User talk:Mufka/Archive 13
 | 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. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
TG tacticalgamer.
Hi there user mufka.
ABout 6 months ago I added "tacticalgamer" to the "TG" entry. It is a community with over tenthousand members. I keep checking back because someone keeps removing the entry. If you see all the different sometimes quite small organisations that are in the list, I can see no defensible reason that Tacticalgamer does not belong there amongst the many other organisations that have the same initials.
Please stop removing the entry.
Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.51.132.202 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please read MOS:DABRL. It will continue to be removed if you add it back. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Your hugely long link does not give a clear explanation, you should clarify why all these other unimportant organizations are allowed, but not the organization I added. Who are you to decide what belongs in "TG"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.38.249 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you take the time to read the link I provided you will see very clearly why the addition that you made is inappropriate. "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry." Please stop adding this item. If you have a question after you have read the relevant guideline, please ask. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Mufka
Hello Mufka. I have a copyright question for you. I want to use information from a section about the band, Foo Fighters. Do I have to write under the information I use that I got it from Wikipedia. Contact me at margettssmithn@Trinityschool.co.uk with the answer. Thanks.
- Yes, you should state where it came from. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
your deleted article
Please refer to your deleted artilce in past Taj Pharmaceuticals Ltd. I would like your advice on User:Mukharjeeauthor/Taj_Article rewritten, Please reply or advice if additions or subtraction, I understand that I have chossen very abused topic but that what i am trying to do and have been geeting good response for everyone,Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Joseph P. Kennedy III (Notable now that he's running for US Rep?)
Back in Feb 2010 the page for Joseph P. Kennedy III was deleted. Now that JPK III is leaving his (non-notable) job as an Assistant District Attorney for Middlesex County, MA, to form an exploratory committee for seeking the seat now held by US Representative Barney Frank, I'm thinking JPK III may have done what it takes be notable (Certainly the Boston Herald thinks so, running 4 articles or more on his nascent run, such as this Boston Herald story.) So three questions:
- How would it be determined that he'd crossed to the notable side of the threshold of notability?
- If he were notable enough to get an article, how would the deletion events be superceded?
- Is there (somewhere) and old article worth reviving or would it be a matter of starting fresh?
KevinCuddeback (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- He would most likely cross the notability threshold if he were elected. I see nothing short of that making him notable, but that could change any time. The Herald is a reliable source, but it is reporting on a local story. When the time comes, you can ask for the page to be unprotected at WP:RPP. At the same time, you can ask that the version dated 16 January 2010, at 16:51 be restored (probably to your user space) so you have a place to start. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Date page edit
Hi Mufka, sorry to have caused any hassle; I didn't mean to reformat the page, and actually can't see any significant difference between the previous page and my revision, save the corrected typo. For my future reference, can you be more specific about what the error was here? Your later edit doesn't seem to have had anything to do with mine, which in any case could have been undone with the click of a button through the history menu, no? Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oops. You're right, I picked the wrong diff. Your edit had touched all of the lines I was looking at, but you hadn't added them. My mistake, I apologize. I'll go bug someone else. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Page notices for the DOY pages?
Hi - What would you think about implementing page notices for the DOY pages? Most of them have hidden comments about not adding folks without Wikipedia articles - perhaps page notices might be a more noticeable approach. Thoughts? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's funny because I was just thinking about that yesterday. I think it might be a good idea. Maybe we can start a topic at WT:DAYS to determine the appropriate text. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Jan 18
When January 18 does elapse, can I put my entry back in? I think forcing kids to open books will actually be a genuine inconvenience (and thus good protest material) as a generation of schoolchildren has gotten by without it.
