User talk:MSGJ/2014

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Testing


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Keφr 08:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year.79.31.61.252 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to unlock template
I was wondering if we could set up Template:R from abbreviation as its own template which puts redirects in the Category:Redirects from abbreviations category. Currently the redirect to Template:R from initialism results in the RFA template putting all redirects which use it in Category:Redirects from initialisms which I think is a problem because there are abbreviations which are not initialiams or acronyms. Stuff I saw in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R_from_abbreviation for example like PhDs (the h not being an initial) or Journo, which I just added it to. I'm going to go through the WLH for the template and assign either acronym/initialism where applicable, clearing it out so we can hopefully use it for non-initial purposes. Ranze (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Ranze, let's talk to about this, because he is an expert on redirect templates. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, Martin! This sounds like a good idea to me, .  There are also  plus the "R to" cats and Rcats, such as R to abbreviation with .  Not sure how many abbs there are like "PhD", but if you do this, Ranze, it is important that future editors will be able to understand the rationales like "Why is this page in  and not in, instead?" and so forth.  The definition of "acronym" is not always clear, as well.  It's a bit of a hornet's nest that has been on my list of things to do for awhile, now.  It would definitely be great to get some help with it! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * . The link to the user and the link in your signature need to go on with the same edit; but will get a notification for this edit. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Didn't know that. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirects listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address one or more redirects you have created. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello MSGJ:

WikiProject AFC is holding a  month long Backlog Elimination Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Posted by on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Section editing reflinks idea
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13. This is an idea that I think may interest you and would love to hear your feedback on. Thanks! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Proposed deletion/dated
Hello, MSGJ

Template:Proposed deletion/dated is currently under permanent full edit protection but I think it is safe to let TemplateEditor group edit it as well. Its transclusion list is very fluid, which is a good thing. I also see a minor dispute in its history but because TemplateEditors risk losing their privilege if they abuse it in a dispute, I think they are careful about what they do.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea, and done. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for lowered page protection
Hi. As you lowered the protection on Template:ISP for the benefit of template editors, could you template-editor-protect Template:Isp, which redirects there, as well? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And the same request for Template:Sharedipedu. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, this was taken care of by another admin. Thanks Wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Belgium at the Olympics
Dear MSGJ, I saw that Aight 2009 reverted your modification at flag template of Belgium at the Olympics, which I earlier discussed at his discussion page. Would it be possible to once again revert his change, and talk to him about this? Is it maybe possible to make it impossible for him to change that page? Because he doens't reply to my post on his discussion page. Thanks again, Takk - a contributor to the Dutch Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.10.79 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject status
Hi, MSGJ, I've been doing a lot of work categorizing and organizing WikiProjects (right now, just inactive, semi-active and defunct ones). I had a question about this template and it seems like you have done some work on it in the past. Specifically, I'd like to add some types to the parameters. For example, "anime and manga" is one type but there is only 1 WikiProject in this category (in Category:Inactive anime and manga-related WikiProjects) while there are probably at least a dozen inactive WikiProjects on animals, science or religion and other subjects. It would be useful to link up active WikiProjects with categories of related inactive WikiProjects in case they wanted to revive them. How complicated would it be to make this happen? Can I create them or do I need to be a template editor? Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Age in years, months and days redirects discussion
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirects and. Since you had some involvement with these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –&#160;PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Template violates WP:MOS
In the article titled Noah there were Bible verses written as 12-15 (with a hyphen) where WP:MOS requires 12–15 (with an en-dash). I changed them to en-dashes and cited WP:MOS. The change was reverted by a user who claimed that an en-dash won't work because, he claimed, these are URLs – links to external web sites.

Is it possible to re-write template:bibleverse-nb to comply with WP:MOS while also linking to external web sites? 2601:2:4D00:27B:F595:F88B:50A5:FF94 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a near-duplicate of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Probably best discussed at that page, not here, because it's more central. Please see WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Could you please unblock the navbox? Thanks. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PlayStation 3/infobox
Template:PlayStation 3/infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support
Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox software
Hi.

There is an ongoing discussion in Template talk:Infobox software that I am not really sure how to handle. I know that as a template editor, I must not use my user right to favor my personal preference in an edit-protected template when that change is disputed by another user, but in this case, is it really a matter of my own personal preference? The story is that I made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_software&diff=601984813&oldid=601430760 a change to labels in of the mentioned template] based on my general experience with editors in article space, which by the way, closely resembles that of the parameter name responsible for implementing said label. My edit is disputed and I have tried to mitigate the situation with subsequent edits.

