User talk:MSJapan/Archive 13

Help me!
Please help me with...resolving a policy collision - WP:FCOI wrt WP:OUTING.

MSJapan (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are paid by a company, then you shouldn't edit its article. WP:OUTING refers to public disclosure. As long as the fact that you're working for a company isn't publicly disclosed, WP:OUTING doesn't apply. -- Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. The reason I'm asking is because it's not me, and the person who is likely won't disclose it directly (although it has already happened without the editor realizing it, I think). So I don't know how to pursue the matter without getting myself into trouble for outing. MSJapan (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The headlong clash between these two policies is a longstanding issue. My advice, if you suspect paid COI editing, is as follows:
 * First, contact the user explaining that you believe they may be editing for pay and pointing them to the Terms of Use (particularly section 4, which specifically forbids undisclosed paid editing]). Give them some time to respond.
 * If they openly deny paid editing, or fail to respond, and you still believe that they are an undisclosed paid editor, contact . This is the mailing list for the functionaries team, who can deal with privacy related issues such as undisclosed paid editing. However, please only contact this list if you are able to provide sound evidence of a WP:NOPAY violation.
 * Hope that helps. Yunshui 雲 水 09:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Flobberz (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong headed as a compliment
Well I used the pejorative term for your argument as wrong headed. I actually dont think you are, but thought that your argument was. Of course you think mine are too. So thanks for being so professional about this discussion. I will leave the article alone because I have said my bit and am not expert on the case or on policy. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

New message
MSJapan, do you have a personal email?Quill&#38;Sword (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING
Please cease WP:WIKIHOUNDING me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am again asking, quietly, here, not on inappropriate talk pages, that you cease WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. I don't want to take this higher, but I will if you don't take a deep breath and stop following me around and making highly colored and outright false assertions about me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, how is it a false assertion? You claimed on your talk page that professors run their own webpages and write their own content, and therefore that content is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.  Nevertheless, it is an official university source, and will be what is sourced for most news articles and press releases, so it's at least factual.  However, let's say that you are entirely correct, and that a person wrote their own official content and that therefore we can't use it.


 * However, on Susya, you claim the self-description of Regavim is appropriate. Regavim's material also comes from their website and is written by them.  That's not unreasonable, and you did call it "self-description", so I don't think you;re disputing that characterization.  So Whitaker writes and maintains his own material, and Regavim writes and maintains their own material.  Therefore, there is no discernable difference between those sources.  However, in one case, you want to remove it, and in the other you want to keep it.


