User talk:MPS1992

Is this how we communicate with you? Sorry don't get it fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenPellerine (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, MPS1992, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Justice007 (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grant Shapps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bingo. Such links are almost always ujdnxnxxkxbdkdhnintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

MPS1992, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mps1992 - The information that you cut from Dylan Wruck's profile was forwarded from wikiwand-dylan Wruck and can be referenced from the wikiwand cite. Also information can be referenced from the Saskatchewan Hockey Association cite as well as Hockey Canada 2009 U17 world tournament cite. So Information that you cut is from a second source in which you are looking. So infact the information was added from a referenced source and is accurate. So could you please put back what you cut. Thank -you

Hi MPS1992! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Military History project

Hello MPS1992! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Link 22, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compatibility. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much

It's very nice of you. Thank you (Mona778 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC))

You are very welcome. I hope all goes well for you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Being hassled by Taichi

Hi,

Thank you for being so handy. You are such a blessing and understand so much. But regarding Commons, no, They don't have different rules. I checked it myself, exactly the same rules applies there as they do in Wiki English. [1] "Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage -- either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them." But I wonder, can we ask an administrator from Wiki English who is also in charge at Commons to intervene? Since we have a decision in our favor from the noticeboard/Incident?--- Thanks again, and god bless You dear. (Mona778 (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

A decision on an English Wikipedia noticeboard probably would have none or not very much importance at a Commons noticeboard.

Also, the rules are indeed different. The Commons guideline that you linked to also has this quite strange rule: "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in dispute resolution."

As far as I can see, the material that Taichi and others have edit-warred to restore on your Commons talk page, is only templated information notices. So I think they are probably not "personal messages" where "a reply would be appropriate". So I still think Taichi is wrong to restore them, even on Commons, especially without explaining why.

The history of your Commons talk page is very strange. In particular I do not understand why User:Thibaut120094, who is an experienced administrator on Commons and on French Wikipedia, would be making edits like this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMona778&type=revision&diff=162689371&oldid=162684138 over a long period of time repeatedly.

These problems have not happened for over two weeks now. So I suggest this. If these problems happen again on Commons, please let me know here, and if so, I will then ask on Commons why administrators and others are behaving in this way. Perhaps there is a simple explanation. MPS1992 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As always, thank You so much, You're so nice. I wish You the best dear.---Bye for now (Mona778 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

Dear MPS1992, You said I let know if these problems happen again on Commons, well it did! See here

Hi Thibaut, I'm Taichi from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm notifying you about the constant blankings from the user Mona778, in his archive, including a message sending by you few days ago. The user believes that blanking all the messages is OK in Commons, but I don't find any policy or rule that permits the blanking as "courtesy". If I'm wrong please tell me, because the user persists about blanking all the messages. Thanks. --Taichi (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC) I'm really fed up of these people, please do something about these provocations, and harassments.---Thank You (Mona778 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

I am not sure I can do anything about behaviour on Commons. But, I have left a message there with my opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That's ok. You did a lot already, thanks. Just this final question , what do you thing if I contact an administrator who is in charge of both projects (English, and Commons,) and let him/her know about the incident in Wiki English? (Mona778 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

The incident in Wiki English was finished a long time ago. The incident in Commons is now a discussion about what people are allowed to do with their talk pages and talk page archives in Commons. You could contact someone, but I do not know if it would be useful or not. MPS1992 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This administrator for example, he is in charge of both [2]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona778 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it seems he is an administrator on both. That is not quite the same as being in charge on both. Other administrators might disagree with him, for example. MPS1992 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I see! Well, we just have to wait then? Anyway, Thanks again for being such help... You're the best!(Mona778 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

You are very welcome. Here is another suggestion. Set up Automated archiving on your talk page on Commons, as the guidelines there say you can do. Perhaps set to have things archived after 1 day. Then, take your archive off your watchlist. Then the other user could make whatever edits he wants to your archive, and no-one else will know or care. MPS1992 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I almost forgot! look at this [3], They promoted a suckpuppet at English project, to patroller, rollbacker! (Mona778 (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

You did again! They finally back down becauce of you and a fellow from Turkey, whom I left a note of appreciation at their IP's talk page [4] for shedding light on "the reality of the affairs" by attaching link to the User talk page of Drmies [5].---Thanks a lot, and have a nice weekend With a very warm hug!

(Mona778 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

@MPS1992: Hi, They don't want to back down, do they? (Mona778 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC))

Turkey? All this inter language confusion is very strange.

I said, "Do you speak my language?"
But he just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich

- Down Under (song), audio at File:Down Under by Men at Work.ogg

MPS1992 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are you surprised? 'cause I lived there for a while at Sariyer district, Istanbul, some years a go (2009-2010). By the way, from now on I think is better that we use another medium for communication, I don't want you to get in to trouble here because of me. You saw, how they tried to manipulate the situation concerning your User talk page, they're watching us 24 Hours a Day! I want to give you my private email, but I just don't know how to do it without some trouble makers notice it? (Mona778 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC))

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Craig Harrison (sniper), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dog handlers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear MPS1992, Thanks for your input on Administration notice board/incidents, it's greatly appreciated. I closed my user page account at their project couple of days ago as I said I will do [6], and as long as those people are in charge there I will stay away from that project. Therefore, I hope that finally they will leave me alone and move on! With regards, (Mona778 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC))

Ip hopping

Hello. In response to this [7], I found an example. Here: [8].

On the 15th of October I user the following ip address: 94.253.23.60 . On the next day I used: 194.152.253.49 when I was editing via cell phone. You can see what the admin had said: "Now we have an IP-hopping editor from 194.152.*...This is considered abuse of multiple accounts". I replied: "EdJohnston, if you didn't notice, all my posts today are done over mobile editing, thus not surprising my Ip is changing..." but nothing had changed.

Best regards. PS my ip is again changed from 141..to 89..and I had not changed it myself. IPs are changed by some ISPs more often. If you turn off/on your router you will get another ip assigned (at least I am). If you have a bridge connection, you can change ip in an instant by disconnecting and connecting. Mobile users have their ip changed very often. Also you can do it yourself by turning off/on mobile data. 89.164.142.196 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I am not sure the example is very clear, indeed there is no block made I think?, but I will look into it further. Thank you again. MPS1992 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I chose this one because it's the clearest I could find. As soon as I posted with a different ip admin had said that this is an abuse of multiple accounts and done an action against me, protected the page so I as an ip can't edit it. I don't remember whether I was blocked that time, indeed, but the admin had acted against me because my ip was changed. 89.164.142.196 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Had you looked at the case. I'm interested in your opinion on the matter. I don't know if you noticed but the RfC on the talk page that was in the 3RR report was closed by a random editor who had closed because he had disagreed with it. Then I tried to revert that and that had led to the referenced report. I really couldn't do anything although I had only tried to introduce a source to the article. There are no sources opposing it and there are really no valid opposition apart from nationalistic stand on the matter. That's the worst situation to edit as an ip. In that case one side often prevails and builds a fort. Anyways, seems you are more interested in the cases I actually got banned without any report and without any misdeed apart from the accusation that I'm a sock, so here: [9]. It's quite long but to sum it up: User Shokatz started a discussion. FkpCascais was extremely hostile to him and even tried to ban him which caused him to leave that discussion. I took part and FkpCascais immediately started to get rid of me as well by accusing me to be a sock. He often called admin HighInBC to block my ip. That was done without any report or any cause on my side. I hadn't done anything wrong apart from disagreeing with FkpCascais. No other editors apart from him had any complaints against me. Not only that but it was me who managed to bring arguments and sources to close the RfC. It was even formally closed by an experienced editor according to what I had brought to the table. I can say that was extremely hard with my posts being deleted and me getting blocked for no reason. What I'm trying to say is that any IP can be accused to be a sock and with an admin on your side you can block him with no report, no questions asked. I tried to complain so I reported that admin but that was, of course, futile. I tried to insist that by behavior is exemplary but that was not enough. I was blocked only because of those 2, although I was always discussing in good faith following every rule that there is. Notice that no other editors in that discussion had any problems with me. Not only that but they agreed with me and my sources and arguments. You can even see that one editor had changed own opinion on the subject matter because of my arguments. So with an exemplary editing I was blocked with no report. I guess I can't be editing with an exemplary behavior because someone living in my region was disruptive by using the same IP which is assigned to majority of computers in that general area. My only misdeed was using proxies when I got blocked for no reason, but I'm not sorry since I managed to bring that RfC to other editors who then took over and agreed with me. Without me being persistent and them noticing I really couldn't have done anything as an ip. Sorry if this is too much for you, but you seemed interested. I'll understand. 141.138.22.141 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it is fine. And I need a reminder sometimes. Actually quite often, as I had mostly forgotten about this, other than watchlisting numerous IP talk pages which probably does not achieve much for reasons already discussed.

I will try to remember to look into it further, but it will be several days at least, partly because I am working on an FAC at the moment. MPS1992 (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

still not done with the FAC and also some other important discussion MPS1992 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I still come here from time to time. 89.164.74.150 (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to look at this. I have started looking. Only started. And it is still a mess. I have begun at the top. But do not worry, I will get to everything in the end.

So, where there is edit-warring then unregistered editors (including you) have one small advantage and one major disadvantage.

The small advantage is that if you revert twice with two different IP addresses, maybe the two reverts will not be connected and no-one will complain. Admittedly this is not much of an advantage because registered editors can also revert at least twice, and sometimes three times, without action being taken against them.

The major disadvantage is that when there is edit-warring happening, or even a suspicion of it, then unregistered editors cannot be "measured" in the same way that registered editors can. Registered editors can be told not to revert more than three times (but also can be blocked for less), and on some articles they are restricted to one not three. Because some unregistered editors change IP address frequently, the same structure does not work for them and therefore the easy thing to do is to semi-protect the page so that only editors with identifiers that do not change can edit.