The head-scratched is that the disputing party does not have any rationale, so far as I can perceive, while at the same time implies that my edit has some semblances of rationale (with contentious labels like "pedantic"). So, I don't which one is weaker: An objection based on no reason whatsoever or what I perceive as community consensus?

I have called a 3O, but that is a dispute resolution method only; this is also an issue of me using my edit rights properly. So, I thought an admin can tell. My brother, an ex-Wikipedian tells me that my status as a template editor authorizes me to interpret community consensus in good faith; but again, when you made me a template editor, was that what you were thinking? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been watching that discussion, and you are not out of line in any way. I've had a little difficulty in following all of the details of the discussion due to the TL;DR prose nature of some of the comments, but I'll look at it again and see what else I can take from it. :) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but is this the way to neutrally ask for a third opinion? Blaming "the disputing party" (me, and I have a username!) to "not have any rationale"? Sorry, but I have a very good rationale and I tried to point it out in all detail in the linked discussion. All I want are labels that are
 * clear and consistent (e.g. "Stable version" and "Preview version") because "Latest release" and "Latest Preview" can mean virtually everything and
 * understandable without learning about the "two methodologies" you're constantly refering to (but which mainly seem to be your personal perception). No casual user knows anything about "release naming methologies" used in "software development lifecycles"). But the casual user knows what a "Preview release" or a "Preview version" is.
 * All I want is to keep the labels simple, so everybody directly knows what the entry means! On a side note you even used the exact labels I proposed in "Infobox OS version" in this edit. Why did you suddenly change your mind for this edit? Why can't we use the same labels in "Infobox software"? --Patrick87 (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * "Sorry, but is this the way to neutrally ask for a third opinion?" No. It isn't. Opinion would come from WP:3O. MSGJ would comment on my use of edit rights only. Seriously, you thought I am canvassing an admin?
 * "Why did you suddenly change your mind for this edit?" I didn't change. But Wikipedians are not supposed to make an edit if they know it is disputed. I did an edit that knew was not disputed (actually endorsed by you). Seriously, I am not taking deliberate hostile actions against you.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I never implied you were taking hostile actions against me. What I do believe is that you're in a mood where you're actually refusing most of my suggestions (although I'd be willing to compromise) without having shown any will for compromise yourself so far. The only thing I can currently hear from you is what you don't like; However it would be much easier to discuss solutions you do like, too. Regarding you last edit: Did you do it without actually liking it then? If you however can live with it why not promote it as a working compromise which works for everybody? --Patrick87 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to stop you both here... This conversation belongs on the template talk page, not fragmented here on MSGJ's talk page.  Can we please focus the discussion back there? — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 00:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll just answer the initial question. Codename Lisa: you are trusted to use your discretion to decide whether a particular edit has consensus or not, but should exercise extreme caution when it is your own edits are called into question. You are welcome to make a change to a template without discussion if you believe that it will be uncontroversial. But you should then self-revert if that change is opposed, and not make the edit again until it is clear that consensus supports it. I will now pop along to the template talk page, to see if I can offer any suggestions. Regards, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the conversation, my comments still stand. Changing the labels or parameters is often controversial, so discussing the change first would probably have been advisable. But as soon as you had a request to revert, you should have done so. No harm in reinstating the edit later if consensus emerges. I see there are comments from Technical 13 now, but it's probably still a little early to declare consensus. So my advice would be to revert the disputed part of the change and continue to discuss/compromise. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I here you loud and clear; proceeding with revert. Problem: Must I revert to the version before LusoEditor's original objection or must I revert to before Patrick87 registered his objection? After all, the language label issue is resolved to Patrick87's satisfaction. I am going take this sentence as the measure of what he wants:
 * "As I wrote before I still prefer the labels which were used before your change: 'Stable release' and 'Preview release'."
 * But from where I am standing, all versions are The Wrong Version! and even this version is objectionable. I expected this comment to generate a lot of discussion but it only succeeded in provoking an argumentum ad hominem that ignores the fact that I have a life outside Wikipedia too.


