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Misplaced Pages has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Misplaced Pages project. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Malibu Barbi

Do you happen to know why Malibu Barbi was a G6? What was the page's content before it was deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ori Allon

I think this page you deleted needs bringing back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Ori_Allon Mikepegg (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he may have enough now to pass for notability. The bad news is that I am not currently operating as an admin, so you'll have to ask another admin about the possibility of restoring it. Sorry, --MuZemike 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

You are invited to Misplaced Pages Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Misplaced Pages meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review/Purpose

Hi MuZemike. I been busy mucking with the Deletion review/Purpose to get it transcluded into the Misplaced Pages:Deletion review page. I also posted a thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review/Purpose#Interpreted the result incorrectly related to the wording of the DRV statement of purpose. A favor of your reply there would be welcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

— ΛΧΣ 03:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks after AfD deletion

Hi, I notice that in this edit you deleted the instructions to remove backlinks after AfD.

This makes the admin instructions for AfD inconsistent with those for PROD and CfD.

Before I propose reinstatement of that instruction, please advise whether you can recall any particular objections to that former requirement. Your edit summary said the overhaul was "Mostly per concerns at WP:AN". Those would be hard to trace, so I'm hoping you have a good memory on this point!

Kind regards – Fayenatic London 15:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe this is the discussion you're looking for. —Torchiest _edits 16:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I have gone ahead with the proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Removing backlinks. – Fayenatic London 16:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Festivus

		Happy Festivus!
		Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. —Torchiest edits 14:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Entebbe

Operation Entebbe, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging request

Hello, WP:JAZZ would like to have a 'bot add a WikiProject banner to jazz-related articles that aren't already tagged. We had already left a request at User talk:DodoBot/Requests#WP:JAZZ. However, that account does not seem to be very active (which I did not notice at the time I filed the request). Could you have your 'bot complete this request? Let me know if you have any questions (I'll add this page to my watchlist). Thank you and Happy Holidays! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mention at ANI thread (nothing bad)

Yo MuZemike, your name has come up at ANI in reference to an edit filter you wrote: the thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell". Looking at the filter stuff, I don't think there's anything to be done, but you'll have more knowledge about it than I do, in course. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

You are invited to celebrate Misplaced Pages Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Misplaced Pages Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Misplaced Pages Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December! GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject tagging request

Hi, I had left you a request a few days ago, but it had already been archived. After that, I saw you had left an older message about being on administrative hiatus, and I wasn't sure this was still the case. So, I went ahead and added this request to Misplaced Pages:Bot requests (just in case you had already seen the archived message – I didn't want two people simultaneously trying to work on it). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird page in my userspace

Any idea what happened here? You created a socktagged page in my userspace. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And Salvio created a tagged/hardblocked notice for User:Sitush/Sitush2, which is presumably for some similar reason. Obviously, I understand blocks and socks but not why these things appear in my userspace. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Strike all of the above. My brain has re-engaged: they're not in my userspace but appear in a listing because of the selection of prefix. Talk about being stupid ... - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Richardson (military officer)

hi there, Richard Richardson (military officer) was deleted, do you have the article was there anything in there? thanks mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot tell you that, as I am no longer acting as an administrator. You may be able to get that information from another administrator if you kindly ask. --MuZemike 05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter (4th Quarter 2012)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 Template:Vgy, the project has:

Content

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

Interview

Hi there MuZe. I'm wondering if you would like to be interviewed for the Video Games WikiProject newsletter. If you want to, or not, please get back to me on it. GamerPro64 03:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

reverbnation.com

Howdy. Trying to see why we have reverbnation.com blacklisted, as I cannot find a reason in the corresponding logs. Also there seems to be >> 1000 links to the domain Special:LinkSearch/*.reverbnation.com so wonder if it is that evil, why we haven't removed the links. Seems that we are betwixt and between on this domain, and some enlightenment would be helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Misplaced Pages at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 01:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements

Hey there. I was wondering if you have a script or something you use to archive each month of new WP:VG articles. I did it by hand last month and it was tedious to say the least. Thanks. —Torchiest _edits 05:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Home Town Hero (album)

Hello, thanks for tagging this for notability back in 2009. The tag's still there; I've added a couple of reviews, but I'm unsure if it meets WP:NALBUMS. You may want to take it to WP:N/N or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Picker78 yet again

He has got to be one of the most persistent WP:Sockpuppets I have ever come across. I don't know if you want to do anything about his latest visit to the Masturbation article, but I left a a note in the edit history about it for others. Past edits under whatever user name or IP address compared to the recent ones he made there as 46.190.66.249 of course show the connection. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There's this to boot. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And here and here. He might even be silly enough to show up in this section of your talk page to claim that he's not Picker78, despite your thorough knowledge of how he operates. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Fluffernutter has indefinitely semi-protected the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Filter question

I'm not sure if you're around these days, but I've posted a question here that pertains to a filter you maintain. If you get a chance, please comment. -Thibbs (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the problem's been solved now. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Little Racers: Requesting to know

Hello, i was wondering about the article called little racers and what got my intreast about the article was that it was made from Milkstone studios. I left a talkpage message on the article's talk to offer some assistance but since the article is on a safeguard due to a keep or delete discussion i was wondering if i may have permission to help this unknown individual in there unfinished work. --Indienews (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A global sock is back?

See: The Dutch user Knowalles and his socks were blocked among others because of global sock puppet actions to remove the "JDL graffiti image".

It seems he is now back as Libertaz. Not sure what to do with this. _Whaledad (Talk to me) 21:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi MuZemike! You're invited to our next meeting for Misplaced Pages Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Scruffy

Expect it to start back again. THis is just the very humble beginning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.182.240 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo Power for Final Fantasy Adventure

I'm working on Final Fantasy Adventure and I'd love to know what Nintendo power said about it in Issue 28, September 1991. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

They provide a 10-page overview/walkthrough of the game in that issue. If you're looking for something to improve the Gameplay section, that may be a good place right there. --MuZemike 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Do they rate the game in the issue? And how do I see, or learn what the issue says? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Note recreation of a page you deleted

Freilichtbühne Loreley was recreated by the same editor; you had deleted it as created by a blocked/banned user. I found out because I was about to undelete it myself in order to add refs. demonstrating notability. I can't do that for at least a few hours, but I've gone ahead and undeleted the history for attribution's sake; letting you know meanwhile before packing up to leave work. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that I can do anything about it, but the user in question is no longer blocked or banned, so it makes little difference now. --MuZemike 20:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've now looked up the second AN discussion. Frankly, I'm disturbed that he seems to have recreated all the deleted articles in substantially the same form. I think I'll drop a note on his talk page about inadequate referencing and bare URLs. I don't have time to transform all his articles and am sure there's at least one dud topic among them, but if you compare what I found at Freilichtbühne Loreley with what's there now, and the same with Waldbühne (and earlier Alabamahalle; it was probably the listing of the AfD for that that made me aware of Evangp), I think you'll appreciate that one of my biggest concerns is that his poor work is giving the impression of lack of notability for topics that are in fact extremely notable - and not solely because a long list of rockstars performed there. Since he's unblocked, I hope he starts doing them more justice. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I´m back, Mr. Scruffy

There will be an automated mass "Scruffy" event on Misplaced Pages on June 1. Stand back and wait for the excitement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.183.175 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: 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 29/30 April, 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear MuZemike,

I am writing you to gain information on the proper procedure for posting a company on wikipedia. I am not interested in using[REDACTED] for any advertising purposes as we are an advertising company and have plenty of more efficient resources for this. I am simply inquiring about information so we can simply list our company in the 💕. Regardless of the fact that we are something that has never been specifically created we are simply wanting to make sure people have the full story about our company. I have seen many other adult related companies on[REDACTED] and am simply looking for insight into the proper procedure to accomplish what so many other have been aloud to do, in the proper procedure according to wikipedia. Please help me with any information to resolve my query.

