User talk:Michig/Archive16

RFC

I'm having a few issues with a particular editor, and I'm not entirely sure what the best approach is; I was wondering whether you could take a look. The issue is essentially this: said user generically dislikes list articles, preferring categories (despite long-standing consensus that the two are not mutually exclusive). To this end they nominated a bunch of the metal lists for deletion, although they subsequently admitted that they were looking for clean-up; examples are here, here and here. They also have a problem with artist nationality being recorded in llist articles (for example, this edit), although curiously they have no issue with date of formation being listed. The list articles were all kept following AfD, so their new tactic appears to be to delete everything without a source, which is fair enough if the editor has looked for sources themselves, but in this instance appears to be a pointed attempt to blank pages since they didn't get their own way at AfD. The latest, and most baffling altercation concerns the newly renamed (unilaterally by editor in question) list of Swedish death metal bands. Their unusual argument is that there is some huge distinction between a Swedish death metal band and a Swedish death metal band, although it is unclear where they have gleaned this distinction from. Nonetheless, I have done due diligence and found sources for everything on the list (initially Allmusic, although I have pointed said editor towards print sources (Daniel Ekeroth's Swedish Death Metal, Albert Mudrian's Improbable History, Terrorizer death metal specials etc.) but this particular chap is just removing all the sourced content (e.g this edit. A quick look at the talk page gives you a fairly clear idea of how they approach consensus-building; the "new inclusion criteria" have apparently been decided by him and him alone, and it far from clear exactly what they are. This kind of editing is essentially disruptive, but I'm not exacctly sure who to take the issue to... what do you reckon? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner but I don't have much time to contribute to WP at the moment. As others have suggested, I think ANI might be the best bet if there is further behaviour that is clearly disruptive. Best of luck. --Michig (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

woohoo!

		The Empty Set Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts in sourcing unreferenced BLPs! joe deckertalk to me 17:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)	{ }

Orphaned non-free image File:MiguelMigs-ThoseThings.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MiguelMigs-ThoseThings.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This image isn't used because someone replaced it in the article with this much bigger (too big!) version. Perhaps you should swap it back and tag the oversized image for deletion instead? I may be being over-hopeful in assuming that anyone follows up these template messages, but prove me wrong.--Michig (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought not :( --Michig (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedway in Leicester

Hello Michig, I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article Speedway in Leicester in the New Articles list-- It's nice to see you editing!Amy Z (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Michig (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake

My word, yes, you are right. I did do Google searches but could have been more thorough in finding sources. Perhaps Google has put me in a filter bubble where it comes to popular music but I honestly can't remember seeing anything other than a few blogspots and lots of social media sites but nothing substantive. I'll learn from this and try a bit harder when it comes to finding sources for popular music album and artist pages in the future (this does look handy). I consider myself duly trouted. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Google does give different results for different people sometimes, but some of that coverage was in the first page of results for me. It is essential that a decision on the existence of coverage is based on a meaningful search rather than simply those sources used in an article. The deletion rationale did not make it clear that such a search had taken place - I would recommend clarifying how you searched and what you found as part of the rationale at AFD, as a lot of people don't search for sources at all before taking articles there and it's helpful to know which areas may not have been covered. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you for your support and comment at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. I do not feel adminship is authority, but is rather a responsibility and trust accompanied by a few extra buttons. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jingle Bell list

I wish you hadn't deleted all those names, since 5 seconds of Googling turned up the Judy Collins reference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well they can easily go back on if and when sources/details are added. The list is better without a load of artist names with no details.--Michig (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As you've probably already noted, I've added them all back again, since the first five I looked into, more or less randomly, were all easily substantiated. I've done a few more since then, as I believe you have as well. I also removed the Sex Pistols because it seems to have been another (non-notable) band that someone mis-labelled as the Sex Pistols. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Short block for 194.75.128.200

Is there a reason you shortened the block for 194.75.128.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? This corporate IP has been a persistent vandal and has been blocked multiple times. By this point a school would be blocked for at least a year, so I am puzzled why a week is considered sufficient in this case. Thanks. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think I shortened the block? Before I blocked it it wasn't blocked. The previous block was for 1 week and that was over 2 years ago (October 2009). Or am I missing something?--Michig (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin Icairns (talk · contribs) put a 6-month block on at 16:04 UTC together with this talk page edit. You changed the block to 1 week at 16:52 UTC. --Bob Re-born (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That block and talk page edit is for 194.75.129.200, which is still blocked for 6 months. I haven't altered the block for 194.75.129.200 - it's still blocked for 6 months.--Michig (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Doh! The company obviously uses two proxy/gateways. I didn't see the difference for looking. Apologies. Having said that, is there a case for synchronising the blocks as looking at past activity, whenever .128.200 is vandalising, the same is true of .129.200, which makes me thing some kind of load balancing is taking place and the same person is behind both sets of vandalism. Just a thought...--Bob Re-born (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn't spotted that the other IP was blocked when I blocked this one. I'll keep an eye on it when the block expires and if the vandalism starts up again it will get a longer block. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. --Bob Re-born (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)