 * So, I am going to give Patrick87 the "Stable/Preview" combination that he wants and LusoEditor the Final/Latest that he made a point of being needed; ignoring Technical 13 entirely!? But I'd like to make it a point that hit-and-miss edit and compromise time is over; it is high time all editor see the needs of the community instead of just the needs of themselves and if anyone has any further objection, it is high time we start proceeding down the dispute resolution chain. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to resolve this dispute then actually start talking to me! Tell me which labels you would find acceptable. I'm not deadly fixed on the old labels; we can change them. It's only the specific wording you chose for the new labels I cant consent with. I'll add some content on the infobox talk page about that now. --Patrick87 (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lisa. A self-revert is preferable to someone else wading in. As always on Wikipedia, for better or worse, lack of consensus leads to status quo. (My take on the conversation is that it is this particular change that Patrick opposes.) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "Written in" and "Available in" are resolved; The two labels for "Stable release" and "Preview release" should be reinstated to status-quo I assume. I hope we'll find a solution together on talk page though. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @MSGJ: You'd think? Very well. I am reverting to revision before that. I am not leaving the infobox in a damaged state. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Belgium at the Olympics
Dear MSGJ, some weeks ago I asked Aight 2009 to revert his change to the flag template of Belgium at the Olympics, since the flag he installed (the state flag) is never used. Instead, it should be reverted to the original civil flag, which is used in every other language. You reverted it in his place, and I thank you for it, but afterwards, Aight 2009 once again modified it. Is it possible once again to revert his change? Thanks in advance, Takk - a user of the Dutch Wikipedia. 87.64.129.223 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He/she started a discussion on Template talk:Country flag IOC alias BEL which nobody else contributed to. Perhaps you could write your thoughts there and inform the editor in question, so that a consensus may be reached? Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter Secord St.Catharines city councillor
MSGJ, thanks for reviewing my articlie Aggie80 wrote that I only needed 1 source to show Mr. secord is a councillor in the city of st.catharines, since this is his only claim to note Please can you tell me how many more newspaper articles you need to see in order to find the article acceptable. ty.Rick Andres (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Rick. I'm not sure if being a city councillor is sufficient to establish notability for the purpose of Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is Notability (people). Failing that we would need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So it is a question of the depth and not just the number of mentions. I hope this helps to you to understand our inclusion criteria. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there are many city councillor within wikipedia. as i mentioned aggie80 wrote that i just needed to show that he is a member of council. i can give many more references to this point. Mr Secord is also running for mayor would a ref to this be sufficient for inclusion. thx Rick Andres (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * may be interpreting the guideline differently, but it is not obvious to me that national, state or provincial legislature includes city councils. It may be that Aggie80 is happy to accept your article, but I'm not sure it would currently survive an AfD. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * do you have any suggestions? my article was in Aggie80s' queue but somehow you picked it up. as i mentioned as well there are many city councillors included in wikipedia so they must have passed an AfD.Rick Andres (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They may be notable for other reasons - being a city councillor does not normally of itself confer notability. Some councillors are prominent in other fields, some become mayor, or enter parliament. For example, I first became aware of Angela Billingham in 1981, when she was a schoolteacher and councillor (simultaneously); but she would probably not have reached Wikipedia notability until 1994, when she became MEP for Northamptonshire and Blaby. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr Secord is notable for many reasons. as i have stated in the article. he has been deputy mayor, he is related to Laura Secord. Must I wait until he becomes Mayor before being accepted. if so the rules of inclusion are widely open to interpretation since Aggie80 only needed a reference to Mr. Secords council seat to be accepted as you can see from his talk page.Rick Andres (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure where I said only one article was needed. I indicated that notability must be shown to meet the requirements. Coucilman and deputy mayor are not typically significant. And being related to someone certainly does not go to notability as it is not inherited. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * hi aggie80 it was on your talk page. i was 9th but am no longer there. it was well over a month ago when you reviewed my original article. you said i needed references to notability i asked which parts needed refernces you stated that a reference to Mr. Secord being on council was needed since it seems to be his only notable quality. furthur laura secord is quite famous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_SecordRick Andres (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can see it in User talk:Aggie80/Archive 5 toward the bottom of the page. I referenced WP:NOTE and indicated that the notability requirements needed to be met and that the closest to meeting it would be the councilman position, but it still doesn't appear to be met.  And notability is not inherited, so relationship to Laura Secord means nothing to proving it for him. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * would a link to the councils website be sufficient or would more articles referring to Mr.Secord as councilor Secord or councilman Secord meet your requirements? I have read and reread WP:NOTE and there is a paragraph mentioning newspaper articles as sufficient evidence of notability. thx again aggie80 Rick Andres (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Cosmetic edits
This is probably first time ever, that I have seen a block for making cosmetic changes. That was the bot, what if we are talking about a user who keeps on making cosmetic changes? They would be indeffed too?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 12:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COSMETICBOT is part of the bot policy; there is also AutoWikiBrowser. The main concern is with automated or semi-automated editing because of the large number of edits. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had asked about the user account, not bot account. What if the user do the same?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 14:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a case two or three years back; it went to ArbCom, and over a period of about a year, several blocks were handed out of increasing length, the longest being 12 months. The user concerned is not currently blocked, but there are those who would seek to change that situation. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What were the names?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 15:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for your information. All the talk page stuff (bypassing redirects, etc.) it's because I desperately try to help another bot to function without problems. Check for instance Bots/Requests for approval/Josvebot 11. I have updated code, I have move falsely placed templates, nominated many for deletion and bypassed some redirects to avoid all hell got loose. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I state clearly that I do not like the idea but I do not want to disappoint a new bot owner. I am trying to avoid their bot from causing problems. Josve05a seems to be willing to run a bot that could be useful in some context but I got all the hard coding work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If is to so much trouble and problem for you, I can withdraw my bot, again. I am sorry for the harm I have caused! Better to be on the safe side and withdraw if for now (and try aging a few years)... (t) Josve05a  (c) 14:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * you have followed most of the discussion and you know the situation better. Can you please verify that I was trying to help by making edits in custom modules, code and talk pages in order to fix things? They were a lot of bugs on this side a month ago. Please verify because I am trying to prove that I do not intent to harm Wikipedia with my edits! -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (Just as a clarification, I don't think any edit by any user, excepts obvious vandals, intent to harm Wikipedia.)
 * Yes, it is true that was editing to help me, my bot and other AWB user who run AWB on talk pages. Magioladitis has a large custom module with a long list of redirect-templates that can be bypassed (if another edit is made) so that AWB can place e.g. all WikiProject inside a  (AWB has detects the string "WikiProject in the templates name, to do this). But there are many thousand redirect-templates, with almost no transclutions. Then there are 3 options. 1) Code EVER-SINGLE template in the module, or orphan some of the templates and the request it to be deleted or 3) (What he did) Code some, orphan some.