Sincerely,
the littlest vandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.70.64 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- The entry will be valid for inclusion after it occurs. But the tone of your entry is not appropriate. It injects your POV. The event has nothing to do with kids opening books. A neutral statement about the events occurrence will be appropriate. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
birth/death by day categories
Hi - I don't remember if we've talked about this before, but is there any particular reason the DOY birth/death lists aren't simply categories? Categories wouldn't be sorted by year (well, they could be, but it might make the category listing look kind of peculiar), but if someone was interested in who was born/died on a particular day wouldn't a category be a reasonable place to look? Given the number of articles about people, adding by-day birth/death categories at this point would be a huge undertaking - but is there any reason the lists in the DOY pages are better? Mostly I'm just curious if this has been considered before and, if so, what the reason(s) are for not doing it. -- Rick Block (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- So I understand the question, are you asking why "January 1" isn't "Category:January 1"? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite - why isn't the subsection listing births in January 1 a link to category:January 1 births which would be a subcat of category:Births by day, parallel to category:Births by year. The default appearance order of such a category would be alphabetical, rather than by year (by year could be done using sort keys - but I'd expect this would be a nightmare to maintain unless it was part of a template used on most/all bio articles), and wouldn't include the short descriptive notes - but I would think ongoing maintenance of categories would take far less effort than the lists seem to require. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Aren't we then asking that every bio be categorized by birth day? Seems like we're just transferring the workload. Also, I would think that readers might miss not seeing the grouping by year. Going to category:January 1 births, the reader doesn't see the year of birth. They we're causing them to go to a couple of different categories to get the whole picture. I think if we could get PseudoBot back online, the maintenance would be much easier. It was very good at a lot of the mundane cleanup. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, using categories would completely eliminate the red link problem which is most of the ongoing maintenance. I agree the bot makes things easier but for whatever reason it keeps going away. It would be a huge undertaking to switch to categories, and at this point it's probably not worth it (even assuming it would be better), but I was mostly curious whether we'd ever discussed this before. Category:Living people claims to have over 500,000 articles. Over time I'd imagine all of these will eventually be added to the appropriate DOY list - implying there should be well over 1,000 entries in each DOY page's "births" list. It seems these pages ultimately will become completely unwieldy. I don't actually care very much, but using something automated seems like a smarter idea. Note that if the categories existed (and were populated), I don't think it would be outrageously difficult to write a bot to periodically update the DOY pages with the category members - assuming keeping a list in "by year" order is important. I also wouldn't think it would be too difficult to write a bot to populate "by day" birth/death categories - at least from the existing DOY page lists if nothing else. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Poking around some, I see we did talk about this before - see [1]. Rather than 100,000 articles on living people we now have well over 500,000 articles, so the "problem" (assuming one thinks of it as a problem) is 5 times worse. The fact that by-day birth/death categories have been deleted in the past is interesting, but certainly not binding. If we could come up with some sort of "extra notable" criteria (defining a subset of people whose births/deaths should be listed on the DOY pages), a hybrid approach where there's both a category and a pruned list on the DOY page seems reasonable to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Past discussions have never seemed to gain any traction. I don't know if we're just wasting our time. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've only just come across this discussion; and although I can't foresee anyone from WP:BIO really supporting it, other Wikipedias do do this: ru:Категория:Родившиеся 1 января and it:Categoria:Nati il 1º gennaio for example. Jared Preston (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Past discussions have never seemed to gain any traction. I don't know if we're just wasting our time. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Poking around some, I see we did talk about this before - see [1]. Rather than 100,000 articles on living people we now have well over 500,000 articles, so the "problem" (assuming one thinks of it as a problem) is 5 times worse. The fact that by-day birth/death categories have been deleted in the past is interesting, but certainly not binding. If we could come up with some sort of "extra notable" criteria (defining a subset of people whose births/deaths should be listed on the DOY pages), a hybrid approach where there's both a category and a pruned list on the DOY page seems reasonable to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, using categories would completely eliminate the red link problem which is most of the ongoing maintenance. I agree the bot makes things easier but for whatever reason it keeps going away. It would be a huge undertaking to switch to categories, and at this point it's probably not worth it (even assuming it would be better), but I was mostly curious whether we'd ever discussed this before. Category:Living people claims to have over 500,000 articles. Over time I'd imagine all of these will eventually be added to the appropriate DOY list - implying there should be well over 1,000 entries in each DOY page's "births" list. It seems these pages ultimately will become completely unwieldy. I don't actually care very much, but using something automated seems like a smarter idea. Note that if the categories existed (and were populated), I don't think it would be outrageously difficult to write a bot to periodically update the DOY pages with the category members - assuming keeping a list in "by year" order is important. I also wouldn't think it would be too difficult to write a bot to populate "by day" birth/death categories - at least from the existing DOY page lists if nothing else. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Aren't we then asking that every bio be categorized by birth day? Seems like we're just transferring the workload. Also, I would think that readers might miss not seeing the grouping by year. Going to category:January 1 births, the reader doesn't see the year of birth. They we're causing them to go to a couple of different categories to get the whole picture. I think if we could get PseudoBot back online, the maintenance would be much easier. It was very good at a lot of the mundane cleanup. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite - why isn't the subsection listing births in January 1 a link to category:January 1 births which would be a subcat of category:Births by day, parallel to category:Births by year. The default appearance order of such a category would be alphabetical, rather than by year (by year could be done using sort keys - but I'd expect this would be a nightmare to maintain unless it was part of a template used on most/all bio articles), and wouldn't include the short descriptive notes - but I would think ongoing maintenance of categories would take far less effort than the lists seem to require. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
JIP | Talk 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary
+1 Keep it up! MBisanz talk 03:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
April 14
Why undone? Just a note, if you open Fifa web site http://www.fifa.com today (March, 8th 2012) Santos Futebol Clube will be in the front page, beside Barcelona FC.