 * If you were using neutral assessment alone, you could not take opposing positions on the same issue. That's inconsistent, and there must be an underlying reason for that. In both cases, taking the position you take supports the portrayal of the article subject in a manner with which you agree, and you don't want anything else portrayed in the article contrary to your viewpoint.  That goes against what Wikipedia is about, and I am sorry that you don't like it and don't see it, but that is indeed the case. MSJapan (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Citing the self-description of an NGO is hardly the same as objecting to the behavior of an SPA who is blanking and replacing the text of a WP page with an unsourced and highly personal bio . E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's exactly the same, and I'd really appreciate it if you didn't lie. You stated very clearly here that you knew it was an official university bio.  You know the sock was an ASU person, and the uni bio is right here, which is also where the article photo comes from as well.  Therefore, it was not unsourced, and you can't maintain that it is.  You want to say it's unsourced because that way you don't need to say anything about the subject that doesn't fit with your views.  I think you seriously need to realize your own personal biases here, and maybe not write about something that I think you have too close a personal connection with somehow. MSJapan (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing Wikihounding
I apologize for hitting the wrong key just now, thereby thanking you when I intended to revert you on Harry Payne Bingham. If you will reread the source you deleted, you will see that he is mentioned as an heir at the end of the article about his uncle in the Cleveland Encyclopedia. I again request that you cease WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I made a mistake a couple of weeks ago. I apologized. But you are continuing to make Wikipedia an unpleasant experience for me - not to mention wasting the time of other editors on that AFD. I make no objection to your improving the Whitaker article or other articles that I started or worked on. I only point out that your time and everyone else's could have been better spent improving articles, than on on WIKIHOUNDING me for an error for which I have repeatedly apologized.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're the one holding onto a grudge. I'm following your contribs because you are making constant errors in every article you ware working on.  There's gross misrepresentation of sources on Whitaker (which I and others have fixed).  You also wrote 2015 Ikea murders to talk about "political repercussions" (as stated in the edit comment) based solely on Breitbart, which we don't consider RS. The folks from WP:SWEDEN cleaned that up, and there's nothing left "politically" as a result, even from Swedish sources.  Your political claims in "impact" have all failed verification, meaning that what you say the sources say is not what they say.  You then write three sentences on a guy, put in the wrong surname, and then expect that to be "correct".  You see a personal problem, I see persistent and verifiable poor editing.  If you can't edit properly, don't. MSJapan (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see persistent wikihounding: you  started a pointless AFD instead of just improving the Whitaker article, removed a good source from the Harry Payne Bingham article instead of just correcting the transposed name, pushed your POV at the Ikea article - which, come to mention it, makes me wonder if you are Wikihounding me not out of simple, misplaced pique but, rather, because you are pushing a POV on issues surrounding illegal immigration and hope to HOUND me off Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and make that assumption, and go to ANI. I'd enjoy that, actually. MSJapan (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Mote
Point taken, he misread the source. The source traces "amen" back to Hebrew, and traces "mote" to Regius. No new information. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, point taken, but it's a stub article. Rewrite is not a priority, but wafting the BS away is a duty. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply
Hi, I just wanted to clarify some things with you regarding recent issues. I've been preoccupied with the real world, and it has taken a bit of a toll. I actually do not know where to begin :( and I have little energy to actually do this. So I will be brief - re. the freeworldgroup article - it was not initiated by me, nor was I sock puppet. It was created by a group of young community members of the site. I try to encourage these kids to do things, so I offered some help and answered questions, but I really had no interest in getting the article passed. Which leads to all the issues with the Wyangala article. Again, all was done in good faith. It was reviewed by a former colleague of mine with basically little experience and only did it as a favour for me when no one else seemed interested. I suspected his review was limited, so I asked to have it reviewed for DYK, hoping that would at least confirm that it was of an acceptable standard. In any case all that is irrelevant, if you believe the article is so flawed it should be deleted. I am not here to argue with you. All I can say is given the limited time I have on my hands, I cannot fix things. I realise you had issues with one of the freeworldgroup articles contributors, and again I am sorry for that. I did not want any of that to happen, but it did. I would have spoken sooner, however, I spend most of my days caring for my elderly mother, and that takes priority. Sorry again for all the crap, and I leave things in your hands. DirtDigger (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It was all circumstantial; your site members needed to reference you because there was no other coverage. When your colleague then popped back up to vote in that discussion, it then became obvious that the only stuff he worked on was your article's GA nom, and somebody clearly dropped the ball here by letting it through.  Of course, when it's just been mentioned in a contentious discussion, the username is going to pop out in those circumstances.  Now, as far as the article content goes, there was also a lot of adding and changing of sources along the way to the point where the source the text was originally from wasn't even in the article any longer (which is why there were issues).  It's article-worthy, but not in it's current state, so I'm going to start over and rebuild it. MSJapan (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I'm glad you will rebuild it and not let it die. I hope you will find the references I used of value, it required some digging. Cheers DirtDigger (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Masonic handshake
The cycle is meant to be Bold, Revert, Discuss - you boldly redirected, I reverted, the next stage should be discussion, not you reverting again. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not source articles to attack pages, period - it's against policy. Thus, discussion over.  Your response to not liking that result was to claim COI and revert to your preferred version.  I'm not the one out of line here. MSJapan (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My preferred thing would be for the article to be improved, as I said on the ritual talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you're using edit summaries to claim COI is what you're doing. You don't want improvement, you want your POV to be expressed.  There's no NPOV material available, and we are not sourcing an article from Ephesians, because it's not RS.  There's nothing on it in the ritual article, so why does it need a fork, except to enable exactly the POV editing that's there, especially from a known problematic editor on the topic?  The redirect is going back, period. MSJapan (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * does have a COI, as he says on his userpage that he is employed by a Masonic organization. He tried to remove any mention of masonic handshakes from the ritual article - all I did was link to an already existing article. He removed a mention that was already there, but unlinked before me. Perhaps you could help write a NPOV article on the handshake? DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Last time I'm saying this. The article you mention is sourced to an anti-Masonic Christian evangelical site. I am not inclined to believe that they meet RS, because they never have elsewhere. That article has been like that for several years without expansion, and was created by a biased editor in the first place (who took it off redirect to here).  We do not create articles based on speculation.  The best we could say is that grips exist, but that's as far as what's out there for RS.  So where, in your estimation, am I to find an NPOV source that's RS?  There isn't one, because it's either a Masonic source, or an anti-Masonic source.  There's no secondary research, and thus, we have no article. MSJapan (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've never said that the article didn't have problems! All I did was put square brackets around words that were already in the ritual article. That was met by the removal of any mention of handshakes by an editor with a COI, and then out of the blue (well, nearly, the COI editor had commented at the Masonic Wikiproject of which you are a member) you firstly made a comment that didn't seem to make sense, and then blanked an article with no attempt at discussing it. I just linked an existing article, and asked for it to be improved. I am truly sorry that it offends you so much that someone would want articles on Freemasontry to be improved. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, what "offends me" is the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I'm seeing from you, and your overall conduct. You came into a discussion to object to a removal. You didn't even know enough to understand my comment, which anyone else would. I go to your linked article, which was changed from a redirect changed by and consists of nothing but non-RS material added by a known POV editor, and you revert it. Therefore, since your point of view was not being accepted, now somebody was trying to hide something and everyone has a COI. You're also assuming said COI, why? Because Blueboar works in a position where he'd have access to sources? That's not a COI, that's called WP:EXPERT. You assumed no AGF from the get-go, and I'm no longer doing so either. Sometimes people are more knowledgeable in an area than you, and you just need to accept that. MSJapan (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your comment in the discussion made no sense whatsoever - I was being kind earlier. I had no prior knowledge of the masonic handshake article - I simply added a link to it. It wasn't "my" article in any way, and it is dishonest of you to suggest that it was. If it was as bad as you say, and by an editor whose work you claim to know well, I am surprised it hadn't been dealt with earlier. My "point of view" is that articles should be linked to. If articles have problems then those problems should be addressed. There are a range of templates available to mark articles which you believe to be problematic, you chose not to bother with one. You could also have mentioned it on the ritual talk page as a reason not to use the link. Again, you chose not to bother. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (e-c) I think the article on "Grips" on p. 110 of Axelrod's The International Encyclopedia of Secret Societies & Fraternal Orders would probably be an acceptable source on this matter. That isn't saying that it would be sufficient on its own in terms of either notability or sufficient length for a spinout article, but maybe for being an independent RS. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Congrats
Believe it or not, the original reason I came to this page was because I saw your name at the Ten Year Society page. I obviously haven't agreed with you a lot of times on matters of content, but I have to admire your dedication to the project and the amount of time you've given it. And I think you are actually one of the few names I saw thare that I recognized. Thanks. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, crap. We're going to simply have to agree to agree here (don't tell anybody!)  I, too, was very surprised at who I didn't see, although to be fair, I think that the UBX hasn't quite percolated through as far as it could amongst the userbase, and there are certainly some folks who aren't quite there yet who I thought should have been.  Sad to say, though, a lot of the editors I remember relying on for advice and assistance are gone. MSJapan (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RX can be really good at getting some of the sources some of the topic editors we've lost used to supply, and when I finish the Category:WikiProject libraries page for Religion I've been working on, which might be later this week, I hope, I have a lot of material yet to add to the various Bibliography of encyclopedias pages from the most recent online ALA Guide to Reference. Between all them, when they get closer to finished, we might be able to make up for the loss of some of the people we've lost. But, yeah, even a lot of the more highly regarded reference works of today are obviously outdated in some fields. The frightening side of seeing all the articles in all those reference works is that there are obviously so damn many more articles they have that we could have, and that some topical people are going to want every one of them here. Islam in Kansas City is, honestly, an article I could wait more than a few years to see, myself. Oh, yeah, I should have added this earlier.