Is this unfair? I suggest that it is not unfair, it is just necessary to keep things under control.

For this particular instance, if you had been a registered editor (and using the same account each time) then User:EdJohnston would of course have had no reason to suggest "abuse of multiple accounts". I would also like to suggest that, if you had prefixed every single comment or edit summary by saying "same person as the 141 ip above" or something equivalent, then EdJohnston would in fact not have suggested that there was abuse of multiple accounts. Whether it is fair for ordinary Wikipedia practice to put such a burden on unregistered editors, I do not know - I guess it depends on arguments about whether it is reasonable to expect people to register in order to participate in heated disputes, when there are supposedly no disadvantages to registration.

Those are my thoughts on your first example, but not on the contents of the dispute itself or who should have closed what -- I guess I will look at that aspect of it later. MPS1992 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. 89.164.222.199 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I recently posted a short article on the NSA page, but it got taken down. The message I recieved made it sound like I was just making an experimental edit. I was wondering what I did wrong in the process of uploading my article. September5453 (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @September5453: Unfortunately, I had misinterpreted your edit. The Wikipedia VisualEditor sometimes disrupts edits by jumping around the page, and in the case of your edit, it had replicated one of your references right at the start of the article, causing problems in the lede. I thought this was the only change.

I have now restored what I think is the contents of your edit without the misplaced reference, as should be the case at the current version National Security Agency. You can see the article history at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=National_Security_Agency&action=history

I think your addition is a useful one because it gives some information about what powers were added when, as a prefix to the existing material in the article which only discusses the public discoveries, at later dates, of these powers and their use. Thank you for improving the article. MPS1992 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

van der Weyden

Cheers for such a detailed reading and the many copyedits. I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't know what a split infinitive is, but will survive. Ceoil (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It is refreshing to meet someone who openly disavows knowledge of grammar -- due to my background I spend a great deal of time listening to people who make assumptions about how much more about grammar they must know than me.

I am embarrassed that I don't even know how or when the split infinitive disappeared from that article.

I think the text "a angel" is still in the article, which might be wrong. MPS1992 (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Will take look. Re grammer; I was educated as a young child in Ireland in the early 80s, a time when English wasnt that highly though of by Christian Brothers, so grammer was not really on the agenda. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So can you please close it?

As you are an univolved party. A non admin action can be defended here as it clearly is consensus to close and proceed to Arbcom. There is no clear support for an indef block. Irondome (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary. I see clear consensus for an indefinite block, a proposal that was made some time ago, and has been open to discussion where consensus has emerged. The closure and move to arbcom was only proposed very recently. There are some Opposing that already, and time should be allowed for others who may not yet be aware of it to offer their views.

Also, I am not an uninvolved party, just as you are not. Please re-read the policy carefully! MPS1992 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi MPS1992. Regarding this, just to be clear: I wasn't trying to close the discussion. I was trying to undo the close that Mike1901 made. Mz7 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems that I have been reverting myself, then :) Well, it will all be sorted out one way or the other, I suppose. Someone has just come up with a very clever method of making sure that it stays closed. Wikipedia teaches me things about human nature, that is for sure. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think there was consensus for an indef block, you could post that as a comment in the arbcomm request. If they agree with you they might implement the block or invite an observing admin to do it. I think that section was a mixed call, while tossing the matter to arbcomm was solidly supported. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

MPS1992, are you still contesting the close? 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why in gods name revert the closure ? ... Either way the bloke's gonna end up blocked (hopefully) and seeing as the ANI report's already complex it makes sense to hand it over to Arbcom where hopefully they'll do a better job than us!?..... –Davey2010^Talk 02:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• After how long, exactly? What it needed was a close by an uninvolved administrator, which really shouldn't have been so hard to achieve. Not an edit-war for a back-slapping, beer-swilling close by editors who for the most part have been in favour of Wikicology continuing to edit despite all that he has done to damage the encyclopedia. We do now at least have a close by an administrator -- though far from an uninvolved one -- and a public instruction to Wikicology not to edit outside the arbitration case and the supposed "clean-up". So that will have to do, but one is left feeling that the community has been its own worst enemy on this one. There's to be no complaining at anything arbcom may do, not do, or be slow about doing, when we had a clear chance to take action ourselves but deliberately chose to find ourselves incompetent. MPS1992 (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of comments

Hi I was talking about removal of my comments. Please make your comment here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman ad60 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Mona778 (talk) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

A what?!? My goodness, thank you! I am reading all about it right now! MPS1992 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome dear! (Mona778 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

• @MPS1992: Hi, I need your help with something... (Mona778 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC))

• Is this about the Incredible Hulk and some IP address? I think the unregistered user has already been blocked. Maybe they will be back with new IP address. MPS1992 (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No, It's not about those. But I can't tell you now, because I'm really tired and need to sleep. Tomorrow I'll tell you about it in detail. So for now, have a good night, and thanks for your prompt response. (Mona778 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC))

Is this about talk page blanking and deleting again? If so then I cannot really disagree with the advice that you have already been given.

Or is this about the West Papuan independence movement? If so then I support it, but I cannot really do much to help due to my current geographical location. MPS1992 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Neither. It's about a rough attitude yesterday at Commons, that did really hurt my feelings. I mean, I tried to be nice, but instead all I've got was a slap by a rude User! (Mona778 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC))

They are so common at Commons! Or some of them are, anyway. I will try to have a look when I find time. MPS1992 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Commons is a no-go zone for women! Especially the young and fragile one. (Mona778 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC))

• @MPS1992: So this time you didn't rush to my rescue, did you? (Mona778 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

• Sorry, there are so many things going on, it had slipped my mind. I will try to have a look later... MPS1992 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. (Mona778 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

You are talking about the block on English Wikipedia, not now the incident on Commons, right? MPS1992 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• @MPS1992: Hi, Ponyo says "The external links page is a guideline that outlines current consensus and common practice, which is different than policy (such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV for example). If you think something needs to be changed, be bold and change it. If your changes are reverted, then you can discuss the changes with the other editors involved.," What do you suggest? (Mona778 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC))

• I think your changes have been reverted, so you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article. That discussion has happened, right? So, what conclusions did you draw from the discussion? MPS1992 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Or are you talking about trying to change the guideline? MPS1992 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• My conclusion is as follows "though the guidelines do lean towards the inclusion of the official site". (Mona778 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC))

• Then you should present that conclusion on the talk page of the article, and see what other editors think of it. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I will, but would you be there? 'cause I don't want to get into a discussion with that guy again. (Mona778 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC))

• No, I suggest that if you do not want to get into a discussion with that guy again, then you forget about that article and edit in a completely different topic area. MPS1992 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I see. You're gonna leave me all by myself? Well, thank you (Mona778 (talk) 00:00, 16

• Welcome Back! I was getting worried about you, and really missed you. Do you know? You're my rock here. (Mona778 (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC))

• @Mona778: Thank you! It is good to be back. It has taken me a while to catch up because I have been very busy after I got back. MPS1992 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

What if I want a party? MPS1992 (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I think after "that talkpage" perlava we both need a drink or 5! , I've noticed on more than one occasion I've had a go at you and so I apologize if I have in any way upset or offended you - It's never my intention to offend or upset anyone (well except the trolls lol), I tend to get annoyed easily and end up saying crap I later regret so I apologize if I've offended or upset you in any way, Anyway have a beer on me - You deserve it :), Thanks for all your contributions here and Keep up the great work :), Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 02:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: that is fine, it is no problem. That talkpage thread was certainly very strange, but these things happen. Wikipedia can be strange in many ways, I am not offended. Thank you for the drink, although I do not really drink beer and it would be non-alcoholic if I did :) MPS1992 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

My unending gratitude for your support and kindness.--Mona778 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance of Brian Shaffer revert

I saw a while back you had posted a query about the issue on which you based your removal of that text to the BLP noticeboard. No one seems to have responded. So you chose to act unilaterally.

I understand that BLP supports this kind of boldness, but nonetheless I think you should have tried harder to get some sort of consensus, perhaps posting on the article talk page before you made that edit?

In any case, your query was really one that should have been taken to WP:RSN, since you were wondering about whether The Lantern, Ohio State's student newspaper, is a sufficiently reliable source. If you'd like, we can take it up there, since by extension we would be considering this question for all college student newspapers.

Personally, I feel that general-interest student newspapers on major North American college campuses meet our definition of reliable sources. They are subject to editorial oversight, often have lawyers on retainer and generally have the same self-imposed constraints in favor of accurate reporting that real-world (so to speak) newspapers do. I mean, consider that OSU's student/faculty/staff community comes to about 40,000 people or so, larger than some smaller cities whose daily newspapers we would have no problem considering RSes. This was my grounds for reverting your edit. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I found a previous discussion at RSN that seems to me to support my position (I see some of the same arguments). Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Sorry for the delay in replying.

WP:BLP is very clear and unambiguous. It does not merely “support ... boldness” in upholding the biographies of living persons policy. It requires that “Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion”. I considered that the material was poorly sourced given its nature, and I removed it. I was slightly more considered about doing so on the grounds that a source was provided, in that I did in fact wait for discussion. But asking for feedback in three different places would have been both unnecessary and strongly deprecated by that policy.

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is also very clear and unambiguous, and is part of the same policy. “the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.” (my emphasis)

In this instance, the material was restored without significant change, and therefore consensus should have been obtained first before doing so. (A lack of response at the BLP noticeboard is not, of course, any form of consensus.)

Thank you for expanding on your thoughts on the source here. I would consider a free local newspaper in a town of 40,000 or so to be equally unsuited as a single source for material of this nature.

My concerns are linked to the single-sourced material itself, the way it is presented, and the weight given to it in the article. Five out of six paragraphs in the “Subsequent Developments” section discuss only the material published by this single source, all apparently emphasizing the involvement of Florence.

The Lantern article makes a point of mentioning that Derek Shaffer, Zatko and Ruic were not asked to take lie detector tests, despite their closeness to events. The disputed Wikipedia content omits any mention of this, instead focusing solely on Florence.