Explicit1 2012 (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)FYI: This account has been blocked as a spamusername for a company called Explicit Management.--Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages user page

{{Help me-helped}} Can YOu please make user page for me. it would be kind of you Khaja.moinuddin.24 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone would want to make your user page for you. I'd be happy to show you where to find resources to help you build it for yourself. User pages aren't something that are needed for the encyclopedia, and are more of a way for users to describe themselves to the community. It's about you and no-one knows you better than YOU!!! Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Dota 2 revisit

Hello, MuZemike. I'm getting in touch with you because it has nearly been two years since I nominated Dota 2 as a Good Article, which, you may recall, you immediately rejected, due to the instability of the article. Well, there has been plenty of time for the article to develop and ripen, with infinitely more content, pictures and a more comprehensive degree of flow to it. So, with your fair judgment in mind, I must ask you, would it be worth it to open a new GA nomination and anticipate more promising results? DarthBotto _talk•cont 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You might have insights...

Hello MuZemike, I'm Kevjonesin,

I just posted an inquiry here and it occurred to me that you may have insights to share on the topic as you signed off on one of the quoted comments.

Thanks for your time and attentnion,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Kevjonesin: – First off, apologies in the delay, as I do not get back on such replies quickly anymore. If I recall a year ago, it says what it says – I basically marked it as closed, and I cannot recall running any CU on the user in question. However, that seems to be a moot point due to the abuse of multiple accounts after the fact.

(Also, on an unrelated note, I'm also trying the {{reply to}} template for the first time to see if this does indeed trigger an Echo notification on the respondent's end. However, there the developers really should come up with a way to do the same with regular WikiCode, similar to how mentions are formatted on many other websites.) --MuZemike 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG Q2 2013 newsletter

Hey there. Can you send out the newsletter for this quarter? It should be all set up and ready to go. Thanks. —Torchiest _edits 13:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Torchiest: All done! --MuZemike 17:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Manu Shanker Mishra

I had to find out about you in particular about your credentials. Too many questions have been asked about your involvement in the afd Manu Shanker Mishra. It happens to be me. The sources I provide are www.msmishraassoc.org and simply google. All sort of things have been said which appear to be defamatory. In any case with due regards to your earnest efforts, sincerely hope to hear from you in case you are a real person.

Regards

Manu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.201.143 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@27.7.201.143: As an administrator and the closing administrator of that AfD almost 4 years ago, I was more than qualified to close any deletion discussion in which consensus is in favor. The rough consensus was in favor of deletion of the article, despite the disruption that was occurring in that deletion discussion.

That being said, if there was anything in the AfD in which anything defamatory was being said towards you personally, we have the option to courtesy blank the deletion discussion to prevent any further damage. Please let me know if this is a suitable course of action for you.

However, as far as the deletion of the article about you is concerned past what I have explained above, that is something in which I cannot address (especially since I am no longer an administrator), but you may request a review of the deletion at deletion review by following the instructions here. --MuZemike 06:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Range-blocked public library asking for unblock

You blocked 64.107.0.0/22 for three years in Jan 2012 when trouble continued after a previous range block. IP 64.107.0.226 (talk · contribs) is the Chicago Public Library and is asking on its talk page to be unblocked. What do you think? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@JohnCD: That person will need to go through WP:ACC and request an account. That IP range has been under long-term abuse and continuously blocked since 2006 to say the least. I do not support any unblock of that IP range. --MuZemike 23:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Chicago LTA

Thanks for the email - useful background. There was another request from 64.107.3.126 (talk · contribs), also Chicago Public Library, and I pointed them, too, to WP:ACC. Would a registered account be able to edit through that rangeblock, or would they need IPBE? JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 30 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 Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's 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, 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 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 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 Piotrus (submissions), 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG newsletter interview

