I've noticed that quite a few users are having to restore conversations which you have blanked and I'd like to suggest the possibility of using an archiving strategy. You could use a bot like User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo to automatically archive your talk page once a day. This would keep your talk page clear yet keep a better record of old discussions, and prevent discussions being removed before they have run their course.--Salix (talk): 08:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your hard work on Jupiter categories has not gone unnoticed. If you feel like working full time on regular maintenance please consider joining Taskforce Jupiter. Whatever you decide, your faithful efforts are appreciatied by this Taskforce and the whole Wikipedia community. --NovusOrator 08:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did not complete the RfD; you just tagged it for RfD on the 21st, but there's no actual WP:RFD entry for it. I think it would actually be much more productive to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style (and leave a notice about the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style), and propose that the page Wikipedia:Writing better articles simply be adopted as part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, since it is certainly used as it if were. It is no longer really an essay at all but a consensus-based summary guideline on how to write articles properly, from top to bottom. I may not be available to !vote on it, due to some legal and medical stuff, but if you agree with this, feel free to copy-paste this message, noting that it came from your talk page, into that debate as a Support, as my proxy. If you don't agree with this, feel free to complete the RfD and copy paste this message as a Delete !vote, again as my proxy, since it should not remain in the MOS pseudonamespace (and I think I'm the one who put it there before I knew better) if it isn't part of the MOS. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been a week and you've still not actually filed the RfD, so I have removed the Template:rfd tag from the redirect. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 06:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am split on this nomination for deletion, I understand that it lacks in detail; but in the past I have been informed that a musician must have a substantial amount of singles for a template to need to be created and Nero with five singles surely fit that description? However, if an album comes into the reasons for deletion, then I agree and feel that the template should be given a speedy deletion -- StreetDarcy 20:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but why are you requesting speedy deletion of these templates? Pdfpdf (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nor can I figure it out--they are named as sub[ages, which is not a good idea, but not subpages in the usual sense--renaming might be appropriate, not deletion. some of them are empty & will apparently be permanently empty (for example, a navy ranks subpage for a nation that has no navy) , and tfd would be appropriate for them. Some need editing. This sort of way of doing things is not a reasonable way to proceed--no admin can be expected to know what you have in mind, and speedy deletion is only for things that are obvious, even to unsophisticated people like us Wikipedia admins. Before you do another batch like this, consult and explain. This sort of nomination is disruptive, and I warn you against continuing. I am prepared to do a block to stop it until an explanation is forthcoming if I see any more such--there will be an undue amount of cleanup involved. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not requesting speedy deletion any more; you're planning to list at TfD.
Sorry, but why are you requesting deletion of these templates?
I'm looking forward to understanding what is going on. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Well! Now I think I understand! (Your explanation is much clearer than the edit comment.) Thanks.
Hmmmm. Interesting. I can understand that the Royal Australian Air Force would (should?) NEVER appear on a page of NATO members. Regarding Italian Warrant Officers, I have no knowledge (or interest), so I can't usefully comment.
However, I'm very surprised that the "blank" ones are unused - I'll look into that.
Meanwhile, thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other unused one are listed here if you want to look into them too. Mhiji 11:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acting on my redirect request so quickly. Given the BLP issue involved, should a request be made to hide the discussion? If so, I'm not sure how to do that. Can you do it, or guide me? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 'one source' tag is ludicrous. It is known that this material is all from one source.
The 'self-published' tag is pure incompetence. These are from a work published by Oxford University Press in 1929, as the source makes explicit, not by me in 2011!