To a student reporter writing about Shaffer as part of their university course, it may seem a significant fact that a police detective should choose not to return his calls regarding an article he is writing for the student newspaper. And thus this fact finds its way into the student newspaper article itself. But from a distance, it is entirely natural that a busy detective investigating serious crimes might not call back a student newspaper to discuss their theories. It would need a second source, an independent reliable source, to state that this is a significant fact in the investigation. If such a second source existed, then it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to mention a lack of return phone calls to a student newspaper in 2009, as part of the “subsequent developments”.

Similarly, when an individual retains an attorney, we expect the attorney to advise or require the individual to refer the press back to the attorney, not give unprepared interviews themselves. That Florence referred the student newspaper to his attorney is therefore no surprise at all from a distance, but was doubtless annoying for the student reporter at the time. This finds its way into the student newspaper article, but it should not have found its way into the Wikipedia article without a second source indicating that it was significant in the “subsequent developments”.

The sixth and final paragraph of the “subsequent developments” section references a Columbus Monthly article published in 2014, more than five years later than the student newspaper article on which the other five paragraphs are based. (According to Wikipedia, Columbus has a population of over 800,000.) The article is lengthy and detailed, and appears to include material from an extensive interview with one of the detectives that the student newspaper had previously lamented being unable to contact. As an independent and apparently reliable source, this 2014 source could have been expected to mention any significant “subsequent developments” after 2008 – tellingly, it does not mention most of the material that Wikipedia sources from the student newspaper.

It does mention that the detective said he rarely hears from Derrek; and it mentions that Brian's family and former girlfriend all declined to be interviewed. But these kinds of details are not significant aspects of the case, have not been mentioned as relevant by any other source, and should not find their way into the Wikipedia article, just as the similar comments about Florence should not have. MPS1992 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in responding. I would just say that whether a newspaper is free or not has IMO no bearing on its reliability; otherwise we'd have to exclude a lot of websites we accept as RSes.

As for the rest of your critique, though, I see some of your points. I will consider it more carefully when I'm less tired than I am now, and edit the article appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the article and removed a lot of the material about the attorneys and detectives not calling back. However, regarding the other people not taking lie detector tests, that's mentioned already under "Investigation" and I don't see the need as yet to repeat that in "subsequent developments."

Cop77

I've restored the thread, as I explicitly advised him to take it to ANI if he wasn't happy so it seems a little unfair to him to send him on a wild-goose-chase. If he wants to make an allegation of admin abuse ANI is the place to go, unless you want to inflict Arbcom on him; just because I think it's groundless doesn't mean the grievance isn't genuine to him. ‑ Iridescent 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, very well, thank you then. I probably had not read carefully enough. I am not sure that I agree with the advice, but I suppose he may find wild geese wherever he goes. MPS1992 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

DRV is the correct place if it were just a case of wanting the article restored, but if you read his ranting on my talkpage that led to me pointing him towards ANI, he wants me desysopped, in which case ANI or Arbcom are the only venues (and I wouldn't inflict the reception he'd get at arbcom on a good-faith new user). ‑ Iridescent 20:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think his own talkpage was the best venue for all of this, since he wanted you removed as an editor not just an administrator, but perhaps that was a misunderstanding on his part. I am not a great enthusiast of the bureaucratic painting-by-numbers of someone complaining at ANI if their complaint is already doomed. But perhaps that means I should read ANI less. MPS1992 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah; just because I know and you know the complaint isn't going anywhere, doesn't mean the complaint isn't genuine to him. If there's one thing being on arbcom teaches you (aside from "email chains are a really bad idea" and "never underestimate stupidity"), it's that if you tell people not to complain it's a surefire way to convince them that there's obviously something to hide. If we hadn't let him go through the motions and be shot down, he'd be over on Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy by now triumphantly brandishing the fact that Wikipedia hid his comments as evidence that we couldn't handle the truth. ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Would such websites struggle to deal with such a claim? Actually rather, should we be worrying about the impact on them at all?

Has Wikipedia gained by ensuring that he was publicly "shot down"? MPS1992 (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Angry editors who think they've been denied due process become LTA cases; angry editors who get their process and discover nobody else agrees with them are much more likely to either change their ways to fit Wikipedia's rules, or decide Wikipedia isn't the place for them. Virtually every one of Wikipedia's serial sockmasters began as a good-faith editor who felt that they weren't being listened to. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That may be true, but there also seem to be some -- at the websites you mention, for example -- who get their process and are listened to, but then become LTA cases anyway. But I don't know what the proportion is, so hopefully your interpretation is right. I am not so good at algorithms anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Corps of Army Air Defence (India)

I have tried my level best to improve the article as per your advice. Please have a look and suggest me any further improvements required. Thank You.--KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 04:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into this in detail as soon as I have time. MPS1992 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: sorry, I am not a copyright expert, but I think the article text still follows the structure of the copied source much too closely with only small changes in phrasing. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm Nairspecht. I noticed that you recently removed some content from HCL Technologies without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hello! Thanks for your inputs on the page, but would request you to consider the content thoroughly before blanking it. I found that you removed all the awards from the said title, which I understand. Although, some of the awards ARE noteworthy. No worries, since I have edited and polished it since. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 06:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: I have not edited that article since 13 June 2016. Please could you explain what you found inaccurate about my edit summaries? MPS1992 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me for not being clearer. I'm talking about this edit which was made on June 14. Anyways, it's sorted now; thought you should be intimated about it. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 08:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Intimated, or rather intimidated? Perhaps you should reconsider using templates on the talk pages of established editors in this way. I still see nothing to indicate the notability of any of the awards that you have reverted back into the article. Given the huge amount of promotional cruft that needed removing from the article, some of it copyright-violating, I stand by my edit and its entirely accurate edit summary. I also stand by my comment above -- I have not edited that article since 13 June 2016. MPS1992 (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for any comments that may have affected your sentiments. I also take back my intimation which is being incorrectly perceived as intimidation. You may, thus, remove this whole discussion from your talk page because I did not know that there are certain parables for commenting on pages of editors who are established, not established, arrogantly established, or self-proclaimedly established. I agree and accept that I have used a wrong template which has led to unclear addressal of things. Additionally, I have come in peace here, my friend. I do not intend to engage in any kind of debate which may be seen as disrespectful to anyone. I just thought of letting you know that certain awards in that section were quite notable to be included in the page. But, still I respect your stand on the issue, and will try to make it more concise. Lastly, it may be due to the tricky time zones, but I can clearly see that the edit was made by you or your user account on June 14. But still I will agree with you when you say you didn't make any changes there since June 13. One last thing I would like to place on this evidently pointless discussion: I'm here on Wikipedia to make friends with the community, not be foes with them. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding and waste of time. Best, Nairspecht Converse 09:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nairspecht: thank you for your thoughtful and considerate comments, and I apologize for rather over-reacting to your previous messages. It's possible that you have set a "Time offset" in the Appearance section of your preferences, and this would result in you seeing dates and times in your local timezone rather than the server time. MPS1992 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all the fine work that you have carried out here. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 09:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Serious" MH issues - good catch

Good catch here! I'd moved the word but not checked that it should be there at all - well done for doing so! Cheers 82.36.105.25 (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am normally not much involved with "current events" type articles -- I must say it is a rather stressful and chaotic process! MPS1992 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

We may end up going back to "serious" in the end -- I just looked at the front page of today's Daily Mail and it is all about the individual supposedly being "deeply disturbed" in the days before the attack. Although, I have been told that the Mail is not a good source for material on living people. I am in no hurry anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite. I wouldn't rush, and yes, it is very stressful. (Still me, just logged in!) cheers DBaK (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Jo Cox

You are misquoting the article, because it does not say she was "a tireless campaigner". The headline describes her as someone who "campaigned tirelessly", which is slightly different. I have gone to the trouble of taking an actual quote from the piece about her, which should be ok. Please do not add this statement again, because it is misleading. This is Paul (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In what sense is the meaning different? MPS1992 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for your message on my page. Just a few questions! Some of them have had tags put on them with improvement suggestions. If I don't think these suggestions are sensible can I just remove them ? Also what are the project tags on the talk pages for ? Should I create pages with these tags for categorisation ? RMSN1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsn1 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rmsn1: If you feel that an issue has been resolved then it is fine to remove the improvement suggestion tags. I looked at Annie L. McPheeters and that still has no links to it from other Wikipedia articles and only one source, so removing those particular tags would not be appropriate yet. If you're unsure about removing a tag or if someone disagrees and puts it back, discuss it on the article talk page or feel free to ask here if you prefer.

The project tags are for WikiProjects, there is more information about this at WP:WikiProject. If I understand the question right, then yes after creating an article it is good to create a talk page for it with appropriate WikiProject tags. Sometimes it helps to attract other editors to the article, although sometimes it doesn't. MPS1992 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Just to say thank you for your prose edits over at Vladimir Lenin; it's good stuff. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It is a very interesting article. MPS1992 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your kind words here, Quite frankly I've stayed away from that editor as well as the AFD as it's more than trouble than it's worth but anyway thanks for your kind words :), Thanks for all your contributions here too :) Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 18:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Guangzhou

You're welcome! If you've got an interest, God knows that history section needs even more... The Warlord Era is such a mess... — LlywelynII 22:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	A belated barnstar for all the help you have given me. Mona778 (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for your appreciation, which I must reciprocate. There should also be a barnstar for obsessive-compulsive... oh, wait a bit; that's me in a nutshell. Haploidavey (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I must add this; "verifiable and historically meaningful reality" was particularly pleasant to read. It's exactly what I aim for. Haploidavey (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Bocca di Lupo has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, MPS1992. Bocca di Lupo, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedias user interface !