Discretionary sanctions notice - BLP
-- slakr \ talk / 07:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Robinson
Will do. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Web of Hiram
The Web of Hiram isn't related to any of Lomas' books, it's simply a compilation of resources for Freemasons. Bob doesn't even mention his daft theories on the site. (He's changed his mind about most of them now, but the books are still selling.) For the record, Christopher Knight was not involved in the site. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just check it out here. It started with material Lomas came across in his researches, and turned into a magpie's nest of lost masonic documents. The main objection is really one of Primary Source. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We have more edits over at Acacia. Can I please ask one or both of you to put the Acacia page in your watch list until the current edits have consensus? I don't have the knowledge to determine what is reliabla and accurate. Thanks Mark Marathon (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mark Marathon, you are clearly concerned about the content relating to Acacia and Freemasonry. Perhaps the Wiki article on Carl A. P. Ruck also needs to be modified. Dickie birdie (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry
Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry was never published as two volumes during his lifetime. 2 volumes of Mackey's encyclopedia only began to be published as revised editions by Edward L. Hawkins and William J. Hughan for the first time in 1912. You insist on providing sources - please provide a source for the existence of a 2 volume Encyclopedia of Freemasonry during Mackey's lifetime. Your reverted edit on the Mackey Wiki article was an error. Dickie birdie (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mackey's second edition of Encyclopedia of Freemasonry was published in 1878. But this was not a "Volume 2". That was a mistake. Dickie birdie (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * One more thing - Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry was an expansion of his 1845 Lexicon of Freemasonry. Dickie birdie (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You are the one who wishes to change the information, therefore the burden of proof is on you, not me. Also, it seems to me it's merely a matter of date.  Whether it appeared in his lifetime or not, there doesn't seem to be a question of whether he was the author or not. MSJapan (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * TPS Comment *burden of proof samtar (msg) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, missed that I did that. Fixed! MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mackey's 1878 edition of Encyclopedia of Freemasonry was a single A-Z volume Dickie birdie (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Then change the information and cite it. What are you not understanding? MSJapan (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The references given in books that the 1878 edition was volume 2 is false, it was the single volume second edition. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The 1878 second edition single volume of Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry has been on sale on eBay Dickie birdie (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have all the material about all of Mackey's editions of Rncyclopedia of Freemasonry - give me contact details and I'll pass it on. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Rennes-le-Chateau - Show sources
Show the sources for the Rennes-le-Chateau article Dickie birdie (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have to, they're already there. Seriously, you really need to cut this out. MSJapan (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources are not there. And what's more - what has been deleted can be defended by citing material from published books showing it to be spurious. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For example, the claim that priest Sauniere was responsible for painting the bas-relief of the altar, that claim was only first made by Gerard de Sede in 1967 as part of his tall tales in L'Or de Rennes - pure legendary romance. The receipt for the altar was published in 1983, showing it to be part of a block purchase of decorations & sculptures for the church, this is all old-hat material. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, so it's sourced to Sauniere, is it not? Is that not a source?  The fact that it isn't original doesn't matter; it's a statement made that can be traced to a person who made it. Whether it is true or not does not matter. MSJapan (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody knew anything about Sauniere painting the bas-relief on the main-altar before Gerard de Sede claimed it in 1967. This subject matter is filled with incendiary devices, nothing is straightforward because of the modern legenda and accretions that have become attached to this subject matter, particularly since the mid-1950s, Dickie birdie (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That the claims have a spurious background - with good reason - would have to be added to the article. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That would increase the length of the article substantially. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So? We're not paper.  You just can't use your personal viewpoint to say that; you need to cite third-party sources. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no lack of third-party sources. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Babys
The last edit to the article seems to be little more than a promotional exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stedbeat (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for fixing my mistake! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank again! I don't know anything about freemasonry. I will doublecheck my edits. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I am waiting for your response. This is part of a bigger project with over 70.000 typos. Here are the lists I've made: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Thank you, I have replied again (on my talk page). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have replied again here Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh
I replied again at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. Do I have to wait another 24 hours to get a reply? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back. I am still hoping to get a reply here: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment for History of Japan
History of Japan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Ậ

Books and Bytes - Issue 13
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 13, August-September 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
 * Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
 * Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
 * Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Opportunity to respond
It would be useful if you would consider responding to other user's requests in controversial article content or in case of objected edits. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions and also expressing legitimate concerns and objections. This makes Wikipedia better. I have, however, a hard time seeing how such an edit is helping making Wikipedia better. I'm sorry if some of the references provided are incorrect. If so, please correct it or them. Draconically reverting the entire section edit, though, how is that supposed to help make Wikipedia better? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting peer review
I just did another article "Lectures of the Three Degrees in Craft Masonry". Can you have a look at it with your quality-assuring eyes please, I don't wish to put efforts into something that isn't notable enough. Thanks ImprovementUK (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive
Sent of behalf of for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Just a heads up/reminder :) Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll respond within a day or so. MSJapan (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, it would be great to hear back about this! Sam Walton (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi MSJapan; the metrics update is quite overdue now so it would be great if you could get back to me about the email :) Sam Walton (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A question about resources from Taylor & Francis
I noticed that the Taylor & Francis page focuses on databases that Taylor & Francis provides. Is there any possibility of obtaining books that Taylor & Francis publishes?

Most of my work on Wikipedia relates to old-time radio, about which Taylor & Francis publishes three comprehensive reference books. They are listed here, although one of the three is actually a concise version of another.

