User talk:Mufka

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mufka.

This is the user talk page for User:Mufka, where you can send messages and comments to Mufka.

PLEASE READ - Thank you

Comments on my edits to date pages? Please leave comments on the respective page's talk page. I will see the message there. If the message is left here, I will move it to the subject's talk page.
If I posted a message on your talk page, please reply there to keep the conversation together, I will see it.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Yes I'm leaving

I'm tired of banging my head against the wall. I started to contribute to Wikipedia with the intention of helping to improve the articles. All I find myself doing is undoing vandalism, day after day without end. Its like that story (sorry can't remember the name) where they guy is pushing the boulder up a hill, when he takes a break the boulder rolls back to the bottom and he has to start over. If the boulder wants to stay at the bottom, let it, I'm not pushing it any more.

Thats not to say that I'm completely done with Wikipedia, but I am done with the WP:DAYS articles.

And no, the project won't fail. You can handle it incredibly well. Also there are other editors who havn't listed themselves on the project page that help as well.

I wish you Good luck in your endevours. Grouf^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sisyphus, and as a editor who tries to maintain both WP:DAYS and WP:YEARS articles, I appreciate the work you've done. Good luck in your endevours, on and off Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I know what you mean. I feel the same way. My big concern is that there are not many editors who are willing to argue for policy. Every day I tell myself I won't look at the vandalism, just at how the policy should be viewed. Usually I get sucked in reverting numerous entries that include the terms "hero, badass, legend, god, pimp, etc." I won't last long at the fight if the WP:DOY doesn't get approved as policy. Maybe I'll go back to writing articles. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to drum up support for flagged revisions or some other mechanism for keeping sewage out of the wine. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea - is the vandalism on the DAYS articles regular enough to recognize automatically? I mean could you offer an explicit algorithm for determining with a high degree of confidence that some particular edit should be undone (if (this and this and this and this, or this and this and this and this, or ...))? If so, we could probably get the patterns added to ClueBot and the other vandalism bots. Even patterns that would catch some percentage would be a big help (right?). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bot in the works here but I haven't heard from the owner in over a month. That could take care of the vandalism, but I'm concerned about the guideline. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bot proposal is dead. Perhaps we can ask someone else to create one. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pointed here - I'm really sorry it's taken so long - mixture of health problems and computer problems - but I'll try and get something going in the next couple of days Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Great! Glad to hear it. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 14:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the thing together, just awaiting re-activation of permission to run it. Pseudomonas_(talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the guideline

I haven't paid much attention to the guideline lately - what do you think the current status is? I was instrumental in pushing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) to policy status (which is one of the more recent "by consensus" as opposed to "by Jimbo fiat" policies). After a what seemed like dozens of archives of the talk page it eventually settled at a point most folks seemed to accept and I ended up asking user:Raul654 who, in the end, decides consensus has been achieved. Rather than answer, he decided (and changed the "proposed" tag to "policy"). If you'd like I could read through the WP:DOY talk page and let you know whether it looks like all objections have been satisfied (might take a while). What do you think? Are there still outstanding objections? A somewhat depressing note that seems to have been deleted from the "how to create policy" page is at the bottom of this version. It was extremely difficult to get a new policy adopted by consensus two and half years ago. I assume it's at least an order of magnitude more difficult now. On the other hand, assuming it simply reflects current practice it really shouldn't be a big deal. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged WP:DAYS and WP:DOY to reflect what is both longstanding practice and what has been discussed over the years on the talk pages. I don't think there are any disputed items that are included in the pages. They may continue to evolve but there hasn't been any dispute over the content. I don't know how to raise from proposed to policy but it seems to me there should be little resistance. It was pointed out to me today (quite unceremoniously) that consensus hasn't been established in a discussion at Talk:October 31. I would appreciate your review of the pages. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look (maybe over the weekend). In theory, anyone can decide there's a consensus (if there is, there won't be much resistance). I'm an admin so, also in theory, could with some legitimacy change the tag from proposed to guideline. I don't think it says so anywhere, but in reality it's probably better to get a bureaucrat (like Raul) to change the tag. If it looks like consensus to me, I'll ask Raul to take a look as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When's the last time something about this was posted at WP:VPP? Looking at the current talk page I see a number of what look like unresolved suggestions or objections (most of the "Up for discussion" items have very little discussion, pro or con, which argues against consensus - there's just too little discussion to call it either way). You might not like this, but I suggest to progress from here (assuming you're happy with the current state of WP:DOY) you should:

Archive the existing talk page.
Add a new topic on the talk page that says something like "please comment on the guidelines below indicating your support or specific (actionable) objections" (the best model for this is WP:FAC).
Add an announcement that you're seeking consensus for these guidelines at WP:VPP, WP:CENT, and WP:DAYS.
Invite comments from folks who have expressed interest (on their talk page), specifically including folks who have previously voiced objections (I suspect you know any number of folks who regularly revert vandalism on these pages).
Wait a week or two and see what kind of comments you get.

One of the truly unfortunate aspects of this place is that you can't force people to comment, but if you don't get a reasonable number of comments you really can't claim consensus (for this, I'd think it would take comments from at least 6 folks and ideally more like 10).

Does this seem like a reasonable approach? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what it takes, I'm all for it. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the ball rolling on this. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars

According to the history, you did the edits to the Calendar templates (eg. Template:MarchCalendar). These calendars used to float to the right, but now they are all on the left (not floating). Was there a reason for this change? —Mike 01:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change was to make the calendars self maintaining (from year to year). The fact that the old versions were right floating was an unnecessary feature (it limited users of the template from putting it where they wanted to). All of the main space pages that use the template have the right float set within the pages (and always have). If you would like to use the template on your user page, you can set the float for your specific use on your page. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true for many of the articles, but articles such as March and March 2008 would need to be changed. —Mike 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're probably talking about 2 pages per template, I'd be willing to make the changes to the pages myself. I still think it's better to let it be done per page than with the template -- just in the event that someone wants to use the template somewhere else with a different alignment. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, March 2008 shouldn't be using the MarchCalendar template anyway. It will change next year. It should use a static March 2008 calendar. I'll change that too. Someday I'll rewrite the month templates so that they default to the current year and can use parameters for other years. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Act

Mufka, saw your WW tag on Sherman Act article. I've been trying to fix that article up. I didn't write that section of the old article, I inherited it when I rewrote the substantive part, and didn't want to make edits where I had an ideological COI or a non-neutral POV. Nevertheless, I agree with you that some rewriting was necessary, and I've tried to respond. Feel free to weigh in if you still have a stake. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to do content edits on articles that I haven't researched, but I thought it would be useful to point out something that a) wasn't referenced and b) used weasel words. I have a habit of getting sucked into researching the oddest things just to fix one sentence, so I might end up poking at it. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gibson

Hey, I already got that. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw. I promptly reverted my bad revert. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

You've got it now. :-) - Philippe 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

27 April

Thanks for your message - is the issue that it's linking to an external site (so I should create a Wikipedia page about World Tapir Day), or is it that you don't believe that the event is officially recognised by anyone? If the former, that's easy enough to fix; if the latter, I can provide evidence that the relevant bodies do recognise it. -- Captain_Potato 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I've answered my own question (it's the former, isn't it?) - would the reference to World Tapir Day in the Tapir page be enough, or should I create its own (which I ought to do anyway, but time always gets in the way...) -- Captain_Potato 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should really have an article of its own in order to be considered notable enough for inclusion as an observance. The exception to that is feast days which are listed in the subject's article. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears that this is the first year that it will be observed. Since it hasn't occurred yet (or recurred), it really can't be listed as an observance. It hasn't happened yet, so it is impossible to say that it will have global impact. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and makes sense - thanks. I'll wait until its own article exists. Even though it hasn't happened yet, once this page exists, it will be okay to include it then? In terms of its importance, for tapir conservation it is already having an impact through its fundraising (I'm coordinating it, so I've got a good idea), and we're working on promoting it to a wider audience than just the tapir community around the world (yes, there is one - mainly researchers and conservationists - but there are others, such as myself, who doesn't have the scientific background to help in that way). As you will have no doubt seen from the official page, tapir conservation is only part of the project - to protect tapirs, their wider ecosystems need to be protected, so the aims of World Tapir Day stretch far beyond tapirs as such.