Well, your user interface is not friendly at all. I typed 3 times and lost my text till I could publish it the first time. then it got deleted and my original text was not included in your messages. and I had to type it 2 more times, till I found the link to my original text. I was really p***d off. I am trying to give information and improve the site, and they just delete myy work without any reference to it (I thought !) sorry about that.

Anyhow, I had a very bad experience with my stop over in mexico.; I was expecting to go from one gate to another, just as I did in any other international airport, and it's not like that in mexico. they have even damaged myy luggage, opening and searching my stuff without my consent. They did the same to all other nationalities (Venezuela, ...) who needed a visa to mexico, because basically you had to cross the immigration to go in the transit hall to board your next flight.

Please put this information in any fashion you like. And please add this information to all those countries where they are required to have a visa to enter Mexico city. They all will face the same problem. I have witnessed others having problems and arguing with Mexican authorities.

If you don't do this, I have the right to advertise that your website is biased and unfair, and hiding critical information from people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moskovitskaya (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you absolutely have that right, and I encourage you to exercise it.

I am sorry to hear about how unpleasant the arrangements for travellers to Mexico are. I once experienced something similar -- although not quite as bad -- when flying to an airport in the USA that was being rebuilt. I note that authorities in the USA and some other countries reserve the right to open your luggage if they want to do so. Authorities in the USA can be very unreasonable towards overseas visitors, especially if they perceive them negatively based on their country of origin, as I and perhaps you have found.

Some similar problems to what you describe led to the death of an innocent man on a trip to Canada.

You are also correct that the user interface here has problems. This is acknowledged and is being worked on, but progress is slow for various reasons. I apologize but there is little I can do about it, as I am just a user of the site like you are.

Have there been any news articles mentioning the problems that international visitors to Mexico face? MPS1992 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I need your input on something

Hello there, I would like to kindly ask you to check an edit I made to an article and give your opinion. Thanks Mona778 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Is this about Adını Feriha Koydum? If so, why is discussion of the disagreement not happening on the article talk page? MPS1992 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, is about this [10], and overlooking caps, is there something wrong with the original edit itself? Thank you Mona778 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"The soundtrack composed and conducted by Toygar Işıklı" is a sentence that lacks a verb. This is grammatically incorrect in English, in almost all situations. MPS1992 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying the original edit was indeed incorrect, right? Mona778 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This edit was incorrect because the sentence did not have a verb. It was not, therefore, better wording, although it did add some information. This edit was grammatically correct and also retained the added information. MPS1992 (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. Well, thanks anyway. Mona778 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Just thinking... I think from now on whenever I want to make an edit I should be double-checking it with you first, don't you mind? By the way, as you can see, it seems just like mine their edit lacks' the verb as well! [11] Therefore, they might get slighted. I think you should let them know. Regards, Mona778 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind.

About "Avatar Music From The Motion Picture Music Composed And Conducted By James Horner" -- this does not have or need a verb because it is not a sentence written in prose, but the title of the product that Amazon is selling. Or so they seem to think, anyway. Just the same, today's featured article Prometheus (2012 film) has sub-section headings like "Sets and vehicles" which do not contain verbs because they are headings, not prose sentences. And list items like "Weyland Industries, a viral website featuring in-universe background information" which has no main verb and is not a sentence because it is a list item, not prose. Amazon's product title is actually rather ugly in my opinion, but I don't think Amazon are likely to feel slighted by my opinions even if they were to be informed of them. MPS1992 (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary

How is removing a single, redundant parameter from an image "better wording and other improvements"? Or removing a stray apostrophe and a space "better wording and things"? Also, it might be an idea to tick the minor edit box for such superficial changes in future to reduce watchlist clutter. Joe Roe (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The first edit you mention did not only remove a single redundant parameter from an image, actually its main purpose was to fix the image caption to conform with WP:MOS. Regarding the second edit, if there is an apostrophe in a sentence where there should not be an apostrophe, like a Peckham greengrocer, then the sentence is grammatically incorrect and fixing this problem results in what I consider to be better wording. But, I will investigate when the minor edit box should be used. Thank you for this advice. MPS1992 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Newsletter: Indian military history work-group August 2016

Improvements

• List of destroyers of the Indian Navy was almost improved to class status (awaiting a closure of review) by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga.
• Kamorta-class corvette was improved to GA status by UY Scuti
• Sam Manekshaw was improved to class by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (also a present GA nominee)

Please see the group's "To do" section. You may work accordingly to ensure group's progress. To unsubscribe, remove your username from the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bocca di Lupo

On 3 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bocca di Lupo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bocca di Lupo (pictured) serves chocolate pudding with pig's blood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bocca di Lupo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bocca di Lupo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Bocca di Lupo

Thanks a lot for your edit, MPS, and compliments for the article. As Italian, I am now worried that the owners of the alleged best Italian restaurant in London are not proficient in their own mother tongue... ;-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahaha, I do find it all very amusing, but partly because I am often enraged by greengrocer's apostrophes which they apparently have used in some of their Italian-language decor. I think one or more of the owners may not actually be Italian.

None of this would have happened if it were not for their wine-destroying anti-racism antics, of which I wholeheartedly approve. MPS1992 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually many Italian restaurants (and pizzerias) owners and workers are not Italian: in this case this would also explain the free interpretation of wolf's mouth. ;-) Once in Istanbul, after a week of meze and kebab, we had dinner at an Italian restaurant, but when we got the menu I noticed that it was filled with mistakes. I asked for a pen, and I corrected all of them, telling the waiter to give it to the owner. After 5 minutes he came: he was a Turk about two meter tall (and wide) wearing mustache. I saw myself already swimming in the Bosporus, but to my intense surprise he thanked me warmly and offered us the dinner...After that, I always correct Italian mistakes on menus (and on wikipedia) ;-). Alex2006 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

East Timor

Since when two people alone, make a consensus? Editor who inists in changing official name, condradicting given sources says it is. To me it seems his POV. -B.Lameira (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not offer an opinion on the content. I did not offer an opinion as to the consensus. My opinion is that both of you are edit warring. You should both stop edit warring. Otherwise, one or both of you might end up blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I already stopped, but it seems that the editor just didn't wait for more opinions before doing it, that was just what I was telling... --B.Lameira (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming

Thanks for welcoming me! As you (or the template) correctly surmised, I’ve been around for donkey’s years, indeed for far longer than my first edit, but registered only on nl.wikipedia before that. I don’t think will ever be a regular contributor — at least since 2004 I’ve been looking at discussions here when I noticed problems or curious things going on with articles, and I’ve come off each time with the definite impression that Wikipedia (or at least en.wikipedia) is an unhealthy place for someone with a brain who doesn’t suffer fools gladly. That being said, I sometimes correct some small obvious errors when I see them on stuff I use and know something about, or point out things being lopsided when I’m not quite sure of the best and most correct way to put them right. Otherwise, I direct my energy at places where my specialist knowledge is more relevant, and there are less fools about or more easily dealt with, such as Tolkien Gateway. Mithrennaith (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Rhodes

Sorry about the confusing edit summary. :) It should have read "...remove refs. pls see talk..." I'm tired and should take a break. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts

I found your comment here interesting and thought-provoking. Do you know if there have ever been any formal proposals made related to any suggested mechanisms for administrator accountability? I've always found it odd that we scrutinize the heck out of editors during RFAs, but once someone has the bit, they apparently need to do something incredibly egregious to be held accountable. I think we might have it a bit backwards--perhaps it should be somewhat easier to become an admin but also easier to desysop someone. Once someone is an admin, whether they became one years ago or yesterday, there don't seem to be any formal mechanisms for making sure they are doing a good job. Possible ideas to assuage this issue would be something akin to retention elections, or votes of confidence/no confidence at pre-determined intervals (every two years, say). That way we could ensure that admins retain the confidence of their peers. Anyway, I thought your comment was interesting and could spur a larger dialogue about ways to ensure administrators are formally and regularly held accountable apart from flagrant misuse of their tools. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Safehaven86: sorry for the very long delay in replying to your message -- I have been dealing with some unusual issues here, and also I just plain forgot.

I agree that the approach taken during RfA and the approach taken when administrators make mistakes do not seem consistent, and that this causes problems. I think that many other people agree, in particular "perhaps it should be somewhat easier to become an admin but also easier to desysop someone" is definitely something that has been raised repeatedly in the past, and of course you are correct in this.

Occasional compulsory re-elections of administrators, with lower margins required for retention, do happen on some other language Wikipedias, I think, but I do not have the details. On the English language Wikipedia, the status of administrators as a privileged and dominant class has meant that such proposals have always been defeated, and perhaps the idea is even in WP:PERENNIAL now.

Formal proposals related to any suggested mechanisms for administrator accountability? I do know that huge amounts of work has been done on "the RfA problem", and I am fairly sure that these issues must have been raised at some point. Sadly I do not know exactly where, but Wikipedia:RFA reform leads to lots of pages related to this topic. MPS1992 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

94.119.64.17‎

Hi - just to say that this is the blocked racist Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Ismail I

Can you please do something about Agunaghi? They are removing sourced content and pushing nationalistic POV on the articles. The user is an Azerbaijani and he/she is pushing nationalistic POV on the articles Ismail I, Jalil_Mammadguluzadeh and Shusha. They are not even stating why they are removing said phrases, they just keep undoing others reverts. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please think carefully about the following question: are people who are Azerbaijani the only people who promote nationalist points of view?

Anyway, I am guessing he or she will get blocked quite soon if they continue as they are despite the warning that I recently gave them.

But, please also answer this question: why is there no discussion about this on Talk:Ismail I but there are seven consecutive reverts of the same content back and forth on the article? MPS1992 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Azerbaijani are not the only people who push nationalist pov. The user had just created their account. When they removed that sentence they did not explain why. When other users asked him/her to take it to the talk page they ignored it as well. It was my mistake for getting involved in the edit war and next time i will open a talk page. If the user does not discuss the issue, I will report them. Ninetoyadome (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ninetoyadome: thank you, that is good. I see that the user has recently received a short block, which should help the situation. Another option to consider in situations like these, especially if the user has only just created their account, is requesting some form of protection of the page at WP:RFPP. When reporting an editor for edit warring, it is important to ensure that they have been adequately warned first. WP:TWINKLE is useful for this, and is also useful for making the edit-warring report itself.