http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1882559/
I understand that, perhaps, in your country you guys don't know much about the most famous sport in world. Shame. 41.0.176.34 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Beta Virginis vandals
Thank you for protecting the Beta Virginis article. There were dozens of vandals, so it must have been some kind of coordinated attack. As you can see in the article history, most of them were IP addresses, but there were three registered accounts involved—Allahsnackbaar, Thegreenulk, and Gaben101—and I think that they should be blocked as vandalism-only accounts. Thanks again. A. Parrot (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Median Empire
Thanks. All I can think of is that I was in the top section, as I definitely recall blanking and obviously did blank something from the character count. I hate editing on a laptop anyway. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Why my article getting deleted?
my article getting deleted! and may i know why? i was adding informations to increase speed of a PC. Its not an advertisement and all. I wish to continue with that article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu Extreme (talk • contribs) 00:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like you're trying to promote something or someone. That will not be allowed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Am not trying to do such things. I was sharing my ideas to increase the speed of PC... please let me continue with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu Extreme (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
ok thanks... may i know what i can do in user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu Extreme (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- You can list information about your activities on Wikipedia. See WP:USERPAGE. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
ok thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu Extreme (talk • contribs) 00:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hellotoyoumyfriend
Would you have a problem with putting autocomfirmed protection on all of the articles and talk pages for which User:Hellotoyoumyfriend edited today? The user has demonstrated time and again that she is willing to sock and doesn't even try to be subtle about it. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Most are talk pages and they generally don't get protected. I wouldn't be overly concerned at this point. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Copied User Profile
Hello, Admin Mufka, I'm sorry because i didn't know that copying on the other User Profile is strictly prohibited. I thought that since User Profile is not a part of an Article of a Free Encyclopedia , I can copy all of the stuffs and it would not be a violation. By the way, i'm just a newbie and i'm trying to change my User Profile. Thank You. TJhei07 11:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
| I wantt to give this to you 'cause you show an elegant solution on how do we solve our problems regarding USER PROFILES TJhei07 11:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
Deleted Page - Bongripper
You deleted a page on a band. Why? I'm not a fan, I just googled them for information and there isn't any available.
(Rutlandclimber (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC))
- The band failed the notability requirements as explained in WP:BAND. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Spam Barnstar | |
| Thanks for helping me deal with Ohana Media Group's advertising and promotion on the KMBQ-FM page! Rotorcowboy talk contribs 23:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for helping me with my first page. LevindyVegas (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
July 12
Mufka - I had discovered the event that I re-added to the history list only because earlier this day I had learned of this event from the July 12 page. The event had been removed by a fan of Disco who was apparently removing the event out of an act of what I believe to be censorship. Please note that the event I added back in is listed as a notable event in the July 12 talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall.H.Wood (talk • contribs) 01:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Why was the event removed from the list of events when its listed as a notable anniversary in Talk:July 12? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's keep the discussion in one place. How about at User talk:Randall.H.Wood. I'll answer there. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
International Alopecia Day
Hi,
I see that you removed my additon on August 4 with the comment "unsupported event". I added it after reading about it on the BBC website. Other (more or less) reputable sources also mention it, like ITV News, The Daily Mirror, MSN Sport, The Sun. Have a nice day!--Mycomp (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:DOY for details as to what is appropriate for inclusion in the date pages. Swayback Maru Mufka's alternate account (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Your removal of my page edit
Hi Mufka, I hope I'm doing this right, it's the first time I've had to use the talk page. You removed my edit to the NAG entry, which gave an additional acronym and a link to the organisation's website. I have no idea why you should think it inappropriate, the organisation is a bona fide training and education organisation, well known in the library world in the UK. I manage the website that I linked to, so I have every right to post that link. Could you please reinstate my edit, or else give me a more detailed reason why you removed it. Thanks Judith Rhodes (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Judith Judith Rhodes (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Lets keep the conversation there. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 09:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
October 2012
