This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Craw-daddy (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 2 October 2008 (→Question: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:04, 2 October 2008 by Craw-daddy (talk | contribs) (→Question: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)MuZemike's talk page guidelines
- Warnings — Please place in the topmost section titled "Warnings," separate by month and year as a subsection, and number them.
- Discussions — If you start a discussion here, it shall remain here, unless for extraneous reasons.
- Archiving — Inactive discussions shall be archived on my discretion.
- The Obvious Rules — Place new discussions at the bottom, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), assume good faith, and no personal attacks, please.
 Archives |
Warnings
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
June 2008
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Zombie Nation (video game) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages.
The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sZG7Y7CdTc) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Misplaced Pages's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Adventure Island 3 Gameplay.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Adventure Island 3 Gameplay.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You have alot of nerve!
MuZemike, you have alot of nerve deleting that Many page. WHO CARES IF SOMEONE FROM MARS CAN'T READ IT!! I found it highly informative and I intend to set things right by bringing that page back!!! This message of justice is care of Juno11! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno11 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 September 2008
- What in the hell are you talking about? Anyways, please read, WP:CIVIL, because what you said is VERY incivil. I will place the appropriate warning on your page. Next time, sign your comments with four tildes, please. MuZemike (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD Comments
Heh, I enjoy reading your comments for articles that apply to G11. Keep up the good work! RockManQ (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For all of your hard work down at AfD! RockManQ (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much! They actually are quotes from the "Spam" skit from Monty Python. MuZemike (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry Case
I added some information to your sockpuppet case page against User:63.3.1.1. I hope that everything works out in your favor. --Candy156sweet (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you; I appreciate it, regardless of the outcome. MuZemike (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grace Period (Unix)
"A1: how steak is done" — hahaha! You're certainly deserving of the barnstar you've been awarded. Cliff smith 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ownership
There is a world of difference between frequent contribution and ownership. I would like to ask you to refrain from making the type of assumption that prevents a person from making free speech on their own work. Either you agree or you do not agree with the content. The philosophy is there for you to weigh and make comments on. The person behind those comments feels free and able to make replies if and when it pleases them. It shall remain thus unless you are offended by a comment. Please indicate the offending item. Miroj (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- First off, you place comments at the BOTTOM of ANY talk page, including my talk page.
- Second, please read WP:OWN. You seem to be very possessive about the article you have created. This is not like Knols, where you may have that liberty as stipulated by the company's owner, such as Google in the popular case.
- Third, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor is it a venue where users can say whatever they wish. With that said, free speech is not guaranteed.
- Please read the appropriate Misplaced Pages guidelines. MuZemike (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- You make a lot of assumptions. Now I understand why you feel the way you do. Fortunately I don't take it personally - emotions have nothing to do with ideas. I really like what you just wrote. I will be sure to send it to the NY Times. Expect to see it written up by someone who isnt an amateur as I am. Thanks for the KNOL link. Very useful. Miroj (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- You know what really blows me away. I wrote to Google about a year ago and submitted the idea of expertise and authorship. Now I realise it is called Knols. Wow ... I had no idea they went ahead with the project as I was swimming in the Adriatic when the press release came out. People power really does work. Two thumbs up. Miroj (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Miroj (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're very welcome for the response. I try to help whenever I can. MuZemike (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The WPVG Newsletter (September 2008)
| The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video Games Newsletter | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||
){kind=link}
- Newsletter delivery by xenobot 12:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Mario Bros. pre-assessment
I've gotta state up front, some of the prose bothers me. For instance it mentions Donkey Kong right off in development, but then again a few sentences later as one of the first platformer games. That seems like it could be organized a little better. Reception needs to define quotes by reviewers a bit better too, and seems like it could easily be larger for such a game...
It's a good start, just I really feel it has issues right now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK. You should probably let A Link to the Past know about that, as well, as he made the necessary improvements, with myself and Someone another peer reviewing it. I have not worked on it much at all. I figured it had good potential after the peer review that it can make B-Class. MuZemike (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Question
If you wouldn't mind could you give me a hint of who that puppet editor is, or at least give me a link? I'm really curious. Sorry if I'm being a tad forward. --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll give you a clearer hint before I give the link. Common (boilerplate) AfD comment:
- Keep per Misplaced Pages:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world).