One piece of advice is not to worry about removing problematic edits right away. It is only in cases relevant to WP:BLP that bad edits need to be removed right away. In almost all other cases, it is better to wait, to ask for assistance, and to be sure that the problem will get resolved so there is no need to hurry with reverts. MPS1992 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your unrelenting contributions to the project. Mona778 (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mona! MPS1992 (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MPS1992. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Question

What are the steps to take if an editor rejects academic work in favor for his own opinion on articles? The user also adds content in which citations prove to be falsely attributed. Duqsene (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Duqsene: you are framing your question as being a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. However, in order to justify action being taken against an editor for their conduct, a very high standard of proof and a very clear explanation is normally required. So for example if you had multiple WP:DIFF of the editor adding sources, accompanied in each instance by a link to the source showing clearly that the citation was deliberately falsified, then you might approach an administrator on their talk page, providing all of these details, and asking if they would consider taking action. Many administrators are very busy, so you could choose a recent Successful candidate from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent because perhaps recent appointees are less busy. If you were to approach WP:ANI with some of the text such as you have recently been posting, it is almost certain that your complaint would be rejected as being a content dispute, not a conduct dispute.

And indeed, I think that your concern is mostly the content that appears in Abyssinian people, not the conduct of the other editor. And perhaps it would be difficult to provide sufficiently clear diffs and evidence that the other editor needs action taken against them. (Even though I see that complaints have been made on their talk page before.) So to begin with, it might be best to continue to aim at compromise on the talk page of the article. Perhaps you could approach User:Soupforone on their talk page about how best to frame a neutral WP:RFC on the article's talk page to decide about the inclusion or exclusion of contested content.

WP:CONTENTDISPUTE -- a different part of the same page which I linked above -- also lists a number of different noticeboards which can be approached about different aspects of content disputes, but I am not sure that any of them would be especially useful in this case. Other parts of the same page have some other useful advice about disputes.

You could also ask (neutrally!) for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, but I don't know how much response there would be. There is also an Ethiopia WikiProject but that seems not to have very many people.

Avoid edit-warring and personal attacks. Even criticism of other editors can sometimes be considered a personal attack if it is not supported by evidence. MPS1992 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-Evaluation

Hi. I appreciate your contribution to the article on Dubai English Speaking College - being a new editor that I am, I did not realize that some of the content on the page might be considered promotional. I have looked over the NPOV guideline, and revised the article. The problem is - due to the absence of any notes except the template added, I am still unsure whether the article adheres to the standards, so do not wish to remove the template, as my view may be considered biased. I'd appreciate it if you took a couple of minutes to look over the article again, removing the template if you consider the problem to be resolved, or leaving a note on either the article's or mine talk page in case I've missed something. Feel free to delete this message once read. Regards, VB00 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@VB00: thank you for replying. Please carefully examine WP:WPSCH/AG#OS and make your edits based on that.

Do you have any connection with the school, for example as a former pupil or teacher, any involvement with fundraising or other activity at the school, or any involvement with marketing the school? MPS1992 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, will do that. No, I am not connected to the school in any way, the reason for my development of school articles from stubs is my involvement in Wikipedia:WikiProject United Arab Emirates. Regards, VB00 (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Winter 2016

Hi, Thanks for your note. I made the edit to Kelli Ward last August, and it seems someone is trying to remove relevant information. It was already there before said user started reverting. Ideally we could reach a consensus on it, but the user who opposed is not interested in discussing further. I've opened conversation on the talk page, but they have not and probably will not reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.99.194 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do let me know if a consensus is reached on the talk page. Please do not continue to edit-war your preferred version into the article without such a consensus. MPS1992 (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate

the note you dropped on the new jimbo.jones character's talkpage. I have suspicions that the user is a previously banned editor/SPI. I am not pushing it yet but my patience has it's limits. Repeatedly removing sourced material using a bizarre series of reasons for what is after all a minor point smacks of a POV warrior. Accusing me of socking when an entirely independent editor reverted him/her just added to my annoyance. I merely noted a suggested influence by a R/S, which JJ distorts into origins. A suggestive influence is hardly controversial. I do not wish to engage with this person during the holiday period as I wish it to be a period of relative peace. Anyway MPS, regards, and I hope all is well with you and yours. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes it is all very suspicious but I try so much to assume good faith :) I did actually ask for semi-protection on the article -- because the other editor literally only had 5 edits and all 5 were to that article -- but my request was declined.

I don't actually make and eat every dish that falls under dispute as to whether Muslims or Israelis "own" it... but I do try many of them :)

Thank you for your kind thoughts. MPS1992 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not even a question of "ownership" MPS. It is merely a footnote in the history suggesting a minor influence. Even this appears to offend some types. *sigh* Irondome (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I know right. Egg, tomatoes, and chilli -- maybe some other things -- what's not to like? I think I made some sort of 3RR report or whatever it is called. MPS1992 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: D+H (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:D+H and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Salade niçoise

Schwede66 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Tobruk, etc

Hello: Thank you for your thanks! And thanks for chipping in on the discussion about this at The Banner's talk page. I'm still in the dark over what his/her problem was with this; I can't decide if he didn't understand the explanations, or was deliberately misinterpreting them. Either way, it isn't worth losing sleep over! Anyway, thanks again: Happy editing! Moonraker12 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Rating at Talk:Center Grove High School

I reverted your change. As far as both the schools project and the Indiana project are concerned (I am a coordinator at WPSCH and an active member at INDIANA), this article does not meet the start criteria. For political geography articles (like settlements and schools), a History section is nearly a must. Now not having any history for a ten year old school may not keep it from being a start (because there isn't any history), this school is over 130 years old. Please keep that in mind when rating school articles. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Images from Indian Army & Indian Air force

Wikimedia India is advocating for release of Images from Indian Army & Indian Air force under Commons Acceptable licenses. Please see the discussion on WMIN's domain. Also share this message among your fellow Wikimedians. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

First good topic from Indian military history

Indian military history topic area gets its first good topic with the promotion of Field marshal (India) to good topic status today. The topic comprises of three articles including the main article—Field marshal (India), and the two holders of the rank—Sam Manekshaw and Kodandera M. Cariappa. Happy editing. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Alchemy of Love Mindfulness Training

Hi - if some of this is copyright that text needs deleting and rev/deleting as well, which I can do. The editor is spamming this author's self-published material into articles. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Kashem Bin Abu Bakar

All I can find is a recent AFP article on him, but the claims made seems like he might be notable. Unsure if you are able to access Bengali sources, but thought I would ask. Even if you're not able to access sources, a push in the right direction re: notability could be helpful :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: hrm -- 1980s novelists are definitely not my thing, even with more recent claims to fame. I asked my parents about him today, and both recall the name, but neither thought highly of him. Either way, I think there is a good chance of notability there.

Personally, I am not enthusiastic about the move back towards old-fashioned values, but perhaps that is a struggle for a different day. MPS1992 (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I sorry if there was any unconscious assumption that you would know of him because of the Bangladesh connection. You were just the first name I recognized on the Wikiproject list so I reached out. I'm relatively familiar with South Asia as an area of academic interest, but more on the religious side and much less on the novelist side. I also lack the language skills. Sigh. Well, anyway, at least there is a stub. I'll try to dig around to see if there is anything I can expand, but my suspicion is that the English-language sourcing is terrible here. Thanks for your help. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page as well?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page as well?. Mamasanju (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I loved this section heading. Thanks for making me smile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou! That situation really confused me as to what was best, but I am glad it was fixed. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Mussolini's death: some questions

Please do not lecture me on supposed subjective viewpoints. If you find reason to undo my changes, please tell me specifically what, or which word, it is that you object to, and why. If you are unable to do that within, say, two weeks, then I will put back my textual changes. For example, the original text stated that the dead body of M. was "shot", which is obvious nonsense; therefore, I corrected this to "shot at", which is precisely what happened according to the very detailed "Morte di Benito Mussolini" Wikipedia article. If I introduced the terms "barbarous" and "desecration" for the treatment of the dead body, then this was not to express my subjective feelings, but to uphold a civilized perspective on what happened. Or would anybody recommend mistreating and abusing the dead?Retal (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Retal: there is nothing nonsensical about saying that a body is "shot"; one can shoot a living person and one can also shoot their body. The only thing that has changed is whether they are dead or not when the shooting takes place. That is how it works in English, anyway -- it is not the practice here on the English Wikipedia to make articles into word-for-word literal translations of Wikipedia articles in other languages.

Wikipedia does not need to insert a "civilized perspective" of events, since any civilized person can draw their own conclusions on whether the treatment is barbarous, desecration or otherwise. We do not draw conclusions for them in Wikipedia's voice, unless these conclusions have been discussed in independent reliable sources. Finally, your last sentence seems to be a straw man argument. MPS1992 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Britain First alteration

Detective Armani (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)I'm the person who altered Britain First's page a year ago. You may not remember me, but I only got around to reading your message a few minutes ago. I'm sorry for doing that, it won't happen again. Your P.S. made my day, however.