But if you look at the Steve Smith's NFL page, you can see that his weight 185 pound.--176.237.145.253 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's why you need to either provide the source when making the change or use an edit summary to explain that the already cited source contradicts what was already there. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Re: Dates
I just replaced the "& ndash;" code with an actual "–" en-dash.—indopug (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Kanyetothe
Hello, please undo this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanyetothe&oldid=520506527 made by Arod360 to the Kanyetothe article (vandalism) and consider a full lock of the article. Kanyeomari1 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Now the the person removing maintenance templates has been blocked, would you consider restoring the version that has the tags? I'd do it but you might consider blocking me also. ;) 76.102.49.177 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know the subject or history of the page. I acted on edit warring only. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Would you object to my restoring the tagged version? 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would because I have seen no attempt along the way to engage in discussion on the dispute. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- At least let me put the maintenance tags back. You know as well as I do that removing them without correcting the problem is vandalism. 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would because I have seen no attempt along the way to engage in discussion on the dispute. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Would you object to my restoring the tagged version? 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a Well Documented Article about Mark Cahill at http://carm.org/mark-cahill (nearly 40 footnotes). Neolights01 (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Neolights01
- Thank you but I have no interest in the content of the article. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand that, But I don't have the ability to add to the article as it has been protected because of vandalism. How would I go about getting to edit the article in question? --Neolights01 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Place the
{{editprotected}}template on the talk page along with an explanation of the proposed change. An administrator will review the proposed change and possibly make the change for you. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)- Also review WP:EDITREQ. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment requested at The Teahouse
Hi Mufka-- I responded to a question at The Teahouse from a user who was recently blocked due to having a username representing an organization. The user also informed me that some of their work was deleted, possibly the work on their userpage, which was deleted. I'm not sure of the exact nature of the material, but the editor claims it was a long list of botanical species, which may be useful for building an actual Wikipedia article. The user wanted to know if the material may be made accessible again, and I responded that I would speak to you about it. Could you comment on the thread over at The Teahouse? Thanks, I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- That user was unblocked by another admin. The page is restored. Consider moving it to a subpage. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Apologies for inappropriate editing in the article, "Narcissistic Personality Disorder"
I apologize profusely for making the changes to the veritable article that I did, but would like to assure you that it was merely done so as a prank in connection with my circle of friends. I assure you I had only made the edit so as to take a quick screenshot image and share it on facebook with my friends, with every intention to immediately redact the edit myself. You chanced upon the edit before I had had a chance to take a screenshot of it and delete as planned. I perfectly understand your reasons for issuing the warning though and this message is only intended as an explanation. However, the magnitude of my contrition remains profuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXX123XXX456XXX789XXX0 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Go play somewhere else. This isn't the place for pranks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the birthdate of William III....
I agree, at first sight the article says November 4, but see the footnote Nr.1, concerning the use of the Julian Calendar (if you haven't already seen it). Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Generally the Gregorian date should be used in date articles per WP:DAYS. In this case, since the bio article lists 11/4 and the difference is purely Julian vs. Gregorian, the DOY article should list according to the predominant date in the bio article to avoid confusion. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
HelloGiggles again
You may want to take a look at this one, and the related COI report. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mufka, I want to thank you for extending the protection on Mark Cahill's page. Some of the misinformation on his Talk page has been posted by the people who necessitated the freezing of Mark's Main Page. Some of the information on the Talk page is incorrect and exaggerated. 'Neolights' is working with or is Tony Miano and he is citing his own article which makes that reference not objective, but a conflict of interest. I've included the statements below from the Talk page for you to see. The actual misinformation is as follows: Ray Comfort, Emeal Zwayne and Jon Speed have nothing verifiable or documented on the internet against Mark Cahill. Neolights' statement is undocumented and unsubstantiated. Neolights is citing his own article making this a conflict of interest. Also, Neolights is exaggerating the Satan comment. That statement is in the book but is referring to something else, and not referring to Calvinism, which neolights is extremely sensitive about, and which prompted him to launch his campaign against Mark Cahill to smear his good name. Thank you again for extending the freeze his Main page.