- Another hint: A second checkuser case two weeks ago confirmed that this user has been using multiple sock puppets. User has vanished but keeps coming back. (That's actually three, more 2 1/2.) MuZemike (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Still at a loss. Is this guy the sockpuppet of 63.3.11? --Candy156sweet (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, we mean <user removed per WP:RTV>; that's who I think Craw-daddy was referring to. The user made a lot a dubious boilerplate !votes like what I mentioned above. MuZemike (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Does this mean you are dropping the sock puppet case? If he is a sockpuppet of that editor, then switch the IP# to that case and conclude the other one. Hope it all works out. --Candy156sweet (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I want to make sure before I close. I will ask. MuZemike (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I replied at more length on my talk page. The summarized response is that "yes, I think it's him, but it's more of a 'gut feeling' based on circumstantial evidence than anything else". --Craw-daddy | T | 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, we both seem to concur that this user in question may very well be pulling the strings here. I will close the current sock case. My question now is that how do we go forward on this? Do we open another sock case, despite the fact that the likely sockpuppeteer is a now-vanished user? MuZemike (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I replied at more length on my talk page. The summarized response is that "yes, I think it's him, but it's more of a 'gut feeling' based on circumstantial evidence than anything else". --Craw-daddy | T | 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I want to make sure before I close. I will ask. MuZemike (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Does this mean you are dropping the sock puppet case? If he is a sockpuppet of that editor, then switch the IP# to that case and conclude the other one. Hope it all works out. --Candy156sweet (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, we mean <user removed per WP:RTV>; that's who I think Craw-daddy was referring to. The user made a lot a dubious boilerplate !votes like what I mentioned above. MuZemike (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Still at a loss. Is this guy the sockpuppet of 63.3.11? --Candy156sweet (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
If it's appropriate, a checkuser request can be made to determine if there is indeed a link here, as is suspected. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure that this exactly qualifies as vandalism so it wouldn't fit into case A (you might have evidence/belief otherwise). It seems that the only case that might apply is G, but some sufficient justification would be necessary here. (I think this was the justification for the checkuser of the "ER" account). Seeing as this editor came back under a new account that was subsequently blocked, and seems to be trying to avoid scrutiny, this might be sufficient. I'm really not sure what sort of "level of evidence" is warranted in these cases. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- How do close a sock case? Do you just ping an admin to close it? MuZemike (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the sock case will be closed automatically if no checkuser request is made, or as you did on the case, just request that it's closed. --Craw-daddy | T |
- Comment: As much as it annoys me to have to edit and as much as I really hate identifying my IP range, I have been informed of this edit and this discussion and think it may be necessary to do so to save people unnecessary trouble and to keep myself vanished. As you can see from my post here as well as from and that my IPs are and have been in the 172 range. You should notice also that the 172 IPs I have used have few to no additional edits from them as I have been generally careful about only editing logged in. If those other IPs with all kinds of edits were somehow mine, I would think that would have come up in the checkuser results and been mentioned. Other editors have imitated my style for whatever reason and yet have been determined not to be me a la . I don’t know if some imitate me because they like my arguments or as I think Randomran suggested to troll me; after all, I did successfully identify a number of deletionist sock accounts that resulted in their being blocked and wouldn‘t be surprised if any want revenge. Moreover, I am not the only inclusionist to have ever been around. And I certainly have no history of making vandalism edits like those IPs in question. I can understand why some might be suspicious and all, but now you know against my better judgment my IP range, which I really hope was not a mistake to reveal should my harassers be watching. MuZemike, please stop bringing me up as I vanished for a serious reason. I over the weekend just went through having to successfully have libelous material about me removed from another site. Please let me go in peace and as you will see I am not using this IP to make any additional edits. Thank you. Sincerely, the vanished editor, --172.131.37.249 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Re:WikiProject Sega and Nintendo
That's why I figured it would best to wait this out. They don't seem to be aware of some policies and guidelines, and are probably acting this way because they don't know any better. They would have done some things differently—as you've pointed out—if they did know better. Nothing will come of the move because the editors interested in Nintendo articles aren't going to collaborate there because they're too pissed off to. So I say assume good faith for now, and let them try to get their project in order. We'll check back in about a month and make the same offer we did before. (Guyinblack25 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC))
NONENG and N
You appear to severely misguided on this subject. Notability is timeless, and independent of region as well. A source in ancient Greek is just as good as a source in modern Greek is just as good as a source in English, and if anything we should be biased towards the inclusion of articles with only foreign language sources, as a means of countering systemic bias. In short, while the use of Non-English sources can present minor verifiability problems (as with any other source that is difficult to access, such as books not available online), they present no notability problem whatsoever. --erachima talk 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I never thought of it from the systemic bias point of view, and you do have a point. However, as you mentioned, there would exist verifiability concerns, especially when they are the only such sources used. I mean, I do not know what the website is or is about if it's in another language I don't understand. I feel that if those sources cannot be challenged especially in an AfD, then it seems like we're taking someone's word that they do establish notability. That's my view on it.
- In this context, it doesn't really matter besides making for policy discussion as my stance is now that the article in question should be kept. MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)