@Detective Armani: thank you for letting me know! Happy editing. MPS1992 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! I also request that you send this notice to the other editor involved in the dispute, as they are erasing my notices on a claim that I am "graffitiing" their page. Thanks again. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: The discussion is located here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Hi MPS, I'm replying to this. My standard answer to usage questions is: let's see what the dictionaries say. Collins is typical; it says "It is usually regarded as incorrect to talk of pre-arranged events occurring or happening: the wedding took place (not occurred or happened) in the afternoon." If you read the example sentences there and elsewhere, it's not just pre-arranged events that should be avoided with "occur", but any event that happened as a natural and intended consequence of human actions. Despite this, some bureaucrats, journalists, historians and others will use the word "occur", precisely because they're trying to convey a sense that no one was responsible for the events, that things happened by accident. And of course, writers often borrow the words the sources use, so you do see "occur" misused in Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: thank you, that is very interesting. Worryingly, it is not something I was aware of. However, I did not suggest that "occurred" was necessarily the best replacement wording. Nor indeed was I suggesting that keeping the current structure of the sentence would be the best way of dealing with it. Do you believe that "it resulted when" is not in any way awkward phrasing? MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Are we avoiding "It was the result of the interception of..." just out of a preference for avoiding that sort of construction, even when the alternative chosen reads worse?

I would also argue that "natural and intended consequence" is something that is quite difficult to assign in war. MPS1992 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(On a side note, "the wedding occurred in the afternoon" would sound equally awkward -- in fact downright weird -- to me.) MPS1992 (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "It was the result of an attack on the [advancing] X by the Y" -- or something like that? MPS1992 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood ... are you saying that you can't say that something "resulted" in British English? I've been studying British English for many years but it's not native to me, and I'm still learning new things about it all the time. I'll poke around in dictionaries. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"It resulted when" sounds awkward. "It resulted after" would also sound awkward. Let's see, "it resulted during", would that sound right to you or not? "It resulted due to" also sounds wrong to me. Surely this is just a transitive versus intransitive use of the verb, and the verb is "to result"? MPS1992 (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I guess that your natural answer to my question Do you believe that "it resulted when" is not in any way awkward phrasing? would be "yes"? MPS1992 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Just got back ... this is off the Main Page now, but I'll keep researching it. Btw you did nothing wrong posting at WP:ERRORS; I didn't understand the question at first. To answer the question, "resulted when" seems pretty common at Google Books, and it's almost as common in British English. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what those graphs are showing. A maximum of 0.000008% seems very low? "Resulted in" on the same graph is at 0.0024% -- all of the ones I mention above as awkward-sounding get the same 0.00000x% ratings I think. See the difference?

With regard to British English, are you familiar with A Dictionary of Modern English Usage? MPS1992 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have the 2015 edition of Fowler. Here's resulted when, resulted during, resulted after in British English. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, the most-used of these peaks there at around 0.000008% maximum. I'm not sure what this shows other than very low usage? MPS1992 (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: I've been digging around some more and I think I may have found what's bothering me. First of all, a great many dictionaries reassure me, with examples, that it is not ungrammatical to use "result" as an intransitive verb. Regardless of British or American English. So my concerns about that were misdirected. What's also pointed out is the semantic -- not grammatical -- aspects of this verb. It links a cause and an effect, and in English it does not matter which comes first in the word order. And of course that is indeed what is being summarised, there is a cause and an effect (the interception and the battle, respectively).

But the way it has been phrased is very unusual (statistics in a moment), and to some readers including me, the use of "when" followed by an independent clause leads to a breakage of the semantic link between the cause (the interception) and the result (the battle's occurrence, which here we phrase as just "the battle", perhaps adding to the problem). Thus the verb sounds strange.

Either the reason it sounds strange is that most English writing does not express it this way -- or most English writing does not express it this way because it sounds strange. It may not matter which.

Thinking about it today, it occurred to me that by far the most common way one hears this verb used is actually in participle form followed by a noun phrase. The statistics bear this out, though they also reveal that this has not always been the case. The statistics also suggest that the second most common way this verb is used in modern writing (unless I've missed some) also takes a noun phrase. Thus the confusion of the "cause" element being in a separate verb phrase after "when".

The ngrams graph data is difficult to interpret when simply looking at phrases whose validity one is trying to assess. But when comparing usage, the results here are visually striking. Take a look: resulted when,resulted during,resulted after,resulting in,with the result that,resulted from (British English).

As you can see, the three disputed phrasings (resulted when, resulted after, resulted during) are so little used as to be almost invisible on this graph. They don't really fare any better in American English. So yes, this is a very unusual construction, and I think it can distract the reader.

Thoughts? MPS1992 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research on that. The ngrams are suggestive enough that I won't use it again in my own writing. This probably isn't something I want to get into as a copyeditor, though. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, thank you for encouraging me to start understanding why I have biases against certain wordings. My education was partly in my own country and partly in England, all influenced by British English. (Mostly based on concepts pre-dating Fowler, apart from one teacher who liked to confuse us.) I have never looked at ngram graphs before and I now find them fascinating. The only problem now is that I need to resist the urge to spend days at a time trying out diffeconsiderrent phraseology and comparing its popularity over time. MPS1992 (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford

Performance considerations.

Greetings. The additional source mentions 'The tests on Friday appear to show the AAG and EMALS have overcome issues that cropped up during their development — issues with the EMALS prompted President Donald Trump earlier this year to admonish the Navy to return to steam-powered catapults.'

Is this sufficient documentation to correct the '2019 upgrade' in the first reference? Just updating the document. Cheers. --Fb2002 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. The other source cited, also on 28 July 2017, says "final testing involving launches with an instrumented aircraft have been postponed for an additional year, with the service citing competing testing priorities as the reason for the delay. EMALS is one of many new technologies planned for the Navy’s Ford-class aircraft carrier fleet and is already installed on the Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). The Ford is expected to receive the software update in 2019, following the ship’s Post Shakedown Availability."

Perhaps we should re-cast the sentence to include both the "appears to be fixed" aspect and the "final fixes delayed an additional year to 2019" aspects. MPS1992 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Jo Cox

I actually agree with you. While it is appropriate to remind someone of etiquette when it comes to making controversial edits, which is what I was attempting to do, I probably shouldn't have reprimanded the user in quite the way I did. She seems to have a history of being deliberately confrontational, and instead of allowing her to irritate me, the sensible thing would have been not to react at all. Anyway, that particular discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. This is Paul (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I know how hard it can be to walk away from situations like this. I am not good at it, but I am learning, slowly. Some people are so obsessed with pushing their viewpoint into articles that you or I might react in an unacceptable way.

I think you may have mentioned that the article might be taken to FAC sometime in the future. I would certainly be keen to help if I can. MPS1992 (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd like to think I'm learning, but I've been here nine years and still get caught out now and again. I do want to take the article to FAC eventually so would really appreciate any help you could give. I'll probably start off with GAN, perhaps a bit closer to the end of the year. This is Paul (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Query

Hi MPS1992. I was interested in your comment here. In what sense would you say I have been "involved in the dispute"? As far as I'm aware, the dispute is between HBH on one side, who doesn't like BLP violations, and a bunch of editors who don't like him reverting so much. My proposed close tries to balance and solve both problems. I think it's been well explained that issuing mandatory ArbCom notices to editors involved in a dispute is a neutral act and does not make one "involved". I would request that you consider the proposal on its merits as solving the problem, rather than base your oppose on your, perhaps mistaken, belief that I am somehow "involved" in the dispute. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

How many edits have you made to the ANI, AN, and user talk page threads on this issue?

How many times have you made statements that might be considered as threatening participants in the disagreement with administrative sanctions? I would include this.

The noticeboard discussion entitled John's chilling effect tactics was closed with the text "Non-Free Image Removed" (one close) and a quote from Alice in Wonderland (the preceding close), by people also involved in the dispute. The combination of such closes does not quite suffice to "well explain" anything about your behavior. MPS1992 (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Gosh. You have an extremely restrictive view of involvement. So, because I have made comments at the discussion (which was not started by me and was not about me), I should not be able to propose a closure motion? And I think you need to look more closely at that closure notice and see the real one. WP:INVOLVED may also be of interest. --John (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

John, just for clarification, you don't intend to close the thread, do you? Because, per what Swarm stated before, that would be a WP:INVOLVED action. And I'm sure that Mandruss, Tenebrae, AlexEng, Rivertorch, and a number of others would take it that way as well. It may be that MPS1992 thought you were proposing to close the thread yourself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@John: are you able to answer my questions or not? If not, why not? MPS1992 (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, of course not. It's not clear to me that I am involved in the Wikipedia sense in this matter, and I'm not sure what you think your diff shows, but I would never close a motion that I started myself! Gosh. --John (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And, MPS1992, to answer your questions: ANI loads, AN none (was that a trick question, it hasn't been discussed there as far as I'm aware?), user talk a few. And zero, as far as I recall. Your diff certainly does not show me doing that. None of that makes me involved. And as I'm (obviously) not intending to close my own motion, the question seems moot. --John (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Our opinions of your actions differ, and I am not the only one who sees it that way. Your certainty may be leading you down a mistaken path. MPS1992 (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

My certainty, such as it is, is based on evidence and knowledge. In what way do you feel my path may be mistaken? --John (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

John (and there is no need to keep pinging me), that you do not think you are WP:INVOLVED is quite astonishing, really. Do you think that Swarm's commentary only applies to that one newbie admin? It applies to you as well. You are without a doubt WP:INVOLVED. And you are certainly WP:INVOLVED as far as it comes to me. And I am not the only editor to state so. Editors stated it years ago. And Rivertorch quite clearly called you involved with regard to me in this latest ANI case. My link shows that another admin knows what WP:INVOLVED is. I am not stating that you should not be proposing a close in that thread; I am stating that you certainly should not be closing that thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy to agree to differ on this. Academic as we've now established I am not proposing to close my own motion. --John (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

John, there is no agree to disagree when an administrator is failing to comprehend a policy as important as WP:INVOLVED. WP:INVOLVED states, in part, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