 * So, yes. I can verify that were trying to help by making edits in custom modules, code and talk pages in order to fix things and that there has been a lot of bugs on this side.
 * (t) Josve05a  (c) 15:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request to unblock Yobot
I left messages for you at User talk:Yobot. To summarise: You should recall that the bot does multiple tasks and most of the tasks are done 100%. So please unblock or raise more concerns on bot's page. Thanks once again for the advice of how to improve, Magioladitis (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I excluded some lists from bot editing
 * 2) I updated the list of tasks done by my bot by removing some old ones
 * 3) I created settings for the new CHECKWIKI errors
 * 4) I 'll prioritise bug fixing

Reminder: I left you some messages here and in my bot's talk page 3 days ago. Discussion proved that two concerns raised: One has already been dealt before the block and still more steps have been made to disallows similar bot behaviour in the future. Second has been dealt too after the block. You, as blocking admin, suggested some extra precautions and they have been included in the solution. I guess now the bot can be unblocked. Can you please do it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

days pass and the bot is still blocked. Blocking admin MSGJ has been online since my last requests bu seems to be rather busy abd comes online rarely. What should I do next? Maybe request unblock by other admin? -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope the information at Unblock Ticket Request System would be helpful. Good luck!  GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Above suggestion would work. Or you can contact any non-involved administrator and describe your case but don't make it too long.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 10:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've said as much as I have to say on this matter, and still do not feel comfortable unblocking. I will drop by the bot's talk page again shortly, but in the meantime it is you are welcome use the unblock template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I followed GoingBatty's instructions. I never have had something similar so I hope I got it right. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your concerns with Technical 13
Thank you for giving voice to your concern with Technical 13's ability to evaluate consensus and respect the will of the community. As you can see on their talk page, this is not the first time that they have adopted a minority viewpoint and attempted to make it fiat policy. I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia_talk:AFC and T13's responses there. I do admit that I was less than cordial with T13, but as you noted on his talk page, repeating the same refuted points does not destroy a consensus. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Martin, per your suggestion on Technical 13's talk page, I do not think that it is a protracted problem across all aspects of their editing, just acting on requests where they have a strong opinion about how something should be implemented. As per the linked section regarding the Template Editor user right, the location to petition for removal is AN/I. Based on Technical 13's previous stubbornness, I feel that conducting a RFC/U would be nothing but a purely academic exercise as they have demonstrated that once they decide something should be done a specific way, no amount of debate short of an uninvolved admin enforcing consensus will make them change their mind.  As it has been demonstrated, RFC/U has devolved from a useful tool to resolve disputes to an opportunity to air all the dirty laundry the accused may have ever accumulated. Hasteur (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 10 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Graeme Innes page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=612331655 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F612331655%7CGraeme Innes%5D%5D Ask for help])

