User talk:Mazca: Difference between revisions

This is Mazca's talk page. If you want to leave me a message, please do so in a new section below. I will reply here, to keep the conversation together, unless you tell me otherwise. If I suspect you might not be watching my talkpage, I'll tag you. If I left you a message on your talk page, please feel free to reply there. If I didn't leave you a message, and you don't want to leave me a message, that is your own problem. Enjoy the picture of a dead horse to the left.

I tend to cram anything that's no longer immediately relevant in the archive. If you want to discuss something in there, please start a new section here rather than posting in there.

Thanks!

Not just for your support, but more importantly for your spectacular kindness. Take it easy and keep up your own good work! - Vianello (Talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. All the best. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Srsly

Why am I not seeing your name on the RfA report? :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Those people at RfA are scary! ~ mazca ^t|c 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

...well damn, fine, have a decent argument, see if I care!
Seriously though, I think you could breeze right thru it. It's not like RfA is as bad as, say, RfB. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right - I probably ought to give it a go in the near future. I have some vaguely traumatic exams over the next few days in pursuit of my qualification at work; but I'll think about it over the weekend. Tell you what - you get over your fear of nominating people for RfA and we'll talk! :D ~ mazca ^t|c 20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, fair enough. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

re:list indenting

I didn't put the # sign in because I thought that would mess up the numbering :-). It looks like that whole thread was removed from the RfA discussion by one of the 'crats anyway, but thanks for the heads up! - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems counter-intuitive doesn't it? In any case, I think the right decision got made in the end, that thread makes for less trolling if it isn't there at all. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A9 on Signs (Bloc Party song)

I think you may have misread the guideline. I hate quoting things and I'm not trying to throw a quote in your face but I figured that it would be easier to put it here and discuss it than have you go to the guideline to read it.

"Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

That's what I go by for song notability. It's pretty clear in my opinion. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how the article provided any indication on the notability of the specific song (charts, articles, etc.). If you did misunderstand, please re-db the article. If I missed a point for inclusion on WP:MUSIC let me know. Either way, if the article is still there in a week, I'll be taking it to AfD for a discussion. OlYeller^Talktome 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to argue WP:MUSIC with you - it would seem, without doing any further research at least, that you're exactly right there. The single might indeed fail the guideline for the notability of singles; particularly if it doesn't chart. If you want to AfD the article I would not object - though I'd probably suggest waiting a week to see if it makes the singles chart first.

I'm concerned, however, that you might yourself be misunderstanding the criteria for speedy deletion. The notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc) don't really have anything to do with speedy deletion: an article failing the relevant guideline is a great reason to say "delete" at an AfD discussion, but "subject isn't notable" is not a speedy criterion. You should note that A7 and A9 only requires a vaguely credible assertion of why a subject might be significant; which is a lower standard than notability. The speedy criteria are worded so specifically for a reason: they should be unambiguously unsuited to Wikipedia. Things that don't directly fit one of the criteria are by nature things that there isn't a community consensus to delete instantly: that's what WP:PROD and WP:AFD are for. In short: Failing the notability guideline is not, in itself, a valid reason to speedy tag something.

In the case of the A9 criterion you used on the article though, it's even more specific than that - it absolutely only applies if the artist doesn't have an article. The criterion was added to deal with the people who create an article about their obscure garage band, then create an article for their demo tape too. It's not there to deal with singles by notable bands that might fail WP:MUSIC. I hope this makes my point more clear - I'm not necessarily disputing that the article might be worth deleting; I'm just saying it definitely shouldn't be speedy deleted under our guidelines. Thanks ~ mazca ^t|c 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I guess I just don't know where that's written; that a song shouldn't be speedied if the band is notable. It was always my understanding that if notable isn't implied on the page, it's deleted hands-down. I guess I've just never seen anywhere that a song can be notable simply because the band is so I don't see how a song could ever be notable just because the band is. I'll look for it myself and AfD songs by notable artists instead of speedying from now on though. If you have a link for that, I'd be greatful. OlYeller^Talktome 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily the case that a song can be notable just because the band is, it's more that a song can't be speedy deleted because the band is notable. As for a link, I'd point you to Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria, specifically:

1. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant.
2. Failure to assert importance but not an A7 or A9 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 or A9 under those criteria.

