User talk:MPS1992/SmellyArchive 2

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)


 * 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== You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown. Mamasanju (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * 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)


 * 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.


 * 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 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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, 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)


 * 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. Here's a help page with more interwiki link formats. Alex Eng ( 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)


 * 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

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

Hello friend

 * 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)


 * 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

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

Ok Mo

 * 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!

 * 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

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

Ok good Mo

 * 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 * 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)

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 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)


 * 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.
 * 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 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. 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)


 * 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)


 * - 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)

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)

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 &#124; 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 * sorry, I do not know how to do that and I am not sure that it is possible. Do you know of any other user that has this on their userpage? MPS1992 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
I've reverted the changes that you've contended as advertisement, and removed the related headings. -Reignfall (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you, although you do still need to declare any conflict of interest -- as mentioned on your user talk page -- if you intend to continue editing. MPS1992 (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Tripartite Pact
The remark I removed was not a comment on the article. (The IP's talk page comment was made in March and the article text was corrected days later.) It is acceptable to remove such remarks (alleging editorial ignorance) from talk pages. In this case, the IP is not editing any longer, so there was no use contacting him/her. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I do not feel any need to contact the unregistered editor. If the unregistered editor's talk page comment led to the correction they had requested, all the more reason not to censor the fact that they had brought up the issue, and how they felt about it. Editorial ignorance is a social evil which we should all do our very best to eradicate, by whatever means necessary. MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Controversy sections
Thanks for your input. All of the HI01 candidates have 'controversy' but only the Kaniela Ing, Donna Mercado Kim, and Doug Chin wiki pages included such a section. If such a section remains, the fair thing to do would be to treat all 6 HI01 candidate wiki pages equally and include such a section with each. That would require too much monitoring to ensure impartiality. My stance now is remove the 'controversy' section from all the HI01 wiki pages. Is this good approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.255.108 (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank
Your latest edit description gave me a laugh, thanks.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ahahaha, you are very welcome. Although, it's only now that I see that the addition of Cuba and the others was vandalism as well -- purposely misrepresenting the source. Possibly that whole sub-section could do with revising, but I can't quite think what to do with it. MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thank you very much! How are you? MPS1992 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm doing fine, how about you?

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Re Rhodes House page
Hello I left a little message for you on the Rhodes House talk page. Basically at the moment I just want to remove that small paragraph about Tony Blair's band and replace it with something more useful for anyone trying to research the building. I have a few more suggested edits but will seek consensus on the talk page before making any major changes. Pug of the day (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

maps showing half the world speaking Bengali, Japanese, Vietnamese, Tamil, etc. etc. etc.
Hi MPS,

A few years ago we went through, w the consensus of Wikiproject languages, and removed all the maps like this. If Wyoming is colored as being Bengali (or whatever) speaking, then there's a clear implication that that the language is spoken by that community. It would be different if, as a few maps do, significant expat communities were indicated (e.g. Vancouver, NYC and Mexico City, not the entire continent), or indicate official recognition, etc., but otherwise such maps provide no value.

— kwami (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you, I was not aware of the prior discussions about this. I still don't agree about the nature of the claim being made, but I see you have done the needful on the article as according to existing consensus, so that is fine for me. MPS1992 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I could see using them if their meaning were clear from context. E.g., in a section of the article discussing expat/immigrant speakers, with a legend giving what percentage of the population each color represented. But if e.g. 0.01% of the US population speaks Bengali at home (I just made that number up), then readers might wonder why that's notable enough to put on a map. Or, there might be different sized dots over cities for expat populations of 10k, 100k, etc. Without something like that, there's no evident criterion for inclusion. E.g., since there are Japanese fishing vessels in all the world's oceans, a Japanese research station in Antarctica, and Japanese immigrants or ex-pat workers in probably every country in the world, why not just color the *entire* globe blue as Japanese-speaking? At some point, with no context, the maps become meaningless. In any case, the info box is for basic info, and I think for most of us here, that means things like native range, not immigrants all over the world. If we're talking the Japanese-speaking towns in Brazil, or the Welsh-speaking town in Argentina, then sure, let's include them, and the same if there are Bengali-speaking towns outside the expected area, but they should be located on the map. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

| WP:SECONDCHANCE ? Hmm..
I didn't know you were such a good prankster! Mona.N (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * hi Mona, it's good to hear from you. I'm not sure I understood your comment about my !vote on the RfA. I don't see in what way anyone is proposing or denying giving JBHunley a "second chance". Nor do I understand how it is a prank. MPS1992 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi MPS, how are you? If you weren't sarcastic, then why did you refer me to this page in response to my comment? Mona.N (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I wasn't being sarcastic. I was expressing surprise -- and I am still surprised -- that you thought someone was being offered or denied a second chance. MPS1992 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, let me clarify myself then: I believe everyone deserves a second chance, an opportunity to right the wrongs, that's all. Mona.N (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, but that's not really relevant to that RfA, is it?