You are right that it is not yet referenced. I have not had time. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only added them because the {{unreferenced}} tag was removed twice... If you agree that I'm "right that it is not yet referenced", why did you remove that tag twice in the first place?! Mhiji 03:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy, and I wasn't demolishing the house, I was putting a sign up saying that the house isn't perfect yet, so please would editors improve it. That's what cleanup tags are for. You can use {{In use}} if you don't want other editors to touch an article while you are doing major work to it, or create a draft first. Mhiji 11:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the point. It is plainly vexatious to tag the house as not yet perfect when there has been no time to perfect it. This is plainly a published Wikipedia policy! You can be sure that as this house is built, it will be sourced, referenced and footnoted within an inch of its life. How could editors improve it when it is not yet ready to be improved? If you are an editor, it for you to act responsibly and within policy and guidelines. I suggest it's better to think before you act and then act cautiously and responsibly. Nevertheless, thanks for the advice in the second part of your comment. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. While you're at it, perhaps you'll also tell me how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. The fact that you can argue the toss over its definition does not give you the right to violate it at will. Also, I'm trying to add {{In use}} as you suggested, but it isn't working. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it. An essay is just something that one editor (or a number of editors) has written. You can't claim that I am doing anything wrong by "violating" it. I could write an essay about anything and then claim you are violating it. The tag wasn't intended to be vexatious. Please assume good faith. I've done nothing wrong so let's just leave it... Mhiji 11:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On seeing my attempted article about me Peter Edwards (artist) was deleted I contacted Ronjones. I have copied below his reply:
I only did the deletion, it was originally tagged by User:User:Mhiji, also I think you should first have a read of WP:AUTOBIO, and maybe ask the Mhiji what his view is, as he may have a more specific idea of what is required for your type of work. If you wish to recover the deleted page into your useFile:R space (see WP:USERFY), then let me know. Ronhjones (Talk) 12:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have now read the AUTOBIO and feel my article was so sparse and factual so as to avoid the pittfalls! My point to Ronjones was I had t--Hughlay1407 15:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)hought that the six works by me in the NPG and the links to them would have been verification enough. A similar artical would be Tai-Shan Schierenberg
Sorry, I can't actually remember what that article was. If you ask User:Ronhjones to userfy it here, then I'll be able to see it again and might be able to give you some tips on improving it. Mhiji 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've developed my userfy. Is it ready to be posted? What do you think--Hughlay1407 13:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Done a little more on external links.--Hughlay1407 15:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't add articles directly to the stub category as you did here. You should add the {{stub}} template, which creates a stub message on the page. Thanks. PamD (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not place a speedy deletion tag for an article lacking significant content or context if it was created within the last few minutes. People often write the first sentence first, and then continue. When you place a speedy tag for no-context 3 minutes after the article was started, as you did for Wenceslao national high school-caba, la union, this is a sure way to discourage prospective editors. How long to give them? depends on apparent good faith, but the minimum most of the admins use is an hour or so. Various technical fixes have been proposed to prevent speedy deletion too early, but they have all come to grief on the need to distinguish those few that really must be immediately deleted. Therefore we rely on human judgement. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the speedy deletion of Laurence Belcher as the article states notability (significant role in a prime-time television episode) which automatically stops it from being a candidate for speedy deletion. From looking at the history, I see that it has been declined for speedy deletion before, as well as declined for PROD. If you still believe the article should be removed, I would suggest AFD, or maybe redirecting it to the Doctor Who episode in question. Stephen!Coming... 10:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I see you're mass-nominating templates which are unused. However, I'm not sure whether doing things like this benefits Wikipedia. Personally, regarding unused templates, I would nominate those I'm absolutely sure will never be used (again). It doesn't seem like searching for unused templates and then nominate them is a good way to help Wikipedia. But remember, these are just my suggestions. HeyMid (contribs) 17:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not nominating all unused templates. I'm doing, as you said, those which I don't think will ever be used (again). Mhiji 17:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on request for speedy deletion of Commonscat:Genesis Suite[edit]
The images in the commons for the artice Genesis Suite supply essential references for the article. If eliminating the "Commonscat: Genesis Suite" will delete the commons for the article (which is also used in the commons for the article Nathaniel Shilkret), please do not delete without discussing with me the reason for the deletion. I am the grandson of Nathaniel Shilkret, who commmissioned the Genesis Suite project as work-for-hire and wrote one of the seven pieces. I made the edit, for which the commons provide verification, to correct errors in the previous version which did harm to possible use of the work by claiming the written work was no longer extant. I also corrected several other errors and added substantially to the history of the composition, again making use of the commons.
