User talk:Heymid/2011 January

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You certain?

I'm not going to mention the name of the user here (as you said RBI), but it's the IP address of that one user that I'm unsure about. mechamind 9 0 21:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but as the responder pointed out in the ANI discussion, WP:RBI should be used in cases like this one. Hey Mid (contribs) 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

THanks! How nice of you. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Hey Mid (contribs) 12:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AF447

Hey there. I noticed you nominated Air France Flight 447 at GAN, and I am concerned it does not meet criteria 5, in that the accident report has not been published yet, and so the full story is not known. Don't get me wrong, the article's in good shape, but it'll only be "complete" when the report is released. I was considering quick failing the article, but I won't review it (a bit busy at the moment) and see what the reviewer thinks; just a word of warning. Good work on the article, though! wacky wace 15:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Good article criteria #5 says "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute" – I'm not sure whether this is the case with Air France Flight 447. I think GA review is also a good way to gain feedback on how the article can be improved further. But yes, as you say, to be safe, it might be a good idea to withdraw it (for now) until the final report has been released. Hey Mid (contribs) 15:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion: perhaps a good idea would be to put the article up for review at WP:PR, then the article will be in even better shape when the report comes out so less work will have to be done, and would be an ideal way to gain feedback about the article. Keep up the good work! wacky wace 15:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, I did consider a peer review, but I'm not sure whether that would be effective, as I've seen PRs that have been unreviewed for like half a year or so (or even a year). Hey Mid (contribs) 15:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be a massive lack of reviewers at PR, which is a shame. wacky wace 17:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

...which is exactly why I brought the article for GA review. Hey Mid (contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fastra II bone resolution quality.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fastra II bone resolution quality.png. 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging templates

Hi. Since you seem to have done some work on this, could you take care of the sockblock template merger (here). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Is there anything more you want me to do with it? I don't understand, as the TFD has been closed as templates merged. Hey Mid (contribs) 11:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a working merged template? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I am mostly done with it. There isn't anything specific to do. Also, I've now substituted all {{sockblock}} transclusions. Hey Mid (contribs) 10:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I should just redirect one to the other? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Hey Mid (contribs) 11:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Flight 447 peer review

Just dropping by to let you know that I have added a review to the peer review you opened over at WikiProject Aviation for Air France Flight 447. I write aviation accident articles, so I might not be quite as uninvolved as you were looking for, but I have not actually done any work on this article in particular. Cheers. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. Hey Mid (contribs) 10:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Undoing redirect

Hi Heymid. I'm going to undo your redirect of Access Denied's talk page. It's true he may not be checking it, but if there are additional notifications of investigations or discussions of his account posted there, people who watch his talk page will want to know about them. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My redirect was reverted by Ks0stm, who at the same time instead soft-redirected the page, while keeping the collapsed content. Hey Mid (contribs) 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I restored the page to the version before your change; I don't believe a soft direct adds anything useful to the page. 28bytes (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re

Put your inside view back, with a current timestamp. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing sock tags

Why are you removing sock tags from userpages? That is disruptive, since it also removes the pages from the sock category. Please restore the sock tags. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I did so as a way to stop feeding the trolls. We shouldn't attract users to create new sock accounts by filling their sockpuppet categories with loads of accounts – doing so is likely a way to feed the trolls (which we don't want to do here). Hey Mid (contribs) 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't "not feed the trolls". Instead, it makes it impossible to keep track of who had which sock and whether or not the socks are blocked, checkusered, or whatever. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The socks can still be found in the SPI case, so it's not completely censored for CheckUsers to see. Moreover, consensus here was that RBI applies. Hey Mid (contribs) 17:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the consensus was not for removing the sock tags. The consensus was to RBI, which means to treat them all the same. Just like any other puppeteer, all his socks are reverted, blocked, and tagged. Deleting his tags makes him "special" and gives him more attention. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. It is possible that I may have misunderstood the situation. I know one administrator who (some time ago) deleted a ton of user pages of sockpuppets of one single sockpuppeteer. I'm not sure whether the sockpuppeteer himself tagged the socks as his, but I think it's more likely they were tagged by other users than him. The administrator in question deleted both the categories and user pages, referring to WP:DENY. This user has a ton of sockpuppets, but neither of them are listed in the sockpuppeteer's sockpuppet categories. Further, tagging the sock accounts is unnecessary if RBI is the only thing that can be done about it. Also, Access Denied's latest sock account to date (as far as I know) was never tagged. Hey Mid (contribs) 17:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would just leave everything the way it is and not go back and "fix" the tag removal since that would just give him more attention which he obviously wants. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, and that's exactly why I removed the tags. If Access Denied himself re-tags the socks, the user pages can be deleted and protected. Just revert him as you see him and wait for an administrator to block him, since CheckUser can do nothing about the situation, and IP range blocks aren't possible. Hey Mid (contribs) 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sock policy is that blocked/confirmed socks are tagged. If you disagree, start a discussion. I've reverted all of your blanking, as it was indeed disruptive.— Dæ dαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You just beat me to it. Hey Mid (contribs) 10:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for changing the tally. PhilKnight (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem – I also did the same thing here. Hey Mid (contribs) 19:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-adblock

Why did you remove the categorization from this tag? When accounts are blocked for spamming its best that they be put into Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for advertising. Them From Space 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for Template:Uw-sblock. These categories are important for spam tracking. Them From Space 01:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed both. Thanks for letting me now. It's not easy not to make a mistake when you edit 20 templates in 35 minutes. Hey Mid (contribs) 10:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Wikipedia birthday!