I have been fortunate to receive some books from McFarland, and they have proven to be very useful for creating and editing Wikipedia articles related to old-time radio. If I could get on a waiting list for these publications from Taylor & Francis, I will be glad to go through the proper procedure to request them. I just wanted to check with you informally first. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * TWL is only concerned with the databases here. Anything else is outside our purview. MSJapan (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 14, October-November 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
 * Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
 * Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Books & Bytes - Issue 15
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 15, December-January 2016 by, , , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
 * # 1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
 * New branches and coordinators

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 16, February-March 2016 by ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
 * Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
 * A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
 * Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Translation from English to Japanese
Hello. I would like a japanese wiki page to be created based on an English article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabio_Mancini

Do you think you can do it?Irene000 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

JW graphic on Masonic lodge officers
The width is the same as the rest, but because it's narrow, it ends up being too tall. I shrunk it down using the 'upright' tag. See Picture tutorial. As for retirement, I was being mass-attacked by a gang of wiki bullies. I'm not creating any new content these days because you work and work on something only to have it deleted for bullshit reasons. I'll still work on some of the lists and stuff, but the culture of Wikipedia has to change. Eric Cable ! Talk 04:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:009o9/Never Gonna Be the Same Again
I declined your speedy delete request because the rationale was not one listed at WP:CSD. As you probably know, CSD is fairly narrow in what it allows and disallows. Of course, this doesn't prevent you from seeing deletion at WP:MFD but I'm not sure the rationale you provided for the speedy delete is part of any deletion policy, so I suggest reviewing the article closely before creating an MFD page. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I see it differently
I removed the CSD tags from several user sub pages. My understanding is that the editor has a different view on how things are to be handled than the consensus of editors, and was very recently blocked. However, it is quite plausible the editor will request an unblock and if they can persuade an admin that they plan to change their approach may well be unblocked. I think it is quite premature to be throwing out good faith attempts at draft articles at this point.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, I wrote the above before noticing that had reached a similar conclusion. It appears that we are on the same page, so to speak.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would even hesitate to take to MFD so quickly, just out of fairness. It isn't about whether they should or shouldn't be there, it is about fairness of process and if the user gets unblocked, allowing them the opportunity to defend their articles.  Since they are in user space, they don't pose a serious problem that forces us to rush.  Regardless, they don't fit any CSD criteria, so speedy delete is not an option. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;
 * : My reasoning is that we're dealing with a paid editor who per the COIN discussion was purposely trying to get guidelines changed to allow his material (I will reiterate, material he was being paid to write) to be included. The ANI concluded that the user was NOTHERE.  Therefore, I have less inclination to AGF, because two different independent processes concluded (or were leaning towards; the COIN is still open but is now moot) that the editor was disruptive.  Also, the material, rather than being "good-faith drafts" is really "paid editing work which doesn't get paid for unless it gets included in the encyclopedia", I don't think the material should be hanging around to be used as WP:POINTy "test cases" to push for fundamental policy changes beneficial only to the user. All that being said, though, it can certainly wait; the encyclopedia is not going to fall apart because of a a few userspace drafts.  I just like to try to clean up problems as quickly as possible. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the frustration. I'm the one that closed that ANI discussion and did the block, which is why I've stuck around a bit to help clean up.  I'm just saying a few days wait won't hurt us.  And paid editing is not against policy, so I can't use that as a reason either.  Our character is defined by how we treat others we disagree with.  My preference is to treat him the same as I would any other blocked editor.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

GMOIRL
You did have a point. The link was always a place-marker until I could find something better. This is so far the only English language reference I've found to the internal structure of a Continental lodge. Hoping to find a more explicit description, but it will probably be in French. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Freemasons (A–D)
I would be grateful if you could explain why you have twice reverted my addition of a sound reference to the entry for Lord Skelmersdale on this list? At present his entry on the list is supported by a "reference" which is a deadlink. That reference may well be restored, but at present it simply goes to a holding page with the message "The Encyclopedia of Freemasonry is moving to a new web server. We will return in early January 2016. Sorry for the inconvenience." There is absolutely no mention of Lord Skelmersdale. I therefore added a good reference from the Apollo website history section. The page I added as a reference states clearly (in paragraph 10): "The following day Prince Leopold was installed as Provincial Grand Master for Oxfordshire in the Sheldonian Theatre by Lord Skelmersdale, Deputy Grand Master, who, when up at Christ Church, had been initiated in the Apollo University Lodge in May 1856." This is an unambiguous and accessible reference for Lord Skelmersdale's membership. However, you deleted it, and did so a second time when I restored it. It is unclear to me why you feel that a deadlink is an acceptable reference. 80.4.129.3 (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We should be able to find it on Wayback Machine, so it's not necessarily dead, but I will take a look. There are two problems with the Apollo source.  One is that it is a self-published source, whereas the current link is a third-party source.  The other problem is that the necessary piece of data is, as you state, 10 paragraphs into the source, which does not make it easily locatable or verifiable unless one reads the entire history.  From our own perspective, we also try to limit citations to individual Lodge pages as best we can. MSJapan (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Retirement
My intent wasn't to get you to retire. My intent was to get you to lay off Kvng. If you can do that, it's perfectly fine to contribute in whatever other ways you find suitable. p b  p  17:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, you interjected yourself into an ANI that had nothing to do with you, after trolling another editor in another ANI that had nothing to do with you. Second of all, Kvng is a big boy - if he's got a problem with me personally, he doesn't need you to "protect" him.  Thirdly, because you perceive a personal problem instead of a content problem, you're going to harass my contribs, sling accusations, and then tell me what I can and cannot do on Wikipedia when the editor in question maintains an open list precisely for outside review?  Nope, sorry.  This is a volunteer organization, and I don't need the aggravation, from you or anyone else. MSJapan (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your actions seem duplicitous. What you're saying boils down to, "it's acceptable for you to monitor Kvng's contributions, but it's somehow unacceptable for me to monitor yours".   p  b  p  18:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not acceptable for you to tell me that I can do whatever I want besides AfD a certain user's content or you're going to harass me about it until I go away. You can monitor all you want, but here's the difference:  I AfDed Kvng's material, but I didn't say "Bad PROD cuz Kvng sucks"; I gave a policy-based reason for my statement, and didn't even mention him.  You, OTOH, said "MSJ AfDed this because he doesn't like Kvng's actions" and called the action disruptive.  That's not a content statement, that's a personal attack, and because you've indicated you're doing it on purpose, it's harassment, and that's not what I'm here for.  The fact that you can't differentiate between your actions and mine also renders this discussion pointless.  You win, now go away, because I certainly am. MSJapan (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You did kind of say "bad PROD cuz Kvng sucks" in your ANI though. You continually pushed for sanctioning/punishing Kvng even though one attempt at doing so failed.  And, yes, I do think you went too far on trying to punish/sanction Kvng; I also think there was some merit to his declining of the PRODs in the articles and I DO think YOU harassed him with your actions of the past 24 hours.  However, I am not trying to sanction/punish you in any way other than to get you to drop the stick.  I think you're both too angry at Kvng AND too angry at me.  You certainly shouldn't leave the entire project because we disagreed with you on this one aspect of it.  p  b  p  20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect suppressions
"Kohail brother murder case" to "Kohail murder case" (Kohail brother murder case / Kohail murder case) and "Research lodge" to "Research Lodge" (Research lodge / Research Lodge) (Special:log/MSJapan) don't appear to meet any of the criteria for redirect suppression or criteria for speedy deletion. Unless I'm missing something: the proper process would have been to list these longstanding titles at RfD, if deletion was desired, per the deletion policy. Pinging Nakon the administrator who granted you this permission for input. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've retired, but here's my rationale: the Kohail title was an unambiguous error; it's not grammatically correct, nor does it portray the situation accurately, nor is the case referred to as such in the news sources - two brothers were involved, neither of them was the victim. So I chose a related title that would at least get the search hit.
 * "Research Lodge" was moved without respect for its existence as a proper noun, which per WP naming conventions, should remain capitalized, as we did with Grand Lodge; so I moved it back in accordance with policy. Again, I've retired, so whether I have the permission or not is wholly irrelevant at this point, and it's not really going to matter to me if you move it back. MSJapan (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the first title was unambiguously created in error and therefore eligible for WP:CSD/WP:PM/C, and your second justification gives no criteria for deletion or suppression. I have no problem with the moves themselves, rather with the suppression of the former titles, which should have became redirects in these cases. The two now deleted titles should be created as redirects. If you ever choose to return to editing, I believe further similar suppressions of that nature (i.e. unilateral deletions of longstanding titles that don't meet a deletion or suppression criteria) would be unacceptable, and likely result in revocation of the permission. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