If removing the commonscat will not remove the images from the commons for the Genesis Suite or Nathaniel Shilkret articles, you may remove the commonscat. If this is the case, I would very much appreciate an explanation of how I could have placed the images in the commons without having created a commonscat. Thank you. Niel Shell (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any need to delete this article. I translated it - as said on the discussion page - from the Dutch wiki. Most of her biographical information can also be found in other Wiki's and in the link I placed under "references". Besides, don't you have a list here where people can vote in favour of or against deletion? Greets, The Wiki ghost (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mhiji, I was taken aback when an hour after I had created a stub (requiring some research thereafter), it was tagged, and seemed to be scheduled for deletion. I concur with the sentiment 'Please do not place a speedy deletion tag for an article lacking significant content or context if it was created within the last few minutes.' I would have preferred something more constructive criticism on how the article could be improved. I am looking to remove the tag within the next seven days. If you can provide substantive evidence as to why the tag should remain, and can propose an action plan to remedy this, this would be appreciated GreenwichPensioner (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What article are you referring to? Also an hour isn't "the last few minutes". Mhiji 21:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The salient part of my comment was "I concur with the sentiment". I also see that no constructive advice was forthcoming, just a desire to mark up yet another article with your tags, which I find negative. GreenwichPensioner (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering why you deleted the "r to project" template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Adventure travel. Last year, the project was merged, due to inactivity, see [1]. Maybe the page should be deleted all together? --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that, it should only categorize to "redirects to project space", and not cross-nmsp redirects. I'm going to fix that. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a change in policy that redirects shouldn't be templated, except if they are cross-nmsp redirects to project pages? I know that would keep the # of pages down in the category, but I wasn't aware of the policy change, if any. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have no idea... Sorry. Mhiji 02:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have tagged a number of pages with {{rfd}}, but you did not complete the nominations by listing them at WP:RFD. Can you please complete the second step of the nominations per the instructions at the WP:RFD page? The pages are:
If you do not list it within a reasonable amount of time, I'll assume you no longer wish to see it deleted and will remove the template. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Mhiji 22:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm a sometimes-regular participant at TfD and I keep running across your name in nominations and !votes. I just wanted to say thank you for all the work you do I'm impressed with the amount of work you've done on here! Anyhoo, below is a barnstar for you!
The Template Barnstar
Since there isn't a TfD barnstar (yet)(as far as I can tell), here is a template barnstar for you for all the work you do over at TfD. Thanks! cymru.lass(hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some hopeless pedant has pointed out that WP:CSD#R2 does not apply to redirects to the Wikipedia namespace and I have been forced to re-instate Wikipedia neutral pov. I do not feel strongly enough to do anything more but if you raise a deletion proposal, I will support you.
OK, thanks. I've nominated it over here. Mhiji 15:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I point out that as the author of the page you should have notified me about first the speedy deletion and then the deletion request :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no obligation to do that. I did it using Twinkle and just use the default on there (not sure why it didn't notify you of the RfD one, but it doesn't for WP:R3 speedies). Also since you contested the speedy, it was quite clear that you were watching the page anyway so sending you a notification of the RfD one would have been rather pointless... Mhiji 17:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally consider communication important and want to be notified regardless :). Additionally per stage three of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header#Listing a template it is considered uncivil to not notify users, especially given it is trivial to do so with Twinkle you should do so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I did it using Twinkle, so it should have notified you automatically. It obviously didn't. It seems to be a problem with Twinkle. You can bring it up there if you like. I always notify the author (see Special:Contributions/Mhiji). I realise it is considered civil - but it isn't mandatory, so there's no need to moan about it if I don't. If you want it to be made mandatory, your welcome to suggest it at WT:RFD - if it is made mandatory, moan as much as you like. Sorry that I didn't notify you on this one occasion - it's not efficient for me to double check on every occasion that Twinkle has done it all properly. This is all rather unnecessary. You've now annoyed 2 editors for no reason. I really don't see any reason to be pedantic that the redirect was speedy deleted - just to make a WP:POINT? Wikipedia neutral pov will undoubtedly be deleted at WP:RFD anyway. Even you the creator only give it a "Weak keep" and you don't have a solid argument for keeping it. You've also written numerous comments (as have I and RHaworth) regarding this on a number of pages. This all just unnecessarily adds to the server work load. So if you got nothing constructive to say, let's just leave it and please stop wasting everyone's time... Mhiji 18:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misread your reply. I apologise and retract my last comment here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) Mhiji 00:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed you have removed some categories from redirects. Please read Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, which provides some guidance in this area. I think that you have removed some categories that are legitimately placed on article redirects, such as those on ASEAN–China Free Trade Agreement. To summarize, if they are categories that can't legitimately be placed on the target article, the category is appropriately placed on the redirect. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice but you might want to warn User:Freaking67, he converted my redirect to an article. Happy editing. Tassedethe (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Mhiji 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please do not nominate new categories for speedy deletion because they are unpopulated. Give them chance to be populated. In some cases, new categories are populated but the members do not show up in the category for a while because of some sort of lag that I do not understand. Thank you. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mhiji, nice work on the BLP prodding, but please can you check the infobox before you apply a BLPprod? Many poorly sourced sports bios do have a link there. If so they might well need a {{refimproveBLP}} tag, but they aren't eligible for BLP prod (provided of course the link does have info on them and isn't a 404 or a completely different person). Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 18:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks. Mhiji 18:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mhiji. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Lenko/box-footer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: User page does not exist, but the user does. Thank you. Courcelles 07:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make you aware of the Post-expand include size problem pointed out by the IP, and further comments on my talk page here. I think you are doing a great job, identifying these templates, and proposing them for deletion. But, if there is anyway that you could see to proposing at a slightly slower rate, it would be much appreciated. Sure, we could restructure the way that the discussions are displayed, but there is the broader issue of trying to create a manageable workload, and not create fatigue for the folks who comment. By the way, if you find very obvious ones, you can always use prod or CSD-T3, which should close in the same amount of time. If you find that there is a backlog of prods or CSD-T3, just drop a note on my talk page and I will see what I can do. Just a suggestion. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the CSD template as I see no evidence it is a test. Since it's an actual program that is currently functioning I would be reluctant to have it deleted. I am sure Gabrielm is in progress of editing and expanding the project page. Basket of Puppies 01:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia
Hi, Mhiji. Yeah, you're right, of course - article currently has clear WP:BLP concerns. I'll try and find some references, but will most certainly not contest the WP:PROD otherwise. The article has existed as pt:Cristóvão de Aguiar for two months, but same concerns there. Thanks! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very dubious about many of your recent batch of deletion nominations of categories. To take one example: Category:Public houses in Gloucestershire. We have many cats in Category:Public houses in England. It seems pointless to delete Gloucestershire because the cat is currently empty. On any more similar deletion nominations, please restrict yourself to those which are never likely to be used in the future. — RHaworth(talk·contribs) 10:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English article expanded the German, not the other way round, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably I don't know what the template de means. I took the information from the German WP, unsourced as so often, so found the template useful to explain that. Then I looked for sources and added information I found in the process. But I still thought the line applies that the article includes information from the German WP. No? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:De is deprecated anyway so it shouldn't be used any more. There's already a link to the German article anyway, so it's probably not necessary to add anything else. Mhiji 11:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am wondering, what is your purpose in deleting these user and talkpage? Such an action in regards to an indef blocked contributor, it will be very difficult to access his contributions if they are deleted? Would you please explain the benefits to the community, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't disagree with how you've closed (in terms of outcome) any of the recent RfDs you have, there are a few points I think you ought to bear in mind for future reference -
Be careful when closing discussions you have contributed to. It's normally better to wait for an uninvolved person to do the closing - if one hasn't been forthcoming a couple of days after the debates have had their full time then drop a note at WP:AN.
Don't speedily close debates unnecessarily, particularly when nobody has advocated a speedy deletion and/or when the recommendations are not unanimous. There is no rush.
Be extremely careful when speedily closing a debate in which you have participated, doubly so when the consensus is not unanimous. I'd so far as to say that this is something you should almost never do - twice in a year should be a lot of times. Speedily closing a split discussion in which you have participated is clear grounds for a deletion review if anyone is so minded.
Refamiliarise yourself with WP:SNOW - 10-20 people expressing the same thing with policy based reasons with only a small handful of dissenters is suitable for a snow closure. Three-four commenters total is not suitable for a snow closure in almost all cases.
When the nominator changes their mind to agree with commenters this is best closed as "nomination withdrawn" or something similar rather than WP:SNOW, unless there truly are a large number of people commenting.