 * When we talk of second chances, we tend to mean principles a little more like this. MPS1992 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is: Give them a break. Mona.N (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Opposing their candidacy for a position for which they appear eminently unsuited, might be doing exactly that. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. It's your call. Take care.--Mona.N (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You too. As regards second chances, this is beyond ridiculous. MPS1992 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about Revert
Short on time here, so I'll be brief. If both spellings of 'inquiry' and 'enquiry' are acceptable, but one is used multiple times in an article and the other used ONCE, I'd opt for the more common one. That's why I changed the Death of Mark Duggan article. I'll look forward to your reply tomorrow. Thanks! WesT (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Having returned to the office, I see that you implemented both of my changes, though with slightly different words. Thanks! WesT (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Castle entry assistance
Thank you for your warning about not posting at the beginning of the discussion; I will remember that in future. Re the Castle entry, I will discuss it with some academic friends and then see what material I might add to the talk page that would enable editors to improve the entry.--WLBelcher (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed
An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee,
 * 1) For engaging in harassment of other users, is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
 * 2) is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
 * 3) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
 * 4) Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
 * 5) While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
 * -Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Aamir Liaquat Hussain. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Störm  (talk)  15:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In case you haven't noticed, this is the English language Wikipedia, and "He remains a controversial figure surrounding many controversies" ain't any kind of English I've ever heard. MPS1992 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Advice and Notifications
Sir

Thank you for calling my attention. I will pay attention to this matter. Am sorry for the omission.

Sincerely

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Again
You were already told to stay off my talk page. This latest post of your yours is not only unwelcome, but it is also, quite frankly, bizarre. You are not an admin so stop acting like one. And again; stay off my talk page. Clear enough this time? Don't bother answering, you're continued absence from my page will be sufficient. - wolf  22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Fancy finding you here. Read and learn, my friend. MPS1992 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Schmidt science fellows
Hello and thank you for clarifying the position on this for me. Would it be possible to use the primary sources in liew of independent sources until some independent sources become available? Pug of the day (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think so -- it all sounds rather too promotional to me. Transcending things and so on. MPS1992 (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. How about if I re-word the passage and use this independent source? https://www.forbes.com/consent/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/anismuslimin/2018/04/24/former-google-chairman-eric-schmidt-announces-new-science-fellows/ would that be ok with you? Pug of the day (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, please try that. MPS1992 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but...
Hi, you deleted an image I had on my userpace. You claimed that it wasn't "free." Can you explain what you meant? The image is used on Wikipedia itself. Why am I not allowed to use it on my userspace? Thank you! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * sorry about that, unfortunately the rules are rather odd. That specific image is uploaded to Wikipedia only for use on certain specific articles -- the one about the Beatles album, the one about Abbey Road, and one or two others that I don't necessarily agree with. The reason is that the image is copyrighted to ("belongs" to) some music company or other such entity, and Wikipedia is a "free" project where we are trying to use only materials that are freely useable by anyone. So, we (Wikipedia) only use the Abbey Road image where it is essential and important to understand or identify the topic of an article. We don't use it on userpages or on talkpages or most other places.


 * This is because the Abbey Road image is a "non-free" image -- as I said, it belongs to some music company or other such entity. And they can restrict what anyone does with it.


 * There is also a properly "free" image -- this one -- of Abbey Road, which anyone can use for (almost) anything they want. And equally, you could go to Abbey Road in London and click a photo with your own camera and release it under any license you want, including a "free" one. (If you can persuade the surviving Beatles to walk across the road while you are clicking the photo as well, that would be even better .. )


 * This is all to do with Free content.


 * Images released under free licenses can be used on user pages and talk pages and anywhere else -- so long as it doesn't make a mess, obviously. Images that are "non-free" can only be used on Wikipedia under non-free content criteria for specific named pages, for example the rather tortuous justifications for exactly four articles at this image page.


 * I wrote this while listening to Lennon sing about "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world", and I guess music companies were not what he had in mind. But I think what we have in mind by preferring free content is something that Lennon would have liked.