E-mail
My response is on my talk page. <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> Need help?  00:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 17, April-May 2016 by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
 * Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
 * New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

PROD, etc.
This seems misplaced. You may want to consider moving it (or removing it). There's not really anything we can do on that page to take action against someone's personal attacks or a particular user's behavior. "How many problematic actions..." sounds like an ANI thread rather than something actionable on the level of policy/guideline interpretation/wording.

In my unsolicited opinion, however, if there are continued issues with Kvng, it would be best to let someone else bring them back to ANI (or to wait a long while first). Two reasons: First, it would be easy to get the sense that you're in too deep at the moment, which takes away from any valid point you may have. Second, the diff from Kvng could be construed as a personal attack, but that sort of comment is made many times at AfD every day. Inappropriate? Yes, but probably not actionable by itself (and can't really be tacked onto another thread that was just closed without action). Plenty of other editors took notice of the issues and can bring Kvng back to ANI if need be.

So anyway, I'd consider either removing the comment at WT:PROD and/or replacing it with a specific question/proposal regarding wording or interpretation of that guideline, without focusing on Kvng. Or feel free to remove this potentially unwanted advice :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been several threads on PROD about Kvng's editing (which is more to what I was aiming at, not the ANI). Actionable or not, the editing behavior Kvng displayed is directly related to his function as a PROD patroller, and those folks at PROD need to be aware of what he's doing, because he's telling people he'll get better, he's learned, and he hasn't.  So the AGF has to run out at some point.


 * If I had to venture a guess, the real problem is that Kvng is a staunch inclusionist to the point of wanting to keep everything, and since he knows he can keep anything that's prodded if he deprods, that's what he does, except he doesn't have the policy knowledge to back up the majority of what he's deprodding. That simply isn't a diligent PROD patroller, and it's not beneficial to the project.


 * All that being said, "Inclusionist", "Deletionist", whatever, doesn't matter - one can have whatever opinion one wants until they start ad hominem-ing people because of that stance. Want to keep every PROD, or delete every PROD?  Then you need to be able to handle the fact that you might be wrong every once in a while, and one would have a much better rate if one was aware of the relevant criteria.  Hell, I AfDed something because the rationale was "found on a map", and did it wrong because I simply wasn't aware of a policy.  Now, rather than tell me to go screw because I was "wrong" and "don't ever nom anything ever again you rotten @#%^$^*$&&!!!!!!", an editor pointed me at the policy and told me to fix the nom so it complied with the policy.  So I did.


 * Honestly? This is SiTrew all over again.  An editor self-appoints to take on a task that they think no one else does, gets obsessed with getting it done, makes mistakes through lack of diligence, rationalizes the mistakes as a corollary to workload, and then starts having editor interaction problems as a result.  It'll probably end up at ANI if it continues anyway, as that's what happened the last time. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Rhododendrites is right, MSJapan: you need to drop the stick and back away. You said, "the AGF has to run out at some point."  The AGF of your actions will also run out soon.  It already has with me; I believe you're too concerned about getting Kvng punished right now at the expense of other things, like improving the project.  You're essentially forum-shopping at this point; you've taken it to several different venues in the past few days.  The ANI and your message to HighInBC resulted in no sanctions and the PROD talk complaint isn't going to result in sanctions either.  I've seen what you're doing play out before too, as both you and Kvng.  Quite often, the result for people like you who forum-shop on the same issue is a) future things they post on noticeboards aren't taken seriously, or b) they get with a boomerang and get sanctions themselves.  I think you're a worthy enough editor that I don't want that to happen to you.


 * He's also right about what to do next: wait about a month and see what he's done in that time. If he really is as bad as you think, you'll have enough new bad examples to justify the punishment you want.  You have succeeded in getting more scrutiny of Kvng's edits, so it's fairly likely that, if there are MAJOR problems before the month, somebody will address them.  p  b  p  21:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Kont Bank
Hi hi, I may be missing a trick here, but could you explain what about Kont Bank made it an attack page? I'm just not seeing it personally, thank you --  samtar talk or stalk 10:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * One's iffy, one's not. "Iranian entrepreneur Babak Zanjani, who has invested into several Tajik businesses, including a bank, an airline, a taxi service and a bus terminal that Tajik President Imomali Rahmon himself helped inaugurate in March 2013.[3]" - could imply foreign influence with government approval.


 * "The bank is under scrutiny by the US Treasury Service, as a possible money laundering entity which moves large sums of oil-related money on behalf the Iranian government.[3]" - basically a negative statement, and there are no positive statements made in the article.


