User talk:Mifter/Archive 7

As you are the one who deleted the page List of Bleach episodes (season 17) (log link) please be so kind as to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bleach episodes (season 17). – Allen4names 01:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Already done by Postdlf. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for granting me rollback - I promise to use it responsibly. Michaelmas1957 01:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I requested a few days ago the rollback feature, but it was denied because i had few reverts on my count. I went to the CVUA and increased my revert number to see if now i'm able to receive the right. Could you please verify if i'm eligible now? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 04:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How can you delete an article when there is only one sentence written? Saying that the article is about a non-profit organization is not a valid reason. There are thousands of other works on Wikipedia on companies like Pepsi, Coca-Cola, etc. They are all companies, and, as weird as it can be, they weren't deleted minutes after creation. --BScMScMD (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll continue contributing on the French Wikipedia, where the other users are less harsh and obviously more friendly and welcoming... --BScMScMD (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello there, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Your article was deleted because it didn't assert why it was notable or why it deserved to included on Wikipedia. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the company is a non-profit, but simply that it did not establish what made it worth including on Wikipedia by citing content from verifiable 3rd party sources. I would recommend seeing this page as it gives tips on how to write a good article. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask, and once again Welcome to Wikipedia :). Best, Mifter (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I had this all written before you posted a second time on my talk page (I don't want you think I'm trying to be condescending by welcoming you, we really are happy you are here ) Mifter (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem... how can you judge that the article was not notable to be included on Wikipedia when there was only one sentence written. I was planning to continue writing and entering sources later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BScMScMD (talk • contribs) 01:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most times we can't be 100% sure, because with the sheer volume of spam articles we receive, articles that are one sentence long and without sources are generally either spam, or written about companies that simply aren't notable. However, I have undeleted the article and moved it to User:BScMScMD/Canadian Ski Coaches Federation so that you can continue editing it, and once you have it at a point where it has more content and sources it can be moved back into the regular article space. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and thank you for undeleting the article.--BScMScMD (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger petitioned to close my four separate nominations of this multi-article hook in WP:AN. What are your thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You said that you have no opinions, yet you recommend that I must do what Tony wants me to do? ... Anyway, if you are less involved, then you may change your status in WP:did you know/Admins. --George Ho (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I simply stated that my only preference in this case was to run the multi article hook as that is what the nom requested, and outside of that I have no opinion or preference on how or why you do it. And thank you for the heads up about the DYK admins bit, in a bit of an ironic twist, I may pick up DYK a bit again because it looks like it could use another set of hands after looking at how many hooks need reviewing at T:TDYK. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I just took a look at your talk page an articles you previously deleted. How many/what kind of references do I need to put to save this article from the same fate of countless articles that have succumbed under your all-powerful wikipedia deleting wrath!? Zastavafan76 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article about Sparlock? It needed references, but I was working on that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.156.89 (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, and Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that I deleted your article was because it didn't establish why it was notable, that is, why it deserved to be included in Wikipedia. If you would like, I could undelete your article and move it back to your user page for you to work on, then when you have added references it can be moved back to the article space. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I updated the Frequency Deleted Records article that was deleted (A7). Do I need your permission to repost it?

Xybandit (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, if you have added sources so that the article established its notability, then you can be bold and go right ahead and repost it :). Best, Mifter Public (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You an administrator who is listed at WP:DYK as actively involved, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition. You may want to make a late addition or substitution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, unfortunately I was out at the time you left the note and by the time I got back it was already resolved. Thanks :), Mifter (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. I found you from the DYK main page. I was wondering if you can add your two cents to this nomination. Your help is greatly appreciated.Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Due to you bot being inactive for over a year your bot flag has been removed. If your bot does become active again please re-request the flag. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you nominate users seeking to become admins...my general thought is that I probably don't have the volume of edits to become an admin, but it's in my longer range plan...could you just give me a little feedback? Thanks. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mifter ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 3713 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You objected to my using the word "intimidating". How about the phrase "hard driving" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.174.212 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, and Welcome to Wikipedia!, the reason I undid your addition of the word "intimidating" to the article, was because it gave the impression of not being impartial and unbiased. As an encyclopedia we have to strive to as much as possible not have any bias in our content so that our readers may come to there own conclusions. So unfortunately "hard driving" also could be seen as pushing a particular point of view, I couldn't say it would be a good addition unless you could find a third party source that described their music as being such and cited it with the satement. If you have any further questions and need any help, please feel free to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to be sure so I don't do any wrong doing again, did I do something wrong? or was that a mistake on Huggle's part? Hairrr (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you're good ;). Huggle lagged (thats what I get for using a temp old wifi router :P) and accidentally undid your revert instead of the vandalism that I meant to revert. Sorry about that, Mifter (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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! Wikipedia 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) 00:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to delete a few parts, not everything, it was an error, sorry, anyway some of your comparisons looks like invented to me, would be best for everyone to avoid putting things from which there is not a reliable source to back in, the reliable source is not you but maybe an external link. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.80.120 (talk) 00:33, November 8, 2012‎