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Recent#100 and 200
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Recent. Thanks. Mkdw talk 02:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams article
Thanks for stopping by to handle the edit request. The statement and Voo source on Adams' ancestry that was removed from the article was fine. You can find it in the history. It was properly sourced and there are also additional sources to support the statement. Please add the information back. In addition, please add the Politics of Desire source as additional support for the statement on her ancestry as African American. I believe it's already used in the article, so it would be helpful if you named it. See here: According to an editor in the discussion, the duplicate birth date and place info was fairly standard, so please add that back, too. I'd also be in favor of adding the information presented by another editor on her ownership of two companies. Do you want a paragraph written up on that? Pkeets (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It says on the page that my edit request has been answered, but the Voo sources and information on her heritage was not added back. Do I need to put in another edit request for that? Pkeets (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Good day Martin.
I think you know why I am here. Which one of Template editor does "various concerns over template-editing" fall under? — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And what exactly are those concerns, so I may address them. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to codify it. The reasons are clear. Take it to ANI for review, if you wish. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the next appropriate course of action per Template editor: use Requests for permissions/Template editor to appeal the decision. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice from Technical 13
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template Editor User:Technical 13. Thank you. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:SPI archive notice
Hello Martin, I just saw that this template and all associated pages have been renamed without any discussion that I can find. Please notify of this change. His bot maintains the list of active cases, and if someone decides to use the new name for the template, the bot will likely not be able to handle it. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, if it's a problem (or if you oppose the move for any other reason) I will revert. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This particular rename will not affect the bot. Thanks everyone, Amalthea  13:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Amalthea. And never mind, Martin - I tend to be a bit protective about anything to do with SPI templates as I've seen the bot go off the rails for seemingly inexplicable reasons in the past. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

 * I've rated a number of articles so I found a number of AFCs that were reviewed by you, looks like you had done a good job in AFC. Probably the above message is just more than automated one.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox/row
You created Template:Infobox/row and protected it several years ago. I occasionally find it in use out there, but handles this just fine, so I've orphaned it on articles. Does this serve any function any more, and can it be deleted or at least unprotected so we can redirect it to Infobox? --Netoholic @ 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. That subtemplate hasn't been used since June 2013 when the template was converted to Lua. I've unprotected it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was still used by several other templates immediately after I switched infobox over to Lua. I remember that it still had a few thousand transclusions when I checked a month or two after the switch. It's only more recently that the number of transclusions has dropped this low. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks MSGJ. Redirected it for now and left a message in case anyone tries to use it. - yeah it was used internally on two templates, and then some sporadic instances which I cleaned up. -- Netoholic @  19:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Section-sort
Template:Section-sort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Template Error
I've created a copy of template 'User current age' on Wikimedia Commons. It is giving some error 'Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "[".' in 'days section'. I request you to see and solve this problem. This is the page for that copy of template. Thanks!--Asadwarraich (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/draft
Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/draft, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Country flag IOC alias BEL
Hi, I talked about this to you at the start of this year, and I see now someone has reverted your change once again. Could you please revert it back into the civil flag (since the state flag is NEVER EVER used), because I don't seem to be able to change it. Thanks in advance, Takk Belgium (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

CMN Icon
Hi User:MSGJ,

We have recently been having an issue with a certain language icon template, specifically. Unlike every other language icon I've used, this template was adding a seemingly-defunct category to pages on which it was used ("Articles with Mandarin-language external links"). I've changed the template code, I think, but the issue hasn't yet resolved itself. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks in advance. P.S. The template does not have this problem, but we cannot substitute it for the CMN template for reasons of accuracy.  White Whirlwind  咨   19:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The does categorise, specifically into, but that's a hidden category, so you don't see it on articles unless you have the relevant user preference set. Using  makes  show as a redlink at the bottom of articles like Book of Documents because it doesn't exist, and non-existent categories cannot be hidden. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have created the category page and made it hidden, and the problem is now solved. Thanks very much for your help!   White Whirlwind  咨   23:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, but why did you not set the category's wikicode to  - this would not just have been consistent, it would also have placed it in the category tree in an appropriate place. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS use of class=SL
Hi, thanks for your revert of my addition of  to Template:WikiProject Plants/class. I did realize that it wasn't needed after you'd reverted – I hadn't fully followed through the sequence of template expansions.