Please don't think I'm being harsh or combative here, they're just friendly suggestions to help keep things running smoothly. Thryduulf (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you moved User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates etc to ...WikiProject...? Are you sure that the bot code isn't going to be affected? Did you check with Tim that it isn't a problem? It's a bit of a risk for the sake of an insignificant capitalisation change. Please confirm that it is OK before the bot runs again at 0500 UTC. The-Pope (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the bot didn't run today. Well done. Are you proud of your edits? The-Pope (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am not sure why you made this edit, but I have undone it because the redirect was already in place, and its only effect was to remove a message about the Incubator version of the article designed to prevent anyone starting a new, parallel one here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ANI#Mass pruning of redirects by user:Mhiji it seems this is not an isolated incident, but it is a good example of why what you are doing is harmful. This is a formal warning: please stop unless you achieve consensus at this ANI discussion about what you are allowed to do in this respect. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already.... Mhiji 21:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you have not. --Hinatatalk 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about?! Mhiji 21:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI You need to be active on that noticeboard. --Hinatatalk 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer the question. Why did you say "No you have not."? (When I clearly have.) Mhiji 21:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't even went to noticeboard before I talked to you. --Hinatatalk 21:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. How do you know what I am doing?!!?!??!?! I wasn't aware of a feature where you can see which pages I've viewed. And I quite clearly did, see here. That was 5 minutes before you talked to me. Mhiji 21:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I noticed you replied. No I do not want to reply anymore, please refrain from posting the talk back again. As for your pure speculation, no comment. I do not know what pages you view. --Hinatatalk 21:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you get involved in the first place then? And why did you say, "You didn't even went to noticeboard before I talked to you." if you didn't know? (and you hadn't even bothered to check...) Mhiji 21:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm not quite sure why this showed up on my talk page, unless you're using a process that notifies editors about clerical deletion work. After all, the article in question wasn't a content article, it was an AfD. I guess my point is that, it's the wrong template for the deletion in question. Just a thought, thanks for listening. --Hojimachongtalk 21:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HeyMid (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 21:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I have seen that you have removed the content of the pages that I have redirected. I am not sure it is a good idea: these pages contain personal data which could be used for statistical or other tables. I ignore how personal data are used in Wikipedia, and it is the reason for what I have not removed the content. In any case, this does not change what the users see, thus it is not very important.
D.Lazard (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI- there's a problem with redirecting this to WPRussia, I've had to fix several backlinks that were assuming the it was a redirect to the flag template: {{RUS}}. Usually, based on WikiProject naming conventions, the redirect to the project would be {{WPRUSSIA}}, with a "WP" in front of it, so not to cause confusion. I think that redirecting it to the flag template will cause less problems. Let me know if you agree, because if it's changed, the backlinks need to be fixed again. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's good. Done it. Mhiji 00:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm trying to cleanup the backlinks now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As there are plenty of other articles with similar titles (see Anything Goes (disambiguation)), it is still required that there be a disambiguation for this page because the exclamation point is not enough to differentiate it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, several of your recent page moves to change disambiguations are bad because there are other songs with these titles. Secret Love, Get Back Up, etc. Just because there is no article at the (song) location does not mean you are allowed to move the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for disruptive editing - see below. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reluctantly blocked you. Reluctantly, because I am sure your editing is well-intentioned, but it is causing damage and disruption, mainly because you are making wholesale changes far too fast to be able to check whether a particular edit will be harmful, and it is apparent from your talk page that you have not been particularly willing to stop and listen when problems are pointed out. Many of your edits which are not harmful are not actually useful and could be described as "pointless tidying" - eg, deleting hidden text from redirects (deletion saves no space), renaming other peoples' user subpages [2] which can break links, or nominating at WP:UAA accounts which have not edited for years.
An indefinite block does not mean infinite; you can be unblocked, but we need to agree conditions about your editing which will ensure that you do not cause further problems of this kind and that your undoubted energy is usefully employed. In similar cases conditions have been imposed such as limits on the number of automated or semi-automated edits in a given time, or getting prior agreement before embarking on them. I have posted at WP:AN#Mass edits by user Mhiji to invite comment from those with previous experience of situations like this. Any admin mayunblock you who is satisfied that suitable conditions have been agreed to protect the project.
As a first step, please explain how you were able to do your "redirect cleaning" so fast, up to nine edits a minute, and others even faster, 44 edits in a single minute at 00:45 16 Jan - were you using AWB, or some kind of script or bot?
