User talk:MPS1992/SmellyArchive 1

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

Invitation to join the Military History project
 Hello ! 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&mdash;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
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)

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 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 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)

Being hassled by
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. "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/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

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thibaut120094&diff=prev&oldid=186760257 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 ? — 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, They promoted a suckpuppet at English project, to patroller, rollbacker! (Mona778 (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

(Mona778 (talk) 21:13, 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 for shedding light on "the reality of the affairs" by attaching link to the User talk page of Drmies .---Thanks a lot, and have a nice weekend With a very warm hug!


 * 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.

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))

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, 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))

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 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/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)

Ip hopping
Hello. In response to this, I found an example. Here:.

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:. 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)

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!?..... – Davey 2010 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)

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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see 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 Dobos torte for you!

 * 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))


 * 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))


 * 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)


 * 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))
 * 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)

A beer for you!

 * 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)

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. &#8209; 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). &#8209; 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. &#8209; 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. &#8209; 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)

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)


 * 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."

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.-- KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

"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)

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)


 * 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

 * Thank you. It is a very interesting article. MPS1992 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 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... — Llywelyn II   22:43, 13 July 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)

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, 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! 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
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Improvements
 * List of destroyers of the Indian Navy was almost improved to class status (awaiting a closure of review) by.
 * Kamorta-class corvette was improved to GA status by
 * Sam Manekshaw was improved to class by  (also a present GA nominee)

DYK for Bocca di Lupo
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)

94.119.64.17‎
Hi - just to say that this is the blocked racist Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 8 October 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)


 * 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 RFA reform leads to lots of pages related to this topic. MPS1992 (talk) 20:12, 18 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)


 * 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!

 * Thanks Mona! MPS1992 (talk) 18:26, 7 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)


 * 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 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)

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)

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)


 * thank you for replying. Please carefully examine WP:WPSCH/AG 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 WikiProject United Arab Emirates. Regards, VB00 (talk) 08:50, 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 or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Onel 5969  TT me 15:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Salade niçoise
 Schwede 66  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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)