User talk:MuZemike

MuZemike's talk page guidelines

1. Warnings — Please place in the topmost section titled "Warnings," separate by month and year as a subsection, and number them.
2. Discussions — If you start a discussion here, it shall remain here, unless for extraneous reasons.
3. Archiving — Inactive discussions shall be archived on my discretion.
4. The Obvious Rules — Place new discussions at the bottom, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), assume good faith, and no personal attacks, please.

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Zombie Nation (video game) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sZG7Y7CdTc) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD Comments

Heh, I enjoy reading your comments for articles that apply to G11. Keep up the good work! RockManQ (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For all of your hard work down at AfD! RockManQ (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! They actually are quotes from the "Spam" skit from Monty Python. MuZemike (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Case

I added some information to your sockpuppet case page against User:63.3.1.1. I hope that everything works out in your favor. --Candy156sweet (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate it, regardless of the outcome. MuZemike (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Period (Unix)

"A1: how steak is done" — hahaha! You're certainly deserving of the barnstar you've been awarded. Cliff smith ^talk 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mario Bros. pre-assessment

I've gotta state up front, some of the prose bothers me. For instance it mentions Donkey Kong right off in development, but then again a few sentences later as one of the first platformer games. That seems like it could be organized a little better. Reception needs to define quotes by reviewers a bit better too, and seems like it could easily be larger for such a game...

It's a good start, just I really feel it has issues right now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. You should probably let A Link to the Past know about that, as well, as he made the necessary improvements, with myself and Someone another peer reviewing it. I have not worked on it much at all. I figured it had good potential after the peer review that it can make B-Class. MuZemike (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

If you wouldn't mind could you give me a hint of who that puppet editor is, or at least give me a link? I'm really curious. Sorry if I'm being a tad forward. --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you a clearer hint before I give the link. Common (boilerplate) AfD comment:

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world).

Another hint: A second checkuser case two weeks ago confirmed that this user has been using multiple sock puppets. User has vanished but keeps coming back. (That's actually three, more 2 1/2.) MuZemike (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Still at a loss. Is this guy the sockpuppet of 63.3.11? --Candy156sweet (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, we mean <user removed per WP:RTV>; that's who I think Craw-daddy was referring to. The user made a lot a dubious boilerplate !votes like what I mentioned above. MuZemike (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean you are dropping the sock puppet case? If he is a sockpuppet of that editor, then switch the IP# to that case and conclude the other one. Hope it all works out. --Candy156sweet (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure before I close. I will ask. MuZemike (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I replied at more length on my talk page. The summarized response is that "yes, I think it's him, but it's more of a 'gut feeling' based on circumstantial evidence than anything else". --Craw-daddy | T | 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, we both seem to concur that this user in question may very well be pulling the strings here. I will close the current sock case. My question now is that how do we go forward on this? Do we open another sock case, despite the fact that the likely sockpuppeteer is a now-vanished user? MuZemike (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's appropriate, a checkuser request can be made to determine if there is indeed a link here, as is suspected. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure that this exactly qualifies as vandalism so it wouldn't fit into case A (you might have evidence/belief otherwise). It seems that the only case that might apply is G, but some sufficient justification would be necessary here. (I think this was the justification for the checkuser of the "ER" account). Seeing as this editor came back under a new account that was subsequently blocked, and seems to be trying to avoid scrutiny, this might be sufficient. I'm really not sure what sort of "level of evidence" is warranted in these cases. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How do close a sock case? Do you just ping an admin to close it? MuZemike (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the sock case will be closed automatically if no checkuser request is made, or as you did on the case, just request that it's closed. --Craw-daddy | T |