I read on HJ's talk page that you have been on Wikipedia for a year. I just wanted to drop by and say happy Wikipedia birthday, and also happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Have a nice day. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 14:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Cheers, Hey Mid (contribs) 14:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Hey Bzuk (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!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Hey Mid (contribs) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth for you too!

Perseus, Son of Zeus has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

--Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Hey Mid (contribs) 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To Wikipedia's 10^th birthday

Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Third! Hey Mid (contribs) 22:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

I have had a sporadic history of IPs and Anons targetting both my home and talk page, so it's probably prudent to leave the protection as is. As to the whiskey message; it's an offshoot of your original message, but I am all thumbs and couldn't figure out a way to adequately change it so it comes off looking a bit jerky! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

At least your signature in that modification can be improved. Hey Mid (contribs) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just slow to get around to all the folks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Nomination of Saro Dursun for deletion

The article Saro Dursun is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saro Dursun until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Canadian Paul 22:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

AIK IF review

Hi Heymid,

I've reviewed the AIK IF article against the Good Article criteria. A lot of good work has gone into it so far, but there is still some way to go before it will be ready as a Good Article. Please take a look at the review!

Taiwantaffy (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That was long-waited! Thanks. Hey Mid (contribs) 10:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

After-block

Hi, I just closed these and dropped them in the holding cell. If you want to take a shot at merging them, that would be great. Otherwise, I will try to get to it later. It might be easier to just make them subtemplates, but I didn't look at it that closely. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Walker

I've reverted your strikeout of a !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Walker. Please do not strike out other people's !votes. If you believe a contributor is a SPA, feel free to add {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}} to the end of their comment. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"If you believe a contrubitor is a SPA" – it's a CheckUser confirmed sockpuppet. Clearly an SPA. In other words, no reason to revert the strikeout. Haven't you yet realized that the SPA has been blocked as a CU confirmed sockpuppet? The sockmaster's other sockpuppets' !votes were also reverted by other users. See the SPI case. Hey Mid (contribs) 21:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Then say what you mean in your edit summary. There is a huge difference between an SPA (someone with very few edits outside the topic) and a confirmed sockpuppet. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but a new account immediately jumping to AFDs and making WP:VAGUEWAVE !votes in many AFDs, is too good to be a new user. Hey Mid (contribs) 21:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. But in most cases, closing admins and even WP:NAC non-admins can tell the difference just fine without other people striking their !votes. It's only with confirmed socks, (and the key word being confirmed,) that striking their !votes is considered necessary. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your MfDs

I notice you nominated 7 stalled RfC/U drafts for deletion. I was wondering if you bothered to ask if any of the people working on those if they wanted to keep them? Potentially, any of them could have forgotten about them and a simple poke would be all that was necessary to get them to delete it themselves or request a speedy deletion of something in their own user space. It's always much more polite and productive if you approach a user first rather than jumping to something like MfD. AniMate 00:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my idea was to cleanup the amount of Template:Userspace RFC draft transclusions. I see no point in keeping stale RFC drafts, as they are probably not up-to-date. Maybe the better idea is to simply remove the tag from the RFC draft pages. Not much of a deal if they aren't deleted. Hey Mid (contribs) 09:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've closed all my nominations as speedy keep; the fact that they show up at Special:WhatLinksHere is probably not the best reason to delete (stale) RFC drafts. Hey Mid (contribs) 09:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea: before you nominate something in another user's space for deletion try asking them if they want it deleted first. AniMate 10:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but why do you describe my talkback as "horrid"? Hey Mid (contribs) 10:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkbacks in general are horrible, not just yours. AniMate 10:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it now. Consider me poked. I've always seen talkbacks as useful, why are they horrible? Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It's not a priority to have stale RFC/Us deleted, though, so I wouldn't have been angry even if you hadn't deleted it. Hey Mid (contribs) 15:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Horrible", isn't that incivil, especially if you're acting in good faith? Hey Mid (contribs) 15:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

On RfA comments

Hi,

This probably wasn't productive. I know you supported, but WP:SNOW certainly doesn't apply to situations where (at the time of your comment) support ran at over 60%. People shouldn't be encouraged to withdraw RfAs early unless there really is no chance of a pass, which generally means considerably less than 50% support. I've seen RfAs which took early batterings recover, and GiantSnowman's eventual support % was 67%, which is not too far out of the discretionary range. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the final tally, I realize my comment was a bit harsh, as the user got 67,8% supports. Hey Mid (contribs) 14:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)