I realize you're currently blocked, but if/when you come back, please do not attempt to use the WP:PROD process to delete articles on obviously-notable subjects such as former head of state Lee Hong-koo. The correct procedure to follow in such cases is to take the time to look for sources with which to reference the article, not to paper over the gap in our encyclopedia by attempting to have the badly-sourced article deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it is obvious that we should have an article on a former prime minister of South Korea; prodding it borders on the absurd. However, there is an appearance that the prods were automated, and that there was no manual review of the articles anyway. That might explain why this article was prodded. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ditto for the Mayor of /rochester, NY, Tom Richards (politician) -- it is not constructive in a case like these to prod rather than to add sources, but that's what happens when one used automated tools without checking the results. DGG ( talk ) 11:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not constructive to prod in these cases, but AGF requires us not to regard it as a "bad edit" either, if we're looking for punitive reasons. An unreferenced article on a prime minister of Korea is one thing, but an unreferenced fake article claiming to be about a prime minister is quite another — without refs, there's no way to tell them apart. Acordingly we shouldn't look too harshly on prodding of such very small stubs.
We already have a policy that BLPs must be referenced, if they were created since the policy's introduction — presumably to provide some buffer against the risk of "good work being lost through over-zealous and simplistic policy application". Might we also wish to qualify our heavy-handed deletion-based response on the basis of article size too? New unreferenced BLP stubs are fair game for prodding, but those that are _either_ old, large, or not tagged as stubs, should avoid PROD in favour of AfD instead? Nor should we ever (usually though we do) get too worked up about losing one sentence articles. If they're that small, the work to re-make them from scratch is trivial. Obviously there's still a general "right to prod" and also an encouragement to just fix the things anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an article that claims to be about a former prime minister of South Korea, even if no references are provided, it's not very hard to check whether the person really was the prime minister. There is no "fair game"; we expect editors to apply at least a tiny bit of discretion in their editing. Prodding of Lee Hong-koo was flat-out wrong. Taking the article to AFD would also be wrong. If it had been just one article, we would give Mhiji a trout for it, which is what I think David Eppstein was doing. Making these prods in an automated way, along with other editing problems, is what led to a block and, quite possibly, will lead to edit restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my digression there between the two paras. Prodding Lee Hong-koo is wrong, but it's excusable because it's not obviously wrong. Korea might be, but how many presidents of Elbonia do you know, and how obvious is their web presence? We shouldn't trout if it wasn't obviously obvious.
My second point wandered off onto size. We don't want to lose a large piece of unreferenced work, because it represents effort, and so we should be careful to try and fix it first, rather than just deleting. However if it's only one or two sentences, do we care? There has been more work added to Lee Hong-koo post-tag than there was beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not necessarily cause and effect though. RichFarmbrough, 14:50, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
No, and that wasn't my point - merely that the pre-tag article really was "hardly worth keeping", even though genuine. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if bizarrely, this was a perfectly legitimate BLP prod. If people have problems with BLP prod then may I suggest trying to amend that process rather than criticising a newish editor who followed that process? I was involved in the design of BLP prod, and spend a lot of my time declining BLP prods of dead people, horses, poorly sourced articles and articles where a quick look at the history would establish that they didn't qualify. In retrospect I'd agree that we created BLP prod as a concession to deletionism rather than as an improvement to Wikipedia. But before getting rid of it we do need to shift the focus away from backlogs aned especially the uBLP backlog and back to the idea that there is no deadline, and that improving articles is better than tagging them. ϢereSpielChequers 19:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that people should apply the BLP prod system thoughtlessly isn't correct. WP:BLPPROD only says that articles can be nominated for deletion; it doesn't say that one should do so in every possible circumstance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling about this is that it was entirely appropriate. The key is that as well as the BLPProd, the article originator was also notified - and he did NOTHING to fix it. It is he, who in my opinion is MOST at fault here, not the BLPPRODer. And the originator was online and active whilst the BLPPROD was applied. I don't want people like David, DGG or others to do the sourcing (but greatly appreciated when they do), and sometimes I don't want to do it myself. The person who knew enough about the topic to start the article should be compelled to source the article - and in my mind I wouldn't ignore the talk page article like this guy did. He's at fault, not Mhiji. The-Pope (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What more than "he was the prime minister of South Korea" do you need to know to start the article? WP:V only requires sources for controversial items, and this is not one of them. I don't agree with the idea of enabling Mhiji's bad edits by trying to blame other people for them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLPprod is stricter than our policy of verifiability. There is a large drive on to resolve our backlog of old unreferenced BLPs and as I understand it the community decided to stop