Comment: As much as it annoys me to have to edit and as much as I really hate identifying my IP range, I have been informed of this edit and this discussion and think it may be necessary to do so to save people unnecessary trouble and to keep myself vanished. As you can see from my post here as well as from [1] and [2] that my IPs are and have been in the 172 range. You should notice also that the 172 IPs I have used have few to no additional edits from them as I have been generally careful about only editing logged in. If those other IPs with all kinds of edits were somehow mine, I would think that would have come up in the checkuser results and been mentioned. Other editors have imitated my style for whatever reason and yet have been determined not to be me a la [3]. I don’t know if some imitate me because they like my arguments or as I think Randomran suggested to troll me; after all, I did successfully identify a number of deletionist sock accounts that resulted in their being blocked and wouldn‘t be surprised if any want revenge. Moreover, I am not the only inclusionist to have ever been around. And I certainly have no history of making vandalism edits like those IPs in question. I can understand why some might be suspicious and all, but now you know against my better judgment my IP range, which I really hope was not a mistake to reveal should my harassers be watching. MuZemike, please stop bringing me up as I vanished for a serious reason. I over the weekend just went through having to successfully have libelous material about me removed from another site. Please let me go in peace and as you will see I am not using this IP to make any additional edits. Thank you. Sincerely, the vanished editor, --172.131.37.249 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> Well, there you go. Make of it what you will. (This appeared right as/after I was making my responses above.) I'll leave it up to you as to what you want to do in this case MuZemike. Maybe you can just leave the sock puppet case open (i.e. remove your request that it's closed). I don't quite know what to say at this point. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you're a deletionist, inclusionist, delusionist, darwikinist, absolutist, etc-ist. The actions, in my view, indicate sockpuppetry is going on, regardless of what pigeonhole you happen to fall into. MuZemike (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I really think that this editor in question is unrelated to the sockpuppet account case for 63.3.1.1. Unless the new IP# is traceable to Michigan, than you are barking up the wrong tree. I haven't found any real evidence aside from the mere circumstantial and coincidental. If there is anything connected, it would be that 63.3.1.1 found a new way to be an irritant. This other editor is part of something else, which seems to be uniquely irritating. I really would hate to not further a sockpuppet case against the idiot puppeteer I've dealt with, but I really think that the case for 63.3.1.1 should be concluded. I think one should be opened that directly relates to the editor who "vanished." Hope that you are able to solve the mystery. --Candy156sweet (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:WikiProject Sega and Nintendo

That's why I figured it would best to wait this out. They don't seem to be aware of some policies and guidelines, and are probably acting this way because they don't know any better. They would have done some things differently—as you've pointed out—if they did know better. Nothing will come of the move because the editors interested in Nintendo articles aren't going to collaborate there because they're too pissed off to. So I say assume good faith for now, and let them try to get their project in order. We'll check back in about a month and make the same offer we did before. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

NONENG and N

You appear to severely misguided on this subject. Notability is timeless, and independent of region as well. A source in ancient Greek is just as good as a source in modern Greek is just as good as a source in English, and if anything we should be biased towards the inclusion of articles with only foreign language sources, as a means of countering systemic bias. In short, while the use of Non-English sources can present minor verifiability problems (as with any other source that is difficult to access, such as books not available online), they present no notability problem whatsoever. --erachima talk 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never thought of it from the systemic bias point of view, and you do have a point. However, as you mentioned, there would exist verifiability concerns, especially when they are the only such sources used. I mean, I do not know what the website is or is about if it's in another language I don't understand. I feel that if those sources cannot be challenged especially in an AfD, then it seems like we're taking someone's word that they do establish notability. That's my view on it.

In this context, it doesn't really matter besides making for policy discussion as my stance is now that the article in question should be kept. MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On Rrindie126, Quixotic92, and Kmzgirl

The RfC process is not currently protected. Can I create a subpage for it? Alexius08 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By all means. I can contribute to the RfC when I can. (I meant to initiate one , but my schedule has been sporadic as of late.) MuZemike (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just opened a sockpuppetry case here. You can participate on gathering evidences. Alexius08 (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've honestly had enough of all this Wikipedia BS. I have assumed good faith. I have given you all a chance. If you read the talk page on this case, Alexius08 is equally as guilty of not "assuming good faith". Alexius08 just went in and on over irrelevant matter, and was COMPLETELY biased against all of the defendants. Whoever Alexius08 is, they gave us no leniency because they just accused us of everything under the sun with little or no ACTUAL RELEVANT supporting evidence. "Assume good faith"... yeah right! So just to expedite this, I'm going to say some RELEVANT stuff. Wikipedia is a useless corrupted community full of partisan views, and hypocrisy among elitist leaders (a.k.a bullies). Now I know why those articles and blogs about you guys were written. In fact, I'm going to go write one myself, and just to let all of you know, I practically hold the world.

I thought this discussion was over anyways when the article got deleted. Why do you all keep perpetuating this?

--Rrindie126 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)