In what way do you think your involvement in the aforementioned ANI dispute and past disputes with me (yes, the People magazine drama was a dispute; there were no BLP violations by using People magazine as a source) does not make you involved? Do you not see where WP:INVOLVED clearly states "very broadly by the community"? I bolded it just for you. Stating that you won't close the thread hardly reassures me of your behavior when you don't seem to grasp what WP:INVOLVED means, or are rather ignoring what it means. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And even if you were not involved, WP:INVOLVED also states, "'Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This is pointless unless John takes an action inconsistent with INVOLVED. If he does, we can discuss it then, and no such action would be irreversible. Recommended dosage. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi! I recently edited a school that is being sued, and you keep changing my edits. I have followed all guidelines that I have read. I posted it as (reportedly), and I cited my sources. What is your reason for the removal of my edits, if I am following the guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agoudy (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Agoudy:, please discuss this at Talk:Brentwood Academy if that is the school. That is the place where it will be decided whether to mention the scandal or not. MPS1992 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok...thank you. I am new, and thought it was a member of the school board that might be undoing my edits. Please, forgive the paranoia. Apologies on my behalf. I will go to the page you suggested, and try there. I believe it is in the public interest to know of the lawsuit. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agoudy (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Agoudy: you are very welcome. I am in England, so I do not know anything about the school board. On Wikipedia, such serious matters are normally only included in an article when there is a conviction. So you might find it difficult. Tread gently. Good luck! MPS1992 (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Inter-wiki linking

Hi there. I saw that you linked to wiktionary using external link formatting. I thought it might be helpful to point out that you can link to wiktionary using the format [[wikt:attack]]. Here's a help page with more interwiki link formats. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you AlexEng, that is very useful. MPS1992 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Newton

After seeing some more sources discuss it, I agree that mentioning her racist tweets is warranted. But I think it'd be better placed somewhere later in the paragraph. As it is, it gives the impression that Newton was aware of her tweets. When in reality they were dug up after the fact. Lizard (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard: thank you for sorting this out. My original addition aimed to keep the mention of the Twitter account as short as possible because of its limited relevance. But, as you say, that led to it being easy to misinterpret. Your expanded version works much better. MPS1992 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello friend

	Hello friend
	I understand your a student in England, I was wondering if you can help me ? I am interested in writing about an author and a book. Can you help me ? Macedonian Snow Leopard (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure @Macedonian Snow Leopard: what help do you need? Have you read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE? MPS1992 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello friend

	Hello friend
	Sorry you asked me if i have read : my first article. Sorry to ask what is that ? Later i was wondering if you can help me write a few bibliography reference notes. I have been trying to write some but they are always deleted for some unknown reason. Regards Macedonian Snow Leopard. Macedonian Snow Leopard (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Macedonian Snow Leopard: oh, I thought you were trying to write a new Wikipedia article about an author and a book. Certainly I can help you to write bibliography reference notes. MPS1992 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Macedonian Snow Leopard: do you mean this material that you have repeatedly tried to add? If so, the reason it was removed is that it does not make sense in English, as stated there. This is the English language Wikipedia -- there do exist Wikipedias in other languages, for example in Greek. MPS1992 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello friend

	Hello friend
	Thanks. Yeah so maybe you can possibly help me add a bibliography reference note to an article. I will give you the name of the article and reference note in 5 minutes. By the way what is your name ? My name is Tome Macedonian Snow Leopard (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Most people where I'm living at the moment call me Mo. MPS1992 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok Mo

	Ok Mo
	I have a few friends from Bangladesh. Ok the articles are : History of Macedonia (ethnic group) and Krste Petkov Misirkov. Macedonian Snow Leopard (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Macedonian Snow Leopard: Krste Misirkov already exists. Macedonia is a country, not an ethnic group, but the article Macedonians (ethnic group) also already exists. MPS1992 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar

Ok good The article is History of Macedonia (ethnic group) Macedonia is a country like Bangladesh, Bangladesh is larger in area. Ok anyway the reference note is : A Macedonian grammer and historian by the name of Krste Petkov Misirkov explains that according to contemporary sources and documents the surname of King Marko was unknown. Next to this reference note you write : <ref> History And Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations, 2012 pp.22, Tome Egumenoski & Aleksandar Donski, University of Goce Delchev. Thanks Mo. I will help you locate that sentence. Macedonian Snow Leopard (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Macedonian Snow Leopard: Yes I am aware that Macedonia is a country -- although some people refer to it as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in order not to upset those nice fellows in Athens.

Now, there is no article History of Macedonia (ethnic group), there is only the article Macedonians (ethnic group) that I already mentioned, and also another one History of the Republic of Macedonia. Also, please, what is "a Macedonian grammer"? This is a word that I am not familiar with in English. MPS1992 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Look dont worry

	Look dont worry
	Look Mo dont worry about that : Can you write an article about : an author ? Thank you Macedonian Snow Leopard (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Macedonian Snow Leopard: It mostly depends on whether the author meets the requirements of WP:NAUTHOR. MPS1992 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok good Mo

	Ok good Mo
	Ok good. What is your email address ? I will send you all information about the author. Thank you Mo your very helpful. Macedonian Snow Leopard (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe you can use the Email this user link on the left, if you have set up an email address of your own in Wikipedia. That is done under Preferences at the top right. MPS1992 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, MPS1992. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MPS1992. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. Are you the mass message delivery boy/girl that I have been hearing so much about? :)

Thank you for the notification. MPS1992 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have wasted time with a person who makes false claims about what I said, but now agrees with me!

I dont have strong view points. I have facts!

Wiki is about viewpoints? I thought it was about being true! Mybad!

Aggressive? Well when you have a person who wrongly accuses blog, Says references are not reputable (even tho use extensively on here) Make several false claims, which I did not make! (Straw man) Spend so long To get them to finally agree that trangender people do suffer higher mental disorders/illness problems (or what ever friendly sounding name you want to call it). When they could have just looked at reputable refs or used google themself to collect refs they happy with! It is annoying.

But i get it its not about whats true, its about what the admins want to say.

So do you want to step in and put the fact into the article that transgender people do suffer much higher mental illness EG around 1/3 suicide! Or you want to keep that fact out like it has been so far? --ArnoldHimmler (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:Top 25

Off topic, but you mentioned that the Top 25 Report that I compiled read like it had been written by a tone-deaf 14 year old. As I am not 14, and intend to continue to work on the Report into the future, I have decided to take this as constructive criticism. You are not the first to criticise my penmanship over at the Top 25, and it is an area which I wish to improve on. Therefore, could you please explain why you felt the report had been written by a fourteen year old, some of the tonal issues you had with the text, and how you would suggest I rectify them. In case my tone is still off, I can assure you that this is a genuine question, so I would be sincerely grateful for a genuine answer. Thanks in advance, and apologies for bothering you, Stormy clouds (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC).

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my rather harshly written criticism. I'm glad to see the page improving, though I can't yet say I unreservedly approve of the results. I spent a little time thinking about the issues with the tone -- and the issues the Signpost in general has had with BLP recently -- earlier today. I will try to put together a detailed explanation of the issues with tone when I have a little more free time. MPS1992 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Was my effort any better this time around? Thanks for your linguistic fix - I had forgotten how to properly use the word in context. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

Hello MPS1992, thanks so much for the welcome (and cookies)! I wonder if you could advise me on something? I'm really worried about the state of Naveen Jain's page. I work as an engineer and have always followed and referenced his work, but see that his page is very negative and quite aggressively edited by the user Ronz. Because I appear new I'm a bit worried about getting involved in an editing war with this user, hence my post on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I would like to add more info about Moon Express and move some of the biased focus on InfoSpace to where it belongs on the Blucora page, as a person of experience how do you think I should proceed? I understand if you're busy, if so do you know of any other experienced editors who may be interested in having a look at the page and (hopefully) helping? Sorry it's such a vague question, I'd just love someone to have a look and assure me I'm not being crazy, thanks so much for your time! Trufflegoblin (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Trufflegoblin: That article has been edit-warred over for about ten years now, so any Wikipedia experience I have is really very insignificant by comparison. I also see some well-known and some well-respected Wikipedia editors on both sides of those edit wars on occasion. I suppose this tells us that people capable of both making and losing very large amounts of money inspire strong opinions.

I have removed one particularly egregious item from the later parts of the article, but it probably isn't the part that most concerns you. Ronz seems to disagree with me about that item, however, which may not be a surprise to you.

For what is left, I mostly have to disagree with you about the article on Jain:

• The lede should mention Infospace prominently -- as it currently does -- because that is what Jain is best known for.
• The lede should mention Jain's later work, for example Moon Express and Viome -- as it currently does -- because his later work is significant and is covered and sourced in the article.
• The "Known for" line in the infobox is justified because the "Occupation" line gives sufficient weight to his other activities
• The current level of detail about Infospace in the article could be trimmed somewhat, but it is not wildly inappropriate. A considerable level of detail is justified to make clear how the company that Jain founded worked, and then how it failed to work, and Jain's involvement.
• The Seattle Times is generally regarded as a reliable source, so the use of it in the article is permitted.
• The article is, for the most part, not unduly negative. Reliable sources have been negative about Jain, who is best known for an internet failure, and the article reflects that.

In some other areas, I tend to agree with viewpoints I imagine you might hold:

• The over-reliance on the Seattle Times as a source (more than twenty citations in a relatively short article), primarily for negative material, is problematic. Attempts should be made to broaden the sources used.
• More coverage of Moon Express is probably warranted, suitably sourced -- quite apart from anything else, "by the end of 2017" is badly outdated.
• Other activities could also be mentioned, if covered by independent reliable sources.
• The lede could be slightly expanded based on the additional material.
• Possibly some other things, but the details escape me for now.

I think you need to discuss on the talk page of the article what you feel the problems with the article are, and why. Amongst other things, exactly why it is "not an accurate biography". What is untrue, or what is given undue weight, and why?

Starting in other locations, with comments such as "It's suspicious that this user doesn't make any genuine contributions to Wikipedia", will raise suspicions, given that this is an article where so many users have edit-warred in the past, including accusations of COI from both sides. Avoid such accusations. MPS1992 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Techcrunch, Intelius, etc

Thanks for the response above.