accepting new unreferenced BLPs. If someone wants to make the case that our shift from a policy of verifiable to a policy of verified was not a good idea and that uncontentious new unreferenced BLPs should be allowed then the place to do so is not the page of a user who has taken the policy literally. ϢereSpielChequers 18:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't expect editors to take policies literally: that's almost always a mistake. We do expect editors to think about what they are doing. Nothing in BLPprod requires that anything has to be tagged for deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he was actually a North Korean, or a janitor, or a porn star, and someone made an article that said "he was the prime minister of South Korea" you'd just accept it? It is contentious to make a significant claim about someone, and it should be sourced. Full stop. Period. No questions. The rest of wikipedia went through this issue around this time last year and we ended up saying that EVERY BLP must now be sourced, or it can be deleted in 10 days time. In an ideal world "simple" sourcing efforts like this one (although the language/name/era (mid 90s are actually not always well covered online) and spelling issues may make it more difficult than you'd imagine sometimes) should be done in preference to BLPPRODing but in the end every editor makes the call for each article they view: ignore, fix or tag. I maintain that it was a bad creation, not a bad prod. The-Pope (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that each editor makes the call. In this case, Mhiji made the wrong call. Period. Full stop. No questions. :) When someone does make the wrong call, we need to gently point it out, rather than enabling a pattern of poor decision making. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)— Carl (CBM · talk) 17:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A block can be very discouraging, but it's not a reason to walk away from the project. I would suggest that there is plenty at WP:BOTREQ that you could address with a bot account, for example. RichFarmbrough, 14:50, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
And please do not evade the block; doing so will likely decrease any chances of you being unblocked. And, like Rich says above, don't let an indefinite block let you down. I'm fully aware that you've had a strenuous start in your Wikipedia career (which has only been going on for three months), especially given the blocks you've received so far. Don't give up – if you want to be unblocked, then carefully address the issues surrounding the block. HeyMid (contribs) 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to why you haven't responded yet since your block? I'm assuming you do realize that you are able to edit your own talk page while blocked right? I'm hoping you haven't completely given up in frustration, as Rich says above, don't walk away from project, your work here is still valuable. -- Ϫ 03:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mhiji, please come by and post something on your talk page. You obviously want to help the project and you're a talented individual that can help in the area of bots. The block was only to slow you down so you could have time to talk with others. The block can be lifted as soon as you reply. Please stop by and talk with us as we need people like you to help Wikipedia. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 01:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Jackson[edit]
Hi Mhiji,
You added this to my talkpage in January. I have no clue why you wrote that on my page, since I have not had anything to do with it. Snailwalker |talk 12:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion on the talk page of Template:R help for the page to be moved to the help namespace. This discussion is going nowhere and since you were a participant in the TFD for this page, I thought you may like some imput. McLerristarr | Mclay1 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I started a new page that *should* be filled in with more than the minimal content I had provided (Minimal Turing Degree) and it was deleted for lack of content. I'm not complaining I'm simply wondering what should be done when you know a subject has sufficient material to support a whole page but don't currently have the time to give more than a one or two line definition. At some point I hope to come back and provide the (fairly influential) proof method used to show their existance, and various other relevant facts but of course hope someone else will fill in details too.
In the future is it better to leave the page empty (giving people who click on the link no definition at all even lacking context) or is there some better way to start a short stub for you or others to latter contribute to. In other words when I'm working on article A and find that I need to talk about B which doesn't yet have a page but should eventually do I just leave B blank? How can I both leave a link to the blank B so others know it needs contributions while still providing the reader of page A a way to learn the definition of B?
Sorry don't mean to sound combative just wanted to communicate the issue and ask if there is some template or something that addresses this situation.
Peter M. Gerdes (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mhiji hasn't edited since the block, so I doubt (s)he may reply. HeyMid (contribs) 17:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Hustle On.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Blind Faith (song), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Me & You.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:TOOMANYCOOKS. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:TOOMANYCOOKS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Adele-Rolling In The Deep.jpg[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Adele-Rolling In The Deep.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox pizza requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Mhiji 22:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm impressed with the amount of work you've done on here! Anyhoo, below is a barnstar for you!
Template:Alistair Griffin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 11:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