As WP:PLANTS uses the "start list" class, an appropriate icon should be shown, rather than the current question mark icon. By analogy with the "bl" for a B-Class List and "cl" for a C-Class List, the icon for "sl" should be the start-class icon. This needs the following line added to Template:Class/icon:

|sl   = title="Start-Class List"    >

It seems uncontroversial to me, so could you do this please? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, ✅, although you will not usually see the icon because the fault (like for Start-class) is not to display. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It does at least stop a ? appearing, e.g. at Talk:List of plants by common name which previously showed "?-icon SL" rather than just "SL" as now. So thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Nabih Berri
Hello,

All edits are backed by secondary sources. Should I find consensus with the sockpuppeteer who is doing the job of a PR firm?

Callsfortruth (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sucession controversy page - incorrect refrences
Hi, Regarding to you last edit in, you had entered that the stayorder was taken back but the refrences do not say so. even the ref http://dawatcaseupdate.com/ is maliciously mentioned it does not say that the stay order was vacated\taken back, Hence please revert the edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on the talk page. The section is Talk:53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Blimey
That's going to cause a kerfuffle. CIreland (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Why did you do that at all?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if perhaps he was trying to indicate that an article that was controversial (GamerGate Controversy) was in fact controversial. Perhaps such a decision could be made based on the amount of argument in the talk page for that article.  Zeus Kabob (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, have I stirred up a hornet's nest? I have added my rationale to the talk page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, given that one of the issues being edit-warred over (that led to the article being fully protected) was the precise edit you made, it's probably not going to be universally well received. I'm not personally going to get my knickers in much of a twist over it but other people's underwear may be not be so rigid. CIreland (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Interracial romance films
Category:Interracial romance films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey - slight problem with the French Commune template.
Hello, how do? I recently came across a bit of a problem with the Template:Infobox_French_commune, and I see now that you implemented its transformation into a wrapper for the 'settlement' template ... but your choice of fields are a bit odd, and I was wondering if there was a reason for that. I've experimented a bit, but I wasn't able to find anything. I left a note on the template talk-page: thanks and cheers.  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 10:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

With glowing hearts listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect With glowing hearts. Since you had some involvement with the With glowing hearts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 22:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Its fine. Thanks for the same.Jai98 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_114
Hey MSGJ. I just closed the above discussion, but noted comments that newer editors may be confused by the term "patrolled." While I have no alternative phrasing that would be any better off the top of my head, I think it would be helpful to wikilink the term "patrolled" to WP:NPPLOG or possibly m:Help:Patrolled edit. This seems relatively uncontroversial, and would let folks have some context for what that term actually means. Thoughts? I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi I JethroBT, and congratulations on your recent RfA. Actually I thought that I had closed that discussion by implementing the consensus. It doesn't always need a colourful box you know :) Anyway thank you for endorsing my close and I have no objections to linking "patrolled" if you think that would be helpful. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And yes, I definitely agree with you about the "you don't need the colorful box," sentiment.  I like to think editors can often work things out themselves without someone outside needing to assess things.  It's not a great explanation, but before I was an admin I was reverted a few too many times when I have expressed this and refused to close certain requests at WP:ANRFC that were basically taken care of.  I suppose I am motivated to avoid escalating that discussion by simply closing them.  That said, I think I'm in good standing to put my foot down on the issue finally, so thank you for the kind reminder.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 09:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Controversy
Can you copy paste controversy section in draft in ERA article? It was better. I have made edit request. --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nikthestunned edits on corporate page
Hi there,