Part of the reason for listing it now is because it's coming up soon (and why it wasn't added until now, even though it's been in planning for a while), so it would be useful to help promote it (especially when look at the page to see what events are happening on 27 April), so it's a bit of a vicious circle, I guess, if it couldn't be added until afterwards. I assumed that it fits because of its importance relative to World Graphic Design Day that *is* listed ;) As my re-edit comment suggested, I thought that you'd removed it was because I chose 1 April to add it :P -- Captain_Potato 01:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are involved in organizing the event, you will need to watch WP:COI. This isn't a place to advertise a cause. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - I agree, it isn't a place to advertise a cause (and that's not what I am doing - World Tapir Day exists to help with tapir conservation, not to flatter my (or anybody else's) ego). Every edit I've ever made on Wikipedia (either logged in or before I bothered to create an account) has been because I am interested in the topic (other than when I spot vandalism). My academic background is extensive enough to let me write neutrally about any matter. Having read WP:COI, I'll add my involvement to my User talk:Captain Potato page, and will be careful about anything I add.

Having said this, who edits a page on Wikipedia if they aren't interested in the topic (other than obsessive-compulsives, who will never be able to write everything on every topic ;) )? -- Captain_Potato 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Just wanted to let you know, I've fulfilled your bot request. Enjoy! SQL ^{Query me!} 11:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Foundation

Hi, can you please tell if Turner Foundation website RS or not? I am a bit confused on it. I used it as reference in the article Operation Amba and want to use in Crime in Russia. I also like another opinion regarding Wildlife Alliance and Orangutan.com. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Foundation has a Board of Trustees. Wildlife Alliance and Orangutan.com also have directorial teams [1][2]. So I think these are RS. Still I will like another opinion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look like reliable sources but as used in Operation Amba and Crime in Russia, the Turner reference doesn't support what it is being used to support. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a mistake in URL, I have fixed it. This is the right page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Rabies Day

Hi, Thanks for your corrections to the WRD articles. I have check with the event organization team in CDC and from the Alliance for Rabies Control and the event is planned for the 28th every year. 2007 was the first year it took place and an official date had not yet been chosen. Have a nice day, Mrhnm (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Marsden Hope

Ease up Turbo!!. I'm removing the request for deletion you placed there. I'm in a different timezone to you obviously, and I stopped editing last night at 11.30pm - I do have to sleep and work and look after a family. I will finish the article tonight. I started with the infobox because it's a good way to write - by the time you source and fill in the relevant details, I find I've found most of the available information on the article. Not much on this guy, but I'll tag it as an Australian Law Biography stub or the like and those with more information can pad it out until I can get down to the Library. What he did do in Australia warrants an article on him due to the links to him that will no doubt be needed.Akitora (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when I create an article, I make sure that I am providing at least enough information in the first pass so that the article can stand up to a notability inquiry. An infobox isn't really part of the article's content so it doesn't always establish notability. This is important just in case you can't come back to the article for a few days, it prevents it from being deleted because notability wasn't established. Even one paragraph with a couple of references can be enough. You must have spent some time putting together the infobox and that time could have been better spent establishing notability. The infobox can come later. The world rarely waits for an editor to come back at some later date to establish notability. Just some advice you didn't ask for. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the good advice! - it's sound and you are right. Sorry if I overreacted. Thanks also for pointing out the inuse and underconstruction templates - my new best friends.Akitora (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mufka. Thanks for your help on the article. Question for you - the use of "ibid." in references - is it done on Wikipedia?Akitora (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you'll notice how I grouped your duplicate references. Look at the code and see how I used the <ref name='name'> That way, the whole reference isn't duplicated. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My username

I have already asked to get it changed! Please give me a chance--Wiki-page-protector (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is no problem. I should of though before I decided on this username--Wiki-page-protector (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Málaga coach crash

Could you please take some time to read the article about the Málaga coach crash before automatically deciding it's non-notable? As I have said at Talk:April 19, there have been three road accidents in the United States with fewer casualties, yet Wikipedia covers all three in much more detail than this one. Am I seeing some sort of bias here? JIP | Talk 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:April 19. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]