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to have helped you fix your mistake. Also, I've never edited the article that you are talking about outside of reverting vandalism on it so I'm not sure what you mean by saying I "invented" comparisons, if you have an issue with the factual nature of a statement in an article, feel free to find a source to back it up and insert it :). If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So Mifter, you claim a right to construct Purushottama Bilimoria in your own or wikipedia's image. Be God: Facebook, Google, and all Paulo Alto based information giants are doing that. It is offensive to me: I am the subject of that biography, not someone else. Why don;t you let others write my eulogy and obituary: I would readily commit sati to live to the misconcpetions and understatements! Why bother having me on Wikipedia in the first place if it attains the rank of eternity but is woefully imcomplete, misleading and short-cut to purgatory. Amen Purushottama Bilimoria (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm afraid you misconstrue my intentions, while I'm sorry you are not happy with the article that you claim is about yourself, we have policies about all of our content being verifiable and being cited from 3rd party reliable sources. We also have a policy about certain conflicts of interest that may arise from writing about yourself. I am sorry if I have in any way offended you, but our goal as an encyclopedia is to build a repository of neutral impartial information about the world that is not clouded by personal biases or ideas and instead allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the information presented. You are welcome and encouraged to contribute to the encyclopedia in whatever way you can, however I must caution you about editing your own article as it is often hard if not impossible to write impartially about oneself and our goal is above all else to build an encyclopedia that represents the highest quality information and knowledge available, not to write personal information about specific individuals that is original research and self-credited information. Should you have any more questions or concerns please feel free to contact me :). All the best, Mifter (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So if reliable sources are used why is this information missing? Go to University of Berkeley website, Springer website, University of Melbourne website, Deakin University website , University of Stony Brook website to update the information, Your 3rd party sources had no clues about me, wanted to pigenohole me to a claim within Indian diaspora community and we are stuck with. Why not google me and pick out the 3rd party reliable sources from there, including my recent publications, and fill in the gaps; otherwise remove this biography which is about me, I am not just claming it as mine: if I see my name slandered I have a right to complain and the judge won;t give me the apologia you are giving. Yuo have not checked against any sources as you claim to have done against your policies of Wikipedia Inc. You guys should be in some other business.[[Special:Contributions/1 03:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Pbilimo (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The information is missing because no one has ever gotten around to adding it to the article. We are an encyclopedia written entirely and completely by volunteers. The Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit that is responsible for Wikipedia and a number of other projects like it) has an extraordinarily small staff and that staff is devoted primarily to the technical aspects of running one of the top 10 websites in the world (such as server maintenance, interface updates, etc.) with all of the editing being done by volunteers. And as such, if no one has an interest in a topic it generally is only briefly written about and rarely updated (as people tend to write about what they find interesting). Unfortunately your article likely fits into that category which is the most likely reason that the article is so short (and also why it hasn't been updated in such a long time), and as I said above we welcome contributions from anyone, but strongly caution people from writing about themselves as most people find it very hard to write about themselves with a neutral point of view which is critical to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. Furthermore I can personally assure you that no one here is out to get you or to "pigeonhole you" as you put it. We are a nonprofit organization that is not in any form of "business" other than attempting to collect the world’s knowledge and distribute it freely to all. We always strive to assume the best of intentions with people and to remain polite and civil when dealing with anyone, all while giving our time freely to try and make the world a better place by spreading knowledge freely. Also, as a general point making any sort of legal threat is something that is looked upon very poorly in our community as it often escalates disputes quickly by putting people on the defensive and in the end prevents any actual progress from being made in resolving the issues at hand. Finally, slander is the act of deliberately seeking to hurt another person’s reputation through statements that are knowingly false, and I am not sure I see where you think you are being slandered in the article. After reading it, I cannot see any negative statements made about you or your work nor does it seek to provide known incorrect information. If you could find a specific example of where you feel you are being slandered, then we can seek to rectify it with the proper information. Once again if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask me :). Best, Mifter (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