 * Therefore, I think the article is aimed simply at pointing out what's "wrong" with the bank. I'd also note the same author said essentially the same thing about the Agroinvestbank article he created as well, that it was run by a foreigner and was being investigated. MSJapan (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Bengay
I'm going to revert your redirect of Bengay again but I will go ahead and nominate this for deletion so we can discuss its fate. WP:BRD doesn't seem to be working between the two of us. ~Kvng (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that if you ask for a reason and don't like it, then you ignore it, and that's not how this works. Your version of "discussion" is "let me tell you why we should keep this, using reasoning that is not in line with policy" and that's it. When you think a radio station or a TV show should be kept because it's "national" and then the articles turn out to be hoaxes, that's a problem.  When your keep rationale is to "avoid redlinks" while admitting the article fails GNG, that's a problem.  The faults aren't those of other people in this case. MSJapan (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OMG, you two, get a room! I've closed the AfD and you can discuss a merger elsewhere.  p  b  p  18:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already started a discussion on the Bengay talk page., if you still think redirecting or deleting that is a good idea, please post something specific to that there. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Zadara Storage
Hello! I reverted Zadara Storage back to the more cut down version I had a few weeks back, I don't mean to step on your toes, I just think it's still a bit too much BS with your cutdown version. Feel free to revert me if you think I'm wrong. Brandon (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can definitely see where there might be a WP:PROMO issue still outstanding, but I was erring on the side of the tech being important (which has admittedly not been shown). Therefore, I think the rv is fine.  I hadn't realized the COI template had been removed, however, and there's been recent activity that still looks COI to me.  I didn't dig into the history, because there was no template to clue me in to do so, but I will do that now, and probably go to COIN or ANI, depending on how bad it is, and if any prior admin action has occurred. MSJapan (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Masonic Honors
I wanted to list the abbreviations of Masonic titles used after names - which are in the style of honors like degrees, medals, and knighthoods. That's what was implied. The Savage Club's Masonic branch listed its founding members with such acronyms appended to their names and I wanted to list them for the edification of the readers of the article.Hotspur23 (talk)
 * - I see. There's only one slight error, though, and that is that those are there because they were appointed to those positions.  The interesting thing is that the people themselves often don't use them in correspondence - other people tend to stick them on there.  Therefore, you're kind of veering off slightly in the wrong direction, but not entirely.  You make a good point regarding the initialisms, so I think what I'm going to do is revert it for the moment, find a source to add to the article explaining the usage, and add it to all of the offices to which it applies. MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Hey MSJapan. You know, I respect most of your rationales at AfD. I am also usually in agreement with your views on notability. Which is why I feel saddened when I see stuff like this. If you don't mind, could you please retract/strike this (please remove the last 2 sentences at least). Sorry, for this. I understand that it is human to feel angry when there is disagreement. But it is best to reply based on guidelines/policies. I myself do not agree with many editors at AfD, but whenever I feel I am getting angry, I try to check myself and reply only about the facts. This is important. It is OK to have disagreements, but let's only use facts in a discussion, not an editor's behaviour. The image on the right is one of my favourite places in Singapore, Pulau Ubin. I visit it whenever I am feeling stressed; it is one of the only rural places left in the concrete jungle of Singapore. When I walk through these sylvan paths, I forget everything that caused me to be angry. If I can't visit, I just open my photo album and look through the photos. I hope this photo makes you calm down as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll oblige because you asked. MSJapan (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Firearms
Maybe you should talk to the coordinator of the firearms project. You still never answered why you or your cohort listed it as terrorism.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - Not my job to do that. I personally could care less either wat, and I can't answer the question because I had nothing to do with it.  However, it is easier to assume a conspiracy than an error, or maybe ask the person who did it?  This is precisely my point - you don't agree with it, so it's an "obvious conspiracy" done on purpose, right, so rather than go ask, you'd rather be aggressive and make baseless accusations? MSJapan (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just thought it was common courtesy for a nominator to notify projects within scope according to the talk page. I never suggested conspiracy, merely bias.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk question
You have a response.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Manufacturer's data = reliable source
Ask manufacturer and they will tell you that their product is the best. Is this a reliable source? Moreover, they won't tell you some information even they know it because of confidentiality or because it points to some flaws. Articles for deletion/Tests on rollers Espr14 (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As the article has been deleted, I don't have the context to tell you exactly what it was I referring to, but technical test data is probably what I was talking about, not ad copy. A manufacturer cannot say, for example, that a vehicle can take 4 million pounds of pressure to the frame when it can only take 30 pounds, for example. MSJapan (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Nur Shams
Dear, why do you delete a page Battle of Nur Shams frequently


 * Because you violated copyright. This has been explained to you on your talk page. MSJapan (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions on my project
Just come here to say Arigatōgozaimashita:) 525JCNJ (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

DZXL overzealous redirection
Hi there, I've noticed that you've redirect the article DZXL to its parent article. But I found out that it was too much overzealous for a redirection. The station itself was existed, and somehow if you keep searching for a most reliable sources, you may be understand. But I'm telling you, don't be too overzealous with your actions here as it may seem to me that you've only basing for some templates that was posted there. Sometimes, you have to find sources of your own. Don't be a biter here. Hamham31 Heke!  KushKush!  22:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well anyway, at some point, you're right. Maybe it will be more suitable to find secondary or tertiary sources for this, rather than their main website itself. But I want to tell you, unlike Japan, Philippine broadcasting is very PRIVATIVE and very CAUTIOUS when it comes to their network profile and history, so its not easy to find more sources for verification of its existense. I hope you won't mind, but let that page stayed that way for now, though I'm still not convinced that such existing radio stations here in PHL needs to redirect to its main station, just because it fails to search for more than trustable sources. Hamham31  Heke!  KushKush!  04:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Anthem of East Turkestan
Could you please restore it into my user's space, I want to have a look what song this is. Could be notable anyway.--Antemister (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

KC holder articles
Since you initiated the Articles for deletion/Walter Gerth, I'm letting you know that a discussion is taking place at Notability (People): Knight's Cross Holder Articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Suzuka Naval Arsenal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suzuka Naval Arsenal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Suzuka Naval Arsenal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