Without prejudice. We have noticed you have made continuous removals of any content on the article. Please explain why the article is not allowed to include any other details other than the contraversies section? For example; Other locations, charitable work, data protection events with local law enforcement, etc. Why are all the references constantly deleted and removed, as per Nikthestunned desires.
 * To both of you. I am just facilitating changes supported by consensus. If you want the article changed in any way, you'll need to discuss on the talk page (not here) and establish consensus for them. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections - broken template
Martin, perhaps you would edit this Template:ACEcan2014 so that it works properly. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean the voting link? ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You see how discussing changes with someone first always works wonders ? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * :) My pleasure. Is this a reference to by any chance? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate article
Hey on the gamergate article you should make 8chan link to 8chan in the lead. thx :) 71.169.181.208 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All changes must be discussed on the article's talk page, okay :) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * talk page is locked, and is this really an edit that merits discussion? 4chan and reddit are linked to, why not 8chan? 71.169.181.208 (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for carrying out the edits to E-cigarette. But edit requested in OR accusations was not included in first revert. The line "With observable differences among various brands, drugs like rimonabant for weight loss and amino tadalafil for erectile dysfunction are included in the cartridge solution." can still be found in the e-liquid subsection. Thanks for your time and if this should have been placed elsewhere or if the request wasnt clear enough I apologize. AlbinoFerret 21:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but the request was not clear to someone not familiar with the article :) I'll take a look again later. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably my fault, and I will remember to do that the next time a change has to be made to a protected page, this was the first time I have had to request edits. Whenever you get to it. AlbinoFerret  22:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No consensus
There were more than one RFC. There is no consensus to move the sections. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC found no no consensus for a medical order and the order it was in was POV driven.link There was rough consensus for the move. Late comers like yourself are now complaining. One problem about the move is that 3.6 Device generations 3.7 Atomizer 3.8 Power and 3.9 E-liquid were Sub sections of Construction, they were not moved. AlbinoFerret 21:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the majority of contributors making progress and reaching compromise, and 1 or 2 bleating "no consensus" from the sidelines, without actually specifying their objection to the proposed change. In these situations I give those objections the weight they merit. Of course, consensus can change and nothing is set in stone. But I believe the change was appropriate at this time. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. However as AF pointed out it looks like you accidentally left some sections that belong under Construction behind, so they're now under Health Effects. Those are 3.6-3.9. It would be great if you could move those. Thanks again!--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, will do shortly. I was trying to sort everything out on Draft:Electronic cigarette first, obviously failed. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised. It's a mammoth article, despite most of the content being utter crap.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Would recommend you revert here. The previous discussion was closed as no consensus. It is currently 4 to 4. And the discussion has been one a grand total of ONE day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. this is the relevant RfC, and it found no grounds for retaining the medical ordering.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Doc James just tried to revert the page order. AlbinoFerret  19:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One needs consensus for a change. "No consensus" means that change does not occur. It does not mean that User:FergusM1970 and User:AlbinoFerret should now edit war like mad to get their prefered version into place. Time to take this to ANI. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one who's edit-warring, Doc. I have asked for an admin to look into this.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So your solution is edit warring by reverting the page over and over? I think there is a problem here. AlbinoFerret  20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus wept. So Doc James started an edit war and as a result the page has now been locked again, with his preferred version frozen in. MSGJ, any chance you could restore the edit from yesterday? Thanks.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are now 5 against the change and 4 in support of it. MSGJ closing a discussion after 1 day is not appropriate. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What would be appropriate is if editors accepted the consensus and the change and then moved on. As a side note, nobody appears to have notified interested editors of this discussion. Wikipedia makes decisions based on consensus not on a vote, but in any case the reported 5-4 against the change is not accurate.
 * Editors who supported the change: Levelledout, FergusM1970, Bluerasberry, AlbinoFerret, A1candidate, TheNorlo, SPACKlick (7)
 * Editors who opposed it: DocJames, Cloudjpk, QuackGuru, Formerly98 (4)
 * That certainly represents a majority, but more importantly none of the editors who opposed it gave detailed explanations of their reasons for opposing the change, most of them gave barely any explanation beyond an "it isn't necessary" type response which is not adequate enough to consider.Levelledout (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you all still here? There's not much I can help with. I just pop around answering editprotected requests. I can't know the full history behind every article, so all I do is try and assess consensus that I see at that point in time. If there is a future request, I may well be the one who looks at it. I see the article is again protected - this is probably needed - although another valid solution would have been to block for edit-warring. I wonder if this was considered. I advise you all to return to the article talk page and continue the collaboration and compromise. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes; in fact I took Doc James's behavior to AN/I, but it's fizzled out unfortunately.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list