I seem to have forgotten or overlooked discussions about the reliability of Techcrunch for BLPs or elsewhere. I had asked about the source at RSN long ago, and see that a recent RSN discussion [12] makes the source appear very questionable. Is that recent RSN discusion what you were working from, or is there more?

I've done a quick search for more sources on the whole consumer complaints against Intelius, and listed them at Talk:Naveen_Jain#Intelius_consumer_complaints. Glancing at the article history, this looks like another case of not giving due weight because of all the blow-back we were getting in the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

MPS1992, thanks so much for your detailed reply to my query. I'm more experienced than my login suggests but have fortunately managed to avoid flame-wars in my Wikipedia experience thus far! I apologise that I've only just been able to login again, but to see that you have put so much time and effort into my question about the Naveen Jain article has made me very happy. Thanks so much for going through article and making bullet points, that has given a good summing up of what I would like to see happening on the page. You have been so kind and welcoming! Trufflegoblin (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring Tag

Before you leave edit warring tags on someone's page you should look at the entire page. I added a discussion on the talk page of Kelli Ward the reason it was reverted was that it was done so without discussion or consensus. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jamesharrison2014: I've been looking at "the entire page" and actively participating on both the article and talk page for about a year and a half. Your interest seems a little more recent. Starting a discussion on the talk page does not change the fact that you should not be edit warring. I left an identical template for the other editor -- they didn't seem to appreciate it either. If you keep edit-warring you'll be blocked. MPS1992 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: - Be careful making assumptions. My "interest" in not recent I have followed this for a long time. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Just recently created an account, then? OK. 21:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Kelli Ward

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Who are you?

And why are trying to cause trouble on the ANI page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to know about me, "Baseball Bugs"? MPS1992 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to know what possessed you to come to ANI and escalate whatever the issue was there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I might ask you the same question. What possessed you to get involved in a role that seems to have been purely provocative? MPS1992 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You could "ping" them here, and that should get their attention. That was how Baseball Bugs got involved in the discussion, and it's not a provocative remark. Lepricavark (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It was an unhelpful remark -- the instructions specifically say that is not sufficient -- and as such was provocative given their earlier interactions with the other editor. MPS1992 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I don't see how that's remotely provocative at all. Lepricavark (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, who are you, "Baseball Bugs"? MPS1992 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

For my part I don't care who you are, MPS1992 (unless you are a returning editor who has an old grudge against Baseball Bugs) but it looks to me as well that you were just trying to cause trouble at the ANI thread. Please don't do that. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC).

Bugs has a long history of deliberately saying stupid things to me to wind me up, as he did in that thread, and as he subsequently tried to do on the RefDesk despite my specifically asking him not to. Sadly, some admins seem to enjoy it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I had no intention of "winding you up". I was telling you how I would do it if faced with a similar situation. Your outraged reaction is mystifying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School

Hi MPS1992, mostly I thought that sentence was a bit wordy. The Modern sporting rifle is already a "type" so "of a type" wasn't adding much. I'm not going to undo your undo though - but I expect some other editors may want to reword that sentence as well. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I will see if I can refine that wording a little. "a semi-automatic modern sporting rifle popular in the U.S" would be more accurate but would be misleading, since it implies a particular rifle, and we do not yet know that. MPS1992 (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Use of IRC

While there exists a ban on public logging of the en.wiki IRC, the use of it in shaping a decision on-wiki is not forbidden. Editors are expected to make decisions based off all available information, and if someone is willing to act all cavalier and hypocritical when they are mostly sure their actions cannot be technically proven (i.e. no diffs exist, and the only proof would be based off the word of the user that their logging is accurate), it is totally OK to use IRC comments as basis for refusing an unblock. Other off-wiki activities and websites are basically taken at face value, a user was declined en.wiki bureaucrat-ship based upon off-wiki evidence. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your viewpoint on this. I am still of the opinion that summary analyses of -- and opinions about -- off-wiki interactions, by the participants, are not compelling evidence, as compared to evidence, whether on or off wiki, that can be inspected in its original form. If Jimmy Wales were to mention that they had met the editor concerned in person, the editor had explained their case to him, and he had found their case entirely reasonable and their demeanor pleasant and helpful, I would regard such evidence as equally uncompelling. MPS1992 (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Help on Correction

Hi dear.. would u check this article and tell me my corrections ? many thanks Zara st (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

B-Dienst

Hi @MPS1992, I think it is first time we have spoke. Howdy. Thanks for the updates to the article. I don't know what you did, but it must be good. I saw on your user page, articles needing creatings, I noticed the Touching wild horses That gave me a laugh, still laughing. I don't why people would do that. Your likely to get kicked to death. It sounds cool, but it is extremly dangerous. But gave me a laugh all morning, whats left, 1 minute. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to have had a 6.7 rating on IMDB. It can't be that bad, I suppose. scope_creep (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is rather the whole point. You are not supposed to touch the horses, or affect them in any way. MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

New section

I didn't acknowledge anything. Please go troll someone else. Your attempts to stir "dust" at AN are truly unneeded and unwanted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't? Then that is a concern. The rules about not raising privacy-sensitive issues in one of Wikipedia's most public places, exist for a reason. If you ever do it again, I will be asking for a lengthy site ban to ensure that it does not happen again. Not out of malice - but to protect the encyclopedia and its subjects, given that you acknowledge your awareness of the advice given to you, but here you avow your determination to act against that advice. MPS1992 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your threat and the reasoning for it is silly and has no teeth. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This would not be the first block, after all. A one month block, then a 61 day block, then a 3 month block, all rather recent in that frame of things? Can you guess what is next? MPS1992 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I already know what's next. Have for almost a year. Not sure why you think bringing up my past blocks is relevant to my report at AN. Doing so is just as silly as the threat you are making against me above. I'm going to get back to helping build the encyclopedia. You might want to abandon the silliness and do the same. Ta. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Now you know one more thing, and therefore you can "get back to helping build the encyclopedia" without making such blunders again. Good luck to you. MPS1992 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Allegations

Regarding your removal of sourced information on Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. As I said in the edit summary, reverting your removal: "I did see this in the source, so you will have to be more specific. May I remind you that Wikipedia is not censored." Debresser (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Crypto judaism

Why did you remove my edits? Did you take the time to read the Atlantic article or Neulanders article in The Journal of Folklore and Enthonolgy? I did and they fully support my edits. RioAtrisco (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually they do not. You need to try the article talk page rather than persisting in trying to edit-war your interpretation into the article. The burden is on you to seek consensus for the additions. If I have time later or tomorrow, I will start a talk page section for you. But, you could do so yourself just by clicking this link. MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Boys School Barnet article revert of changes

Please do not revert at changes I make to this article, regardless of your silly claims of encyclopedic interest. I study at this school so know way more about it than you do so please consider my effort before arrogantly reverting my changes. Leave a message on my talk page if you wish to challenge this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicChefUK (talk • contribs)

Your personal knowledge is not necessarily acceptable for our reliable sources policy. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Lol MPS You Needa Chill

Listen, two years of edits doesn't mean you rule the wiki there are many people out there with a whole hella lot more experience than you so calm your little tits and get on everyone elses level my man... 155.33.132.11 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry bud, that is most definitely a level on which I would not wish to find myself. MPS1992 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

MH17

What is mean by uncontructive?? What?? There too many evidence to prove Ukrainians did shot down MH17 by mistake. Please retract your message immidiately and issue an apology thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.104.171 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hey MPS1992, I was wondering whether you're going to add evidence to the ArbCom case based on your initial statement? I was thinking it would be good if you'd expand on that and cover the Rommel issue. I'm not that familiar with it and my evidence text limit is full anyway. Remember that the evidence section is open just 3 more days. --Pudeo (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: thank you for thinking of me, and thank you for your work in exposing some of the fallacies in operation at this arbcom case. Unfortunately I am in something of a quandary here. Although I can see that there are accusations that do not make sense and should be rebutted, equally there are many more accusations where I have no professional standing and have never had time to make detailed study of the sources involved. To any reasonable person, it is obvious that the Military History WikiProject has made colossal efforts, over many years, to cover World War II accurately and in accordance with the reliable sources of the times. Like others, for me it was only through Wikipedia that I learned of certain concepts now considered myths by modern historians, and how modern (21st century) historians view them. Is this revisionism? If something has only "come to light" since 2004, then why was it so magically concealed in the 50 years of supposedly reliable secondary sources before that? Were all such academic and scholarly sources totally suppressed just because someone thought that alternative voices might impede some Cold War re-armament programme? Since when did academic opinions, on either side, have any impact on the colossal expenditures of the Cold War? It's all nonsense, of course, but no-one is likely to realize that until long after this arbitration case is over. MPS1992 (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand, no problem. Fair points. --Pudeo (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: I have added some evidence, although not about Rommel -- 500 words does not go a long way. I am hoping not to get involved in the Workshop section, but we'll see. MPS1992 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Well done - I think you had an eye for bringing something new, since the topic area is so big there certainly are enough articles to cover for everyone. Yeah, the workshop phase doesn't look too fun. Perhaps I added my suggestions there too early, but I just didn't think it's that serious - they are just suggestions by users and arbitrators will always come up with their own. But I think it's in the air that there's already a predisposition to who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are. And I'm not going to explain for the third time why mass removals of "intricate detail" shouldn't be done without a RfC first there. --Pudeo (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Pazhasi Raja

I hope this is the way to talk to you. I added J. Brandon Hill to the cast because I am J. Brandon Hill and I am in the cast. That’s how I know, because I was there. . .in the film. Any questions check imdb. Waterloo Bridge (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, IMDB and people's own recollections are not generally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia content. Also, we don't generally add wikilinks to articles that have not been created or are not being created. MPS1992 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

due weight / synth

What do you mean by this? Please elaborate. Explorium (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. MPS1992 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help

Hello. M trying to include a real time edit counter as part of the userbox on my user page. Could you please help me out with this? Thanks Vinyl Guy (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)