After re-reading what I wrote above I realized that there is a chance that what I wrote could be construed in a negative fashion (as is sometimes the case with textual communication as it lacks non-verbal cues or tone inflections). And, I wanted to add this to assure you that I have no ill will towards you or your article, and that I am very sorry that you are upset with the current quality of your article as a stub. Also that I want to work with you to attempt to improve the article to a better state, and that I have no desire to come across as negative or hostile. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you removed my edit from the Stonesfield page citing that it wasn't neutral but you didn't state why you thought that. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that the village has a deserved reputation for actively encouraging youth sports for both genders - outside large cities this in not usual and should be acknowledged by sites like wikipedia. I really don't see why this isn't neutral, so can you please return it?

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.3.24 (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! I removed the material that you added to the article because it did not conform with our policy on keeping a neutral point of view, particularly where you said "and want to ensure they develop young players in a safe and positive environment that encourages fun, friendship, fairness and respect." That statement isn't sourced by an impartial 3rd party, and it also is putting a spin on what this organization is doing by portraying it from a positive point of view (almost like an advertisement) rather than an impartial one. For those reasons I cannot re-add the content. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I edited the Seljuq dynasty site earlier and you deleted my edit. I didn't have a source, so it was understandable. However I can show you to the site on wikipedia about Genetic history of the Turkish people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people), which has sources to back it up where it says:

"In 2001, Benedetto et al revealed that Central Asian genetic contribution to the current Anatolian mtDNA gene pool was estimated as roughly 30%, by comparing the populations of Mediterranean Europe, and Turkic-speaking people of Central Asia. [21] In 2003, Cinnioğlu et al. made a research of Y-DNA including the samples from eight regions of Turkey, without classifying the ethnicity of the people, which indicated that high resolution SNP analysis totally provides evidence of a detectable weak signal (<9%) of gene flow from Central Asia.[22] In 2006, Berkman concluded that the true Central Asian contribution to Anatolia for both males and females were assumed to be 22%, with respect to the Balkans.[23] "

Thus my statement about the Central Asian influence on Turkeys genetics being between 10-30 % is valid and sourced in this wiki page.

When it comes to Azerbaijani Turks I show to the following wiki page which has sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Azerbaijanis

In addition, when it comes to Iranian Azerbaijanis (which number 16-20 million, double that of the nation of Azerbaijan) I can show you a genetic study on this page:

http://journals.tums.ac.ir/upload_files/pdf/_/17783.pdf

"Conclusion: The imposition of Turkish language to this region was realized predominantly by the process of elite dominance, i.e. by the limited number of invaders who left only weak patrilineal genetic trace in modern populations of the region."

I am not very good with internet sources and adding links etc, if you would be so kind to add source links and put my statement back on there I would greatly appreciate it.

Yours truly, Anonymous contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.197.140 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have literally just created this article and have a load of references for it.DColt (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, I just left you a message on your talk page stating something along the same lines :) (I've been seeing so many completly non-notable articles in new page patrol that I've been tagging rather quickly to try and keep up with them). Best, Mifter (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mifter. Actually I've been editing pages on Wikipedia for quite a while now, afew years to be exact. Usually trying to be as acurate as possible with my information, though I would even correct myself, if I had made an error which I was at first unaware of. I admit though I tend to sometimes not log in first, but sometimes I do. It's a pleasure to meet you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David31584 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to meet you as well :). If you ever have any questions or need any help, please feel free to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Haha, you have beaten me to reverts on Huggle at least 20 times now. Other than that, I just wanted to say that you do a great job reverting vandalism. Keep it up! :) Altaïr (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much :). I haven't received a barnstar in a number of years and it’s a nice surprise to get one :). Best, Mifter (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The information is from a road test of the v16 brm. I think from memory it was Classic Cars. Even in modern times the engine would randomly throw distributors and then suddenly run cleanly. Not what you want on crossply tires in an A35 let alone a 400hp behemoth. I get very tired of people correcting stuff all the time. I edited the R25 and Humber Sceptre pages and was again called a liar despite owning 2 of the former and three of the latter. Ditto the Renault Safrane, I own one of the last 2.2vi engined cars ever built. *NOTE: Personal Attack Removed* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.12.224 (talk • contribs) 22:24, November 15, 2012‎