Hey there, would you be willing to do the interview for the 2013 Q3 newsletter? As in, be the interviewee, not the interviewer. If yes, let me know either here, on my talk page, or on the newsletter talk page. Thanks! —Torchiest _edits 13:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

MANU SHANKER MISHRA

Dear Sir, Please display my IP address. You were personally responsible for a most humiliating, absurd, totaly unsubstantiated AFD. MANU SHANKER MISHRA. Any way my website is http;//www.msmishraassoc.org. We need information on you . What we know is you are an Indian National. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.201.176 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

1) I cannot do that for you, and 2) I have nothing to do with Indians or anything remotely Indian - I think you have the wrong person (I don't even know what article you are talking about in the first place, especially given that I haven't been editing here in quite a while). Moreover, I doubt that any such thing would be the worst thing in the world, otherwise one's priorities are most certainly in the wrong places. --MuZemike 05:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game). Since you had some involvement with the Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 17:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

ReverbNation

Hi MuZemike. I noticed a few articles in my watchlist got tagged with a warning that links to ReverbNation are blacklisted (e.g. Dread Zeppelin), but I can't find anything in the logs to indicate why. Do you recall why it was added? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to ask the bot operator on that, as I don't know why that would happen. --MuZemike 05:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear... I was curious why you added ReverbNation to the blacklist. 28bytes (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it would have been for spamming or other abusive purposes. If there is a legit purpose to have that URL on some sites, as opposed to back whenever I added it, then I won't oppose de-blacklisting it. --MuZemike 04:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. 28bytes (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Came here to ask the same thing since the blacklist addition was not logged, and managed to find out it was added after handling WP:Sockpuppet investigations/IvanthegreatLaw/Archive who apparently intended to advertise his blog & songs there.
The spamming may have been a one-time occurrence, but the page sure doesn't appear to be usable as a reliable or even a primary source. It's used on some 20 articles, and on the few I just checked the link should really be removed.
Amalthea 15:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably about as useful a page as myspace or facebook, and sometimes used as such (e.g. The Tennors). IMHO we should remove the blacklist entry, and if it becomes a problem again only blacklist narrowly like we do with similar hosting sites. Amalthea 15:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

→ MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#reverbnation.com. Amalthea 20:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't throw up any roadblocks over it. It was being abusively used about a year ago (the website seemed to have really started to take off since 2012, after I blacklisted the site because of spamming), but the benefits here may outweigh the costs. However, I'd still treat the website like MySpace, especially with regards to artists and promotions. --MuZemike 04:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Mater-Banshee

Why are you credited with uploading the file File:Mater-Banshee.JPG? I was the uploader. -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC) This User fails to understand Misplaced Pages's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5

Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Misplaced Pages's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. --Pharos (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG Q3 2013 newsletter

Hey there. Do you think you could spam out the VG newsletter again? Everything should be in place and ready to go. Thanks! —Torchiest _edits 13:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Mater-Banshee.JPG

File:Mater-Banshee.JPG

I recently looked in on a file I uploaded a few years ago, File:Mater-Banshee.JPG. I have found that YOU altered it doing a size reduction. OK -- you had your reasons for doing the size thing -- I'm use to it -- but why did you delete the record of my uploading it originally? You have taken FULL credit for what I posted to the site. Jason Palpatine (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Jason, both the downscaling of unnecessarily large non-free images and the deletion of old non-free revisions are actually required per our non-free content policy and are done routinely by editors and admins (CAT:FURD). The page history still shows you as the original uploader. Amalthea 11:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What Amalthea said. I wouldn't care less what name an image is attached to, as far as it fits within non-free content policy. Now get off your high horse, stop belitting others for every little thing, and assume some good faith next time. --MuZemike 02:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)