 * Does it make any sense? MPS1992 (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thank you so much for taking your time to clarify! I will just use another Beatles' image, probably! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * apparently this image is freely licensed and therefore can be used on userpages and talkpages and project pages and everything. Also this one. And probably many others (those were just the first two I saw at The Beatles that were on Wikimedia Commons instead of just on Wikipedia). MPS1992 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, you found a better one already. Good. MPS1992 (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Schmidt Science fellows update on Rhodes Scholarship page
Hiya mate, hope your well. You asked me to find some new independent secondary sources relating to the Schmidt Science Fellows & the Rhodes Trust partnership. I have unearthed these two sources	https://www.forbes.com/consent/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/anismuslimin/2018/04/24/former-google-chairman-eric-schmidt-announces-new-science-fellows/ and https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/schmidt-science-fellows-names-inaugural-cohort Do you think these would be acceptable? Best regards. Pug of the day (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, please give those a try, with as neutral a wording as possible. I think the first of the two is possibly a slightly better source than the second, but can see no reason not to use both. MPS1992 (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Wnek
You might want to contribute to the discussion as to whether this page should be deleted - you once edited it to removed unsourced and promitional material. Cdosteovsky (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Your warning
Would you mind explaining what this warning is for, please? L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * hi, it's regarding this acceptance at AFC, where the entire Plot section was copy-pasted from IMDB and therefore non-free. See WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. I was advised to bring this to your attention by the administrator who moved the Draft to mainspace. MPS1992 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice
TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just letting people who were involved on the recent dispute at Rise of Macedon. Sorry for the template, but as I'm sure you know, we have to use it to alert. It really has no implication of wrongdoing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Rise of Macedon, WP:CONSENSUS Hellenic Kingdom
Taivo reverts edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, yes he does. But so do you and I. So, you need to explain at Talk:Rise of Macedon, why the sourced content ("Hellenic") should be included in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rise of Macedon --> HELLENIC KINGDOM
BUILDING OF NEW WP:CONSENSUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Indian military history task force created
Dear all, I am happy to inform you that the Indian military history working group which was started in June 2016, as a part of the Military History WikiProject's incubator, now graduated into a full-fledged task force. You're receiving this message because you've shown you support previously to the working group, if you wish to be a part of present task force, kindly sign-up on the members page. Regards, KCVelaga (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost a PA
Was this comment really necessarfy? It's snide remarks like that  which  not  only  discourage  people  from  contributing to The Signpost, but  puts them off volunteering for  Wikipedia. 'Hundreds' is an English figure of speech, but  I  wouldn't  expect  you  to  understand that. In fact  it  has been thousands of hours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to do my very best to assume good faith of what you "expect" your fellow editors to understand, and your reasons for doing so in my case. MPS1992 (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

User info
Hi MPS, To find out about a user's status on Wikipedia, please go the User menu (on their talk page/user page), and pick "User groups" like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kautilya3, that looks very useful! MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have a question for you. Is the status of a user on Wikipedia something that is very important to you in how you view that person? MPS1992 (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on the context. My post above was prompted by something that you said to an admin, I think, without knowing they were admin. The admins are vetted by the community and enjoy a high degree of confidence. They also provide an enormous amount of service to help us and help the Wikipedia.
 * In other cases too, the privileges that the editors have received give us an idea of how much confidence the community is placing in them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks for all of the copy-editing which you have done on the Top 25 Report. It truly helps ameliorate the report as a whole. Thanks a million, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC).
 * you are very welcome. I am a huge cynic and an angry WP:BLPWARRIOR -- which seems not to be a link yet, but, after reading the reports mostly for angry reasons, I have recently realized that I really enjoy reading them and that I really enjoy learning about some of the topics mentioned. I think the report is an important aspect of the Wikipedia community. Also, while you are here, is the current report intended to be British or American English? Or some other variant? MPS1992 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am from the Emerald Isle, so it is intended to be written in British English. Unfortunately, my auto-correct systems don't particularly like my insistance on using "s" instead of "z", or inserting "u" in words, so errors slip through the cracks. Glad to see that the report is fulfilling its role. Thanks again, Stormy clouds (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC).
 * Some people from there are not huge enthusiasts of British people or British English! I hope it is a sign that one day we all will be so confused that we can't remember any important disagreement that we might once have had :) MPS1992 (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - wolf  04:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

OK
Thank you very much my dear wiki friend! Ohangar (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Fermi
Hi. Your reverting in Fermi is not helpful, and not recognising the edit & talks made. In other words: way too blunt. -DePiep (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See talkpage and edit history Enrico Fermi. You are only constructing a problem, while I was editing constructively, improving the lede. Also, no reason to "honour" an editor who wrote this . -DePiep (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Are you suggesting that you do know something about the subject? MPS1992 (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I do. -DePiep (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please go on. MPS1992 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a diff. Pease respond to that one, & in context. -DePiep (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * says you don't acknowledge bold & talk editing. -DePiep (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You said you know something about the subject? MPS1992 (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the problem is: why did you revert all, while the issues were about details? One does not need to know about nuclear science to understand that dob/dod dates are too much detail in a lede (while predent in infobox). In general, you overreacted. Didn't you see how non-content Hawk7 was? How are we supposed to respond to such things? -DePiep (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't even understand what you're trying to say -- you're not making a lot of sense. Please discuss content issues on the article talk page. MPS1992 (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)