Here's what's currently on the Talk page: Many People in the Christian Community, including: Ray Comfort, Tony Miano [3], Shane Dodson [4] Emeal Zwyane, Jon Speed and others have responded. Additionally If we look at Mark Cahill's newest book "The Watchman" he makes his view very clear in the 8th chapter of the book. In this chapter he clearly identifies Calvinism as unbiblical and of satan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolights01 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be accurate to say: Some people in the Christian community, including: Shane Dodson [4] have responded. Additionally if we look at Mark Cahill's newest book "The Watchman" he identifies Calvinism as unbiblical.
Let me know if I can submit to you additional information for Mark's Main page that is safe. Thank you for your help! Spiritual Lineage05:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritualLineage (talk • contribs)
- You haven't engaged Neolights in discussion on the topic at Talk:Mark Cahill. Make your argument there. The page will remain protected until you come to a consensus. If you still have trouble, try to get a third opinion at WP:3O. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
March 28th
Hi there.
I think you are mistaken about this diff: [2]. In your edit summary you say "This is how the transfer of power happens. Nothing especially notable about this instance. Just like a US election." but I think this incorrect. This is a government falling in highly unusual circumstances. The last time it happened was in 1924 so it is not like a normal election which is on a timetable. It is comparable to the impeachment of a US president. It is a major crisis. It is pretty obviously more important that some of the US specific items on the list (although I think they are sufficiently notable that I don't object to them being there) e.g. "1978 – The US Supreme Court hands down 5-3 decision in Stump v. Sparkman,", "1990 – President George H. W. Bush posthumously awards Jesse Owens the Congressional Gold Medal." and "2000 – Three children are killed when a Murray County, Georgia, school bus is hit by a CSX freight train.".
I am not going to revert two different editors who have removed it but I think you should reconsider the removal. It may be that this event is worded in a way that is not clearly understood by non-British readers as being a significant historical event but it is.
Also, did you mean to remove the comment warning people not to add certain types of item? I think that was worth keeping as it is good advice and helps avoid people adding spurious stuff in good faith.
--DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- First, the comment removal: That comment isn't placed at the top of the articles. It's found beneath the sections. Also, having it at the top is redundant since the edit notice is present at the top. As for the event that I removed: your statement that "a vote of no-confidence is how a British government falls" at User talk:Rlbarton indicates to me a normal process of change. "Falls" seems a little strong as it isn't a revolt or civil uprising. It's my understanding from history class many years ago that a change of power comes when the sitting government is basically thrown out. The fact that power appears to shift less frequently in the British system doesn't seem relevant. If I'm way off on this, I stand corrected and you are certainly free to revert my removal. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Somebody else has reverted the removal, which I feel a bit happier about than revering it myself. I think there is probably a need to clarify the entry as it is clearly prone to being misunderstood as two people have understood it one way and two another.
- The way things work in the UK is that there are elections at least every 5 years and a change of government results about half the time. Power shifts between parties about as frequently as it does in the USA, i.e. about every 8-12 years. What we are talking about here is something different from a normal change of government.
- Normally, the UK government picks what it hopes is an opportune time and calls an election. So long as it doesn't wait more than 5 years it can choose the date. Despite this (arguably unfair) advantage it doesn't always win the election. This is not regarded as the government falling. Possibly failing to win the next election is a separate issue.
- What happened in 1928 and 1979 was very different. The government lost its majority in parliament and was brought down by parliament against its will and hence not in the normal manner. It has only happened three times since 1900. It is broadly similar to the impeachment of a president in that it is a serious exception to the normal political change process, and a major crisis, while still remaining within the existing legal/constitutional framework. As you say it is not a revolution but is an exceptional revolt by the wider political class against the government. That is what makes it notable whereas a normal election being called is not.
- As regards the comment removal. I see your point. I only looked at the diff so I didn't see that the comment was also placed elsewhere in the article. Sorry about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated
What do you mean by the hiatus is sufficient? --96.19.127.9 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The article already mentions that the show is on a hiatus. Saying that the network says it is not on the current schedule is overstating the obvious. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Thanks for explaining. :D --96.19.127.9 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)