YGM
Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to notify...
Just a reminder, I think you forgot to notify the user you named at COIN. - Brianhe (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't do so primarily because there's no apparent COI - there's really isn't a "discussion" either. MSJapan (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Question
Hey do you know how I can get non-copyrighted pictures? I guess a gallery is needed for this project, and it only allows me to upload my own work. I don't think I will call the company and ask them for pics. 525JCNJ (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Rude Sarcastic message
Your rude sarcastic message is not appreciated. Unless Wikipedia's moderators are all freemasons you will not succeed in your plot to censor the facts that i have contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:7D:CF6A:BC66:24C9:4A9E:5D71:AD59 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess all the moderators are Freemasons, and my plot was successful. Who knew? MSJapan (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... must be a Cabal (or perhaps a Kabbalah). Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Try our new Cabal soda! It's so refreshing, you too will say "Cabal...aaahh!  If not, we know where you are...." MSJapan (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Eshal Fayyaz
Respected Sir, as I edited page of Eshal Fayyaz yesterday, but I think you didn't like the changes though I followed Wiki policies and the tone was neutral. You have nominated page earlier for deletion, so I think you are considering it a matter of your ego (Pardon me if I am wrong) and you reverted all the changes though they were all credible. You also mentioned on AfD page that references are blog based, Sir I request you to check again they are not blogs, either they are fashion websites, magazine websites or Pakistan TV industry websites. I am not attached to Eshal in any way neither monetarily nor in any other relation, being a Wikipedian and native here I know she has earned great popularity recently, though its her first debut in TV serials but She did lead role. So be kind try to verify and contribute positively. Though article was a mess but later as you cleaned it and I contributed it can be a good article and I promise to make more neutral contributions. She has been brand ambassador of many renowned brands here, great model and a new face in acting. Here are Wikipedia policy for nomination of Deletion you should go through it again.

So I believe this is not a hopeless case and we should give a chance to other native editors who know her well. Power Brings Responsibility, we should be optimistic and give a chance to others too.


 * No, you did not follow policies. You replaced material that was not written in an encyclopedic tone.  You felt that a photo gallery with no text of Bina Sultan was an appropriate reference for Eshal Fayyaz.  You apparently also felt that a source on Pakistan Fashion Week that did not mention Eshal Fayyaz was an appropriate source for Eshal Fayyaz.  There's no "optimism" required.  The quality of these sites is generally poor, and they all look like personal sites.


 * I have already explained to you that models are generally not notable. As a new actress with one acting credit to her name, she isn't notable as an actress, either.  I have stated to you what the policies are.  I have in fact looked at every source in the article, and they are by and large very poor sites.  I tried to actually get more material out of one of the interviews, but there was nothing there. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Make it right, Deleting is not a good option

Sorry if I offend you, but don't make it an ego issue. The changes I made are legitimate, because I provided reference for each line I wrote. If you think that my tone was not right you can make it right being much senior to me I would be looking for help to improve it. Otherwise it would just like the situation of a painter who painted a painting and asked for mistakes and there were marks all over the painting, but when asked to correct the mistakes there was not a single mark. Criticism is easy, correction is difficult.

The Reader Ahmed (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your sources are not WP:RS. The tone is not encyclopedic.  The content is not appropriate.  I'm telling you you are adding things that you should not be, and instead of accepting that, you're telling me it's an ego problem. The "problem" is that you absolutely want to keep this article.  For someone without a vested interest, you shouldn't be this hardline about it.  The article does not and will not meet the standards required.  You either don't understand or simply don't want to listen;  I don't know which it is, but another editor has even said that there is nothing sufficient. You're not doing anything to convince anyone otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Believer (Laura Dawn album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Replacements. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Philipandrew2 Sockpuppet and his contribution Investigations
Listen, I do not usually agree with your methods when it comes to some article, but this time I'm going to obligue myself to ask you this, can you please recheck the contributions made by linked user on this message title on the Philippines article? He always asked on every message on the article referring to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, without any valid proofs of his contributions there. Secondly, creating another sock accounts just to award himself any barnstars without any good reason to do it so. And lastly, I think that some of the images he upload here in Wikipedia is like it is a DeviantArt or something. Please this time I'm begging you to participate with this concern. Thank ypu. Hamham31 Heke!  KushKush!  14:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I also forgot to include this file he uploaded here in Wikipedia. It seems that this is also a Photoshop made image only, and I don't really see any educational value in this image. Hamham31  Heke!  KushKush!  01:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing large sections of referenced content from Form 1040
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Form 1040, you may be blocked from editing.

Please try to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND

 * Your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is uncollegial.
 * Here, you attack me  over my attempt to treat a group of rampant sockpuppets supporting new article that grossly violates WP:PROMO.  I personally do not believe that this project is helped by being rude to human beings whose first edits are PROMO.  Note that I was NOT suggesting that the article be kept.
 * Here you attack me and make an unsupported accusation, where did I make a false assertion of fact on this page? Or bring this link to any purpose other than to assert existence of a forthcoming film during an AFD about a film director?.
 * Can we try to work in a mutually respectful manner to assess notability, even when we disagree?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your positions are inconsistent, and they're based on whatever your opinion is, not sources, and you will never acknowledge that your position is incorrect. Let's illustrate:


 * As for the links you cite as "attacks", you cited a policy incorrectly in the Susman AfD, and also indicated that AUTHOR and DIRECTOR were different policies. That's not an opinion -  I provided the text of the correctly cited policy, and AUTHOR and DIRECTOR are both the same policy.  You haven't addressed a fundamental error in the argument, nor did you refute any of Lemongirl's points.  Instead, you keep pasting in more trivial sources without addressing the fact that a) they're all from Susman's local area; b) they're all trivial mentions of Susman; and c) the sources are not addressing the argument for "a significant body of work."  Two reviews or six, one play is one play.  You are equating the fact that Susman is "doing something" with the fact that "Susman is notable for doing it."  In other words, you're contrary to WP:ENN in addition to any other lack of meeting policies.
 * Your assertions above are flatly untrue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, in the process of carrying on the Susman argument where he's notable despite trivial mentions, you said on the Lohani AfD that "quotations from significant media are important to establish notability." You did not show anything like that on Susman at all, but Susman has to be notable, and Lohani is not, based on effectively the same level of sourcing. Lohani's not notable, but the fact that you're focused more on socking shows me that because you're mad about the socking, Lohani's not notable - the lack of sourcing is secondary.
 * Nonsense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Put simply, you have ulterior motives and biased editing. I think that's why you try to write articles on every single Israeli ever shot by a Palestinian; that's why you admitted you wrote Whitaker because you were mad about Whitaker's behavior.  That's why you wrote IKEA stabbing because it was "Muslim terrorism" (which it was not), and you took one quote by a fringe politician and called it "a matter of national debate." Neither was true. Then we find out you were "in and out of Sweden" and "fascinated" by the subject.  These revelations come months or years after the fact.  In short, you had a bias before you ever started on those topics, and I think that's true of the majority of your contributions.
 * Nonsense on wheels, the fact that I am interested in and knowledgeable about a topic is hardly a bar to good editingE.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, you do not edit impartially in line with sources, but in line with your opinion, and you consistently hide that fact (until it comes out). Problem is, when you reveal the bias, the neutrality of the whole editing corpus is suspect (rather a lot like an academic who plagiarizes, oddly enough).  In determining notability or the lack thereof, you consistently value your personal opinion of a subject far above what actual facts indicate about the subject, and minimize or ignore anything contrary to your already-established opinion.  You have been doing this during your entire tenure here, and that is why people keep bringing you to ANI for the same things repeatedly.  The only reason you're not banned is because people have gotten much more lenient over the years.  When you start editing impartially yourself, and responding to claims with sources instead of ignoring them, then there might not be so much of an issue overall. MSJapan (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Utter, BATTLEGROUND rubbish. You have some sort of personal vendetta against me, which I have patiently and politely requested that your drop.  I have grown an an editor in my year or so of active editing, and what I request here is that you stop attacking me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In particular, the allegation that I called the 2015 IKEA stabbing attack "Muslim terrorism" is typical of the accusation and baseless assertions you make about me; this one is downright slanderous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You clearly don't want to listen to anybody, or else you'd have more to say than "nonsense", and I'm tired of listening to yours. All that "nonsense" I could go an find diffs for, so don't push me.  The only way you've "grown as an editor" is to cause more problems with more people and then somehow not understand why there's an issue, because you can't possibly be wrong, can you?  Anyhow, it's real simple: if you don't want to deal with me, stay off my talk page, stay off my contribs, and stay away from my AfDs.  MSJapan (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Centre Point
Dear MS Japan,

Many thanks for reviewing the Centre Point wikipedia page. However, I was wondering if you could let me know if you can correct the remaining inaccuracies? For example, Centre Point is no longer an office building and is 34-storeys high, as mentioned in the references I have included on my request. Also, a number of the references I included mentioned a new square being built at the bottom of the tower so I was wondering if this could also be added? the text which mentions that a piazza is being demolished has no references and is incorrect. If I should include this on the talk page for Centre Point please let me know.

Many thanks Property 2016 Property2016 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Rosary templates
Hi MSJapan, saw your request at WP:RMT about The rosary sidebar. FYI, the template The rosary is potentially worth discussion as well. I'm not an expert in the topic, but I'm inclined to believe that "Rosary" is typically capitalized. Just a friendly FYI. (The mover, it appears, has been sufficiently warned 2 months ago.) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 00:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. There's a double-move on that second template, and maybe a split or a namespace switch or something. Can someone untangle this at all and just put them back where they were before Chicbyaccident moved them? MSJapan (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, that navbox appears to have been "The Rosary". I think the rosary sidebar was moved several times to try to distinguish between the navbox. I also just realized you're a page mover. Technically, you're able to correct the page move by swapping Template:The rosary sidebar and Template:Rosary via WP:PMVR (though it can be a tricky process the first time it's done). In this case, I'd probably leave the move to an admin (because I think it involves deleting some of the redirects resulting from the move. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 00:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could fix it, but you're correct as to why I asked for help - I don't know exactly what happened, and I really don't want to end up with a bigger mess. The navbox, however, is redundant to the sidebar (and on the same pages), so rather than move it back, I'll TfD it directly. MSJapan (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Still treating WP like a BATTLEGROUNND

 * deleting comments during AFD..
 * followed by this: petty BATTLEGROUND attack/.  I am asking that you agf.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then a) don't edit other people's comments, and b) don't "wander" onto AfDs to offer "trivia." Don't hold me responsible for the consequences of your behavior. When you and don can also stop tag-team editing on my AfDs, maybe some AGF is there, but he had no keep rationale whatsoever, nor any justification to re-revert the edit, as he was told by someone else. You seem to think that whatever you do is fine, and then you cry that you're a victim.  Stop creating a problem, and maybe you won't get one in return. MSJapan (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited To Mars By A-Bomb (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Kydd. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

POV Pushing and competence by an editor
Hey, do you mind if you could take a look at this edit. There is an editor who is constantly reverting the changes, refusing to properly discuss, competence issues and POV pushing. I'm interested to know if "Han Chinese" is the term used in US/Europe as well to refer to the ethnicity. My own education was in English and I have always heard "Han Chinese" as the ethnic term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 18, June–July 2016 by, Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
 * Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
 * TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
 * OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Shadore
The G5 criterion is meant for enforcing an existing block/ban by deleting content that (1) couldn't have been made by the master account, because it was blocked at the time, or (2) mustn't have been made by the person operating the account, since he was banned at the time when the page was created. The master wasn't blocked, so it wasn't a case of block evasion, and you didn't include any evidence that the person operating these socks had been topic-banned (a previous siteban would have resulted in a block, of course) or otherwise banned from creating this page. 02:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lowell Spinners, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KBO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename battle
Greetings


 * It is inappropriate to retain the label wrong Battle of Nur Shams, after the submission of all adequate evidence that this battle called the Battle of Anabta.

Anabta.s (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Bette Stuy

 * See User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Doppel-Sport Panoramic Camera
Hi, you have removed my pictures from a wikipedia workshop. Your comment was "failed to see the utility of this", while we added pictures of real museum collection item into a page that had only a sketch.


 * ReferenceWiki Loves Art


 * your edit

ph.viny gmail (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Updating links on Freemasonry page
@MSJAPAN, greetings from Tokyo No.2. I am new to Wikipedia and would like to update some links in some Masonic articles as the content has moved to a new site. How would I go about that?

WSJGC (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Streetrunner
Hey MSJapan. FYI, is back. It was recreated by a paid editor,. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)