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that I removed your additions is because they did not cite verifiable 3rd party sources to substantiate their authenticity. Furthermore, Wikipedia has a policy against original research that has not been independently published which is also why your information has been removed. If you could find a third party source to back up your statements, then they would be a welcome addition to the article. Finally, I would like to caution you to remain civil in your statements to others as Wikipedia has a policy against personally attacking others as it discourages cooperation and only incites anger. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mifter. Just a courtesy notification I partially reverted your revertion (???? lol) on the Ottumwa, Iowa wiki. The original editor, OttumwaPIO, had their heart in the right place, if not their technique. I suspect the PIO stands for the city's public information officer. Both of their additions were correct. I added a ref for the mayoral change. The nickname thing wasn't working well in the infobox so I left it out for now, but it was also correct and I can provide a ref. I've no particular need for a reply, as I said just letting you know whats going down. Sometimes it prevents hard feelings/edit warring/general mayhem. Take care and have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem :). I have no problem with information being re-added once a source has been found (as it is then positively contributing to the information of the encyclopedia instead of potentially lowering its quality in the case of unsourced additions), and I appreciate your taking the time to leave this message. It’s refreshing to hear that a source could be found for the information instead of it just being left out, and it’s always good when we can expand our information so that others can benefit. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy reading! (Yeah, and I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but come on... this stuff is priceless). — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 11:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is :P. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I was working on two pages simultaneously and saved after entering basic information in order to attend to something off my computer. Upon returning to them, both were flagged for deletion, one of which was speedily deleted before I could complete any edits because it only had basic information provided. It is unfair that both articles were nominated and flagged within minutes of them being posted because someone else feels that they are not up to standard, when as a new user I need time to figure out all the edits, and I save frequently out of habit. Doesn't exactly inspire me to add content to Wikipedia when it is flagged and deleted in such a short time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeisbeautiful83 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! Your article was speedy deleted because I did not feel that it had enough context to identify the subject of the article or what in particular made it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, I have temporarily restored it so that you can have a chance to edit it pending the outcome of this Articles for Deletion discussion. I suggest you read this page about writing your first article as it is full of tips and information about how to help avoid a situation like this in the future. Also, in the future, you might wish to create a personal sandbox for yourself so that you can create and edit an article in your userspace and then move it to the full article space once it is ready. Once again welcome, and if you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mifter. You have new messages at TheJJJunk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy to help :). Best, Mifter (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you had watched/checking my talkpage, so just wanted to thank you again :) gwickwire | Leave a message 01:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I was watching and saw your response, but thanks for the heads up :). Congrats, Mifter (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha okay, I wasn't sure, even with the message floating on the screen, and notices everywhere I could think, people still try to leave me talkbacks, expect me to reply places... Thanks again. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 3713 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Datestamp added for archive Bot. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Posted an unblock request on their talkpage, that (somewhat malformed) request was removed by another editor, thought you might want to be aware of it anyway. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, the unblock request itself turned out to be vandalism (and a personal attack directed towards me) and was declined. Nevertheless, thanks. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

It appears that we were handling the same article on the RFPP page at the same time. I semi-protected the article for a month, mainly due to the recent, repeated BLP issues. Given the history of the article over the years, I figured that would be enough time to deter vandals, while not imposing an indefinite protection, which I feel is a bit too much at this time. Let me know if you have any thoughts about this. If you feel that it should be unprotected, just let me know and I'll be happy to reconsider! Best, Icestorm815 • Talk 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi :). I noticed you had protected it just as I was declining the request. I was pretty much on the fence about how to handle it, thus when you opted for semi-protection I struck my previous comment. In many cases it is better to be safe when dealing with BLP's due to their sensitive nature especially when articles have a long term history of issues (such as this one), so I have no objections to your protection :). I agree that an indef protection isn't warranted at this time, and 1 month semi should be fine, if the issues crop up again once the protection expires next year we can always reevaluate. Happy Holidays, Mifter (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you said here that 108.17.46.201 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) had been insufficiently warned. The user has received a 1, 2, 3, and 4 over the last two months, started editing constructively for a short period, the continued to vandalize and earned another two level 2 warnings. What should I do? Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I stated that the user was insufficiently warned because during this month the IP has only gotten (as of my writing this) up to a lvl 2 warning. Warnings tend to go stale rather quickly especially when dealing with IPs because as the notice at the top states, the IP is registered to Verizon internet. This means that it can be cycled between a number of different internet users within the same geographic area within a short period of time. This can be seen in how the IP has had periods of constructive editing interspersed with vandalism. Each "period" of editing was likely from a completely different internet user in a different location which in most cases serves to render all the older warnings stale. If the IP continues to vandalize, then I would recommend just continuing to run up the standard warning scale (1 - 4) and then reporting to AIV if the behavior continues. Blocks are meant to stop the encyclopedia from immanent damage, not be punitive for past behavior. Generally what I do is every month the scale resets (with the exception if vandalism is occurring on the 31st of one month and then the 1st of the subsequent month or if there are special circumstances) once a user has received 4 warnings within a month a report to AIV or block could be in order (with exceptions as needed determined on a case by case basis as warnings are not necessarily always needed to be blocked if the vandalism is especially egrigious). If you have any further questions, need clarification, or need help with anything, please feel free to ask :). Happy Holidays, Mifter (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mifter, I've nominated Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1) for deletion see the category's entry. I am informing you, because you are listed as one of the authors in Cydebot's move summary. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You have just deleted this article as I was in the process of adding a reference to it.