More generally, just remember that if it doesn't fit one of the speedy deletion criteria, it shouldn't be speedy deleted. Non-notable singles by notable bands don't fit A9 (band has an article) and don't fit A7 (only applies to groups and bands, companies, people and web content). It's not so much that you should look for a reason something can't be speedy deleted; rather you need to realise the specific situations it can. If in doubt, it's always best to AfD so that a few people can look at the specific situation. Hope this helps. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Word. I'll do that from now on. OlYeller^Talktome 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Surprised

Just discovered that you're not an admin; that's news to me! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bwuhaha. See, you need to run. :) (and I need to write something for you, hush) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's mostly due to a combination of procrastination and general dubiousness about the prospects of an RfA. EVula seems to have backed me into a corner though, so that might change! ~ mazca ^t|c 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I only backed you into a corner because I'm a jackass. Nothing personal. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean you're an impersonal jackass? That's worse, surely? :D ~ mazca ^t|c 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well played my friend, but you just established that you're competent enough at wikilawyering to make an excellent sysop. Congrats, you've done yourself in. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...

I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I shall have a look when I get a chance. ~ mazca ^t|c 08:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Download it

I need to gain points on my Rapidshare collector's account.--4teas (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A worthy goal, but please do it somewhere else. Wikipedia is not for linking to your porn downloads. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Admin?

Hello, Mazca! I've seen you around, and I really admire your editing; would you like me to review you as an admin candidate? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I'd be glad to know what your thoughts are. I've been weighing the useful things I could do with admin tools against the unnecessary stress of an RfA. ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 07:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you did forget, I have a nomination statement on my computer waiting for you since a long time already. I'd still be glad to nominate you, – of course, just if you want me to. — Aitias // discussion 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I may be co-nomming with Aitias if this goes through... :) I'll get right on the review (note that I am also reviewing User:Kingpin13). Best, Dylan620 2 _Master 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

EVula's been threatening me with a nom for months too. ;) In any case I won't be able to accept a nom for a week or two - i'm gonna be away on vacation next week - but if multiple people actually want to nominate me I'd have no objections to a co-nom of any kind.

Aitias, I'm entirely happy for you to nominate if you're still up for it; regardless of any drama that's happened since our last conversation about this you're still very much an editor and admin I respect. And Dylan620, I very much welcome any comments you happen to have, positive or negative, whenever you get round to reviewing my edits. Thanks! ~ mazca ^t|c 18:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall create a page on which to take notes at User:Dylan620/Mazca. Best, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that your above statement still stands and you still feel like it, I have created this. In case my assumption was right, you can accept and answer the questions (whenever you have the time). If my assumption was false, just tell me and I will delete that page. Best wishes :), — Aitias // discussion 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Aitias. Your assumption is correct; I plan to answer the questions in the near future and accept it. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that. :) You're very welcome. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 17:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The initial questions are all answered. As before, EVula expressed an interest in writing a co-nom and plans to do it later on. I'll move, accept and transclude it after I'm home from work tomorrow, with any luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally did it, though I'll admit that I'd almost forgotten about it. Ugh, absent-minded professor is a far more accurate descriptor than I'd like.... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the miracle of time-zones you still managed to write it before I got up this morning, so no harm done! Now transcluded. *shivers* ~ mazca ^t|c 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) Good luck, Mazca! :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question

If you had the admin tools, where would you use them? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I wander around most areas; but I suspect a reasonable proportion of my activity as an admin would be clearing out candidates for speedy deletion, with intermittent appearances to close AfD's and keeping an eye on AIV. The admin areas I would most likely not touch would be DYK and arbitration enforcement. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

*psst* Just saying "correctly" would probably have worked, too. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that would have been a correct answer if the question had been "How would you...", but as "correctly" isn't a location... ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Son of a... yeah, when I wrote that I was already thinking "man, I'm tired, I should go to bed." *facepalm* EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mazca/UBX metal specific

Are you sure heavy metal links to the right place? Since this is the only negative thing I've found about your contributions so far, I don't think it's quite enough to oppose your RfA. Might be enough to make it a strong neutral, though... Jafeluv (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, you're right. I spent ages fiddling with that infobox to cram as much information into as little space as possible, but I clearly missed one of the more important parts of it. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Input requested

... at Talk:Perineum#Slang and piercing. Whatever404 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Responded there. ~ mazca ^t|c 06:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

your RfA

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm glad it went down so undramatically! ~ mazca ^t|c 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mazca, congrats on your successful RfA! ϢereSpielChequers 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! :) My condolences on your successful RfA. :( –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA candidacy, and the very impressive affirmation of your work here, with overwhelming support in your favor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Phew, what a lame first admin action. I'd expected something better from you. Seriously though: Congratulations, Mazca! I'm very glad you're an admin now, and I'm sure you'll do very well. My best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As you demonstrated, people are looking at my admin actions at the moment! I must lie low before I start blocking admins! ;) ~ mazca ^t/c 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Hell, enjoy the lack of ice water. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Astro_channelsTalk to Magibon 17:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect...

FMA's edits are disruptive, and he has been called on to provide sources for his information several times and refuses to do so. His indignance for Wiki policy, as far as I'm concerned, makes him a vandal and I don't appreciate getting yelled at for trying to combat his disruptiveness. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)