The message I got when trying to save the page was confusing so I cut&pasted it here:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.

Anti-spam check. Do NOT fill this in!

User Mifter (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of:

Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11

Please confirm that you really want to recreate this article. Recreate

I have no idea why copyrightis are suddenly an issue but don't want to mess with it. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi :), I deleted the article under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 which is lack of notability and advertizing. The copyright warning that you saw is a warning that is displayed when you edit any page (even my talk page, if look right above the editbox) and its text is pulled from MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn so its not an issue in this case, just a normal message that is always shown. If you would like to edit and improve the article, I would be happy to restore it and move it to your userspace so that you can work on it and once it has been improved it can be moved back to the articlespace. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas G. Miller, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Army War College and The Second World War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mifter, there were some issues with your promotion of Prep 1 to Queue 6 which I've detailed in WT:DYK#Out-of-order queue promotion and associated problems, in the hopes of getting them fixed quickly, and also to highlight the potential problems with someone moving a prep set they created to a queue. Please respond here or there rather than on my talk page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll stop by there to leave a note now. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Another change that came with moving nominations into individual templates is that the nominations are no longer removed from Template talk:Did you know immediately after promotion (e.g. ). When a nomination is closed the template prevents the nom text from being transcluded, keeping closed nominations from being seen at TT:DYK. It is only when all the nominations for a specific day are completed that the group are removed together. --Allen3 ^talk 00:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update :). Best, Mifter (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that you undid my change on the Ernst Krenek page. You say it wasn't "constructive". I think it was very necessary. That was NOT anything like a list of Krenek's compositions. It was an extremely selective list. That has to be made clear. If you want to do it in a different way, fine, but the current heading is wrong.

92.20.35.136 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there and Welcome to Wikipedia! You are correct that the list is incomplete. However instead of inserting a comment to that effect within the actual prose of the article (as those tend to be reverted as unconstructive or vandalism) I have added {{Incomplete list}} to the top of the article so that if the list is completed, that tag can be easily and simply removed without searching through the text of the entire article. Furthermore, the template also adds the article to a special category so that other editors can see it as an incomplete list and expand it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Responding in response to you stopping my changing the quote: "In the December 15, 2012, episode, Samuel L. Jackson said "bullshit" on the live broadcast, prompting Cole to respond with "Come on, man...that costs money."". However this quote is mistaken. S.L.J said "fuck...", interrupting himself before he had time to say "fuck you", creating the the response: "Come on, man...that costs money.". However seconds after he also said "this is bullshit" which probably was is original line. However this was not what prompted the response, hence a argue that the original quote on this page is misleading/incorrect.

I understand that some might find it problematic to use the word "fuck" on a wiki page, however i would personally be more offended that pages are incorrect/censored. I suggest therefore the use of some version of "fuck" such as "f***k" or "f-word", or delete the entire sentence.

Respectfully, 109.58.109.220 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC) J

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your edit because I was under the impression that you were trying to censor the page by replacing the expletive with stars (***). Now after seeing that you were not in fact attempting to remove information rather correct it, I have readded the remark as well as found a 3rd party source to verify its accuracy. There is generally no problem with using vulgarity on Wikipedia pages (where necessary for completeness and within reason) as Wikipedia is not censored. If you have any other questions or need help with anything, please feel free to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

On 17 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas G. Miller, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lieutenant General Thomas G. Miller oversaw the First Army moving its command from Fort Gillem to Rock Island Arsenal in 2011? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas G. Miller. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)