User talk:Murph9000/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Murph9000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Anar  chyte   10:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Notgoingtotellyou
Thanks for the welcome. How do I get access to all the law and social science related databases without having to individually sign up for each? Can I even get access to it? In the future once I clean up my computers what's stopping the Chinese from inserting a virus on my talk page so when I access it I get unknowingly infected? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notgoingtotellyou (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC) And how did you know my name.?😄Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You may find some useful information at The Wikipedia Library to answer your first two questions. As for the Chinese (MSS, presumably) hacking your Wikipedia talk page, nothing other than it is technically extremely close to impossible to do that (please don't try to debate me on that point, or try to convince me it is possible, it's not possible if you stick to normal safe computing practices).  Wikipedia talk pages are not, and have never been, a conduit for computer viruses.  While I don't doubt that the world's intelligence services probably do read pages here from time to time, and may even do the occasional bit of editing (the CIA have been doing their own type of online encyclopaedia/almanac since before Wikipedia existed, in the form of The World Factbook), they have far better and easier ways to attack people than via Wikipedia.   Murph 9000  (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC

I'm not going to argue with you I'm not that kind of guy, just wondered if it's possible or not. How did you know it was the mss hacking me, are there ip logs within wiki suggesting this?Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, cool. It's just one of those types of things which sometimes people try to convince me is possible, but without any reliable source to support their claims, and it is an area where I do have a few decades of expertise.  As for my comment about the MSS, that was kinda half serious and half a joke, due to you describing fears of "the Chinese".  I have no specific reason to believe the MSS are after you.  With software, it is usually quite difficult to prove that something is 100% impossible, but in the specific case of MediaWiki talk pages, the fundamental way that the software operates basically makes it about as close to 100% impossible as you usually can get without physically disconnecting the network connection.  MediaWiki markup simply does not have the technical characteristics required to enable transmission of a virus, so they would have to perform criminal intrusions of the Wikimedia Foundation's servers and somehow remain undetected to even come remotely close to achieving that, something which should basically be highly unlikely, as some of the WMF staff and volunteers have very good technical skills.  You are no more at risk from computer viruses on Wikipedia, than on any other well maintained and non-malicioous website.   Murph 9000  (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok I trust you, hehe and don't doubt that wiki has went through stuff like this in the past and has great tech staff and other industry ones that can be called in in times of need. Thanks for your detailed description and look forward to talking to you in the future.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering how my user page got reverted to an earlier version. I understand taking off the Chinese stuff but how can you put back the same stuff I already promised them I wouldn't talk about. I'm a man of my word even with hackers and dictatorial governments. Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me. It was, a quite senior administrator.  All I can tell you is what is in the , the comment on the most recent edit: Reverting to last clearly ok version.  I guess there was some content on the page which was considered not ok and necessary to completely zap (the revisions have been deleted, which is slightly unusual).
 * I suggest you talk to them nicely, and it may be a good idea to apologise for doing anything wrong (I have no idea if you did something wrong, it's just an idea). I'm really rather surprised that you didn't get a message explaining it on your talk page.  Check your email, just in case you got a message that way, it's less common, but an administrator might use email if they want to send you a private message for some reason.
 * If there is content currently on the page which should not be there, you should be fine to edit the page and remove it. I strongly suggest not adding any of the content which got deleted by Lankiveil (whatever it was, I can't see it), or anything similar to it, at least until you know for sure what the problem was.
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't leave an email on file at least not one that isn't hacked. I will erase my black market one and western corporate assistance one as I promised. Every time I've gotten close to them I suddenly start hearing about funerals, poisoning and kidnapping back to China so I think I'll keep my distance from them. Thanks for your quick replies.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For obvious reasons I won't go into that content, except to say that it contained material that was actionable under the Oversight policy. More generally, user pages are not the place for lengthy political statements.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the input and clarification. I quite understand not discussing the specifics, and I neither want nor need to know any of the specific details myself.  That's entirely between you and, as it should be.  My involvement is just from answering some questions (originally in the teahouse).  I'm overall quite in favour of, and support, WP:UPNOT and related policies, and generally keeping real world politics out of WP beyond WP:NPOV articles on them.   Murph 9000  (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes cancellation
Murph9000, why did you delete my article, The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes cancellation. That was a bad thing to do! --MML Master (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not delete The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes cancellation. I nominated it for deletion for the reasons clearly explained in the message left on your talk page.  It was deleted by a Wikipedia administrator who reviewed my nomination, and evidently agreed with me that it was not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  I have nothing more to say on this matter, please do not contact me again about it.  If you have any further concerns, questions, or comments, please raise them at WP:AN or some other appropriate venue.   Murph 9000  (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Heineken Green Room in Singapore
Please take a look at WP:OVERTAGGING. Thank you.--ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Noted, and I will keep it in mind. Having looked at the article again, I believe all of the tags I added qualify as "fair comment" and highlight specific concerns with the article.  The mistakes I did make is that I should have combined all tags within multiple issues, not just the tags I added myself, a mistake which I have now rectified.  I also should have given more consideration to the overall combination of your tags and my tags, once I saw that you had been active on it as well, but something else stole my attention.
 * Please note that although the history would suggest that I added my tags 7 minutes after you added your tags, there were actually no tags visible to me on the article at the point that I clicked to add mine. Your tags were added while I had the article open and was considering the issues that needed to be addressed, so I did not see them until after my tags were saved.
 * Please feel free to remove (or move to the article's talk page) any of my tags which you feel are unfair, too minor, or not of immediate concern. You have my explicit permission and encouragement to do that (not that it's strictly necessary).  Equally, if you feel such an edit should come from me, I'm happy to reconsider any specific tags you care to mention.
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dot Advertising Agency
Dear Murph9000, regarding the deletion for Dot Advertising Agency page, i don't understand how you see it as a promotional object not an organisational page as i've read what is been wrote on the other advertising agencies pages and tried to write what matches our company in the article. So kindly check it out once again and let me know how an organisational page would look like to you. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaledkanoon (talk • contribs) 10:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, I was not the person who nominated Dot Advertising Agency for deletion, and I certainly did not delete it. I placed a standard cautionary notice on your talk page in an attempt to educate you in regard to Wikipedia's policies.  The notice (and the previous speedy deletion notices, added by someone else) contains links to the relevant policies and guidelines.  You have created the page twice now, and it has been deleted twice by Wikipedia administrators, so you are running the risk of being blocked from editing, and my cautionary notice is to ensure that you are aware of that and potentially help you avoid getting blocked.  Please read WP:COMPANY for details on what is required for inclusion of an article about a company on Wikipedia.  I strongly advise you not to attempt simply create the article again, but to use the AfC process to create it through a reviewed drafting process, if you are certain that it meets the criteria of WP:COMPANY.  Additionally, you should read the information provided to you in the welcome notice on your talk page.  If you have any further questions or concerns, my talk page is really the wrong place, so you should ask any questions at either the teahouse or help desk and take any concerns or complaints to WP:AN.  If you genuinely want to contribute positively to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, none of us really want to see you get blocked, but it your only purpose here is to promote or advertise a company, then you are on the wrong website.   Murph 9000  (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
The software didn't notify me of edit conflicts, either on the help desk or on the article. I did notice, however that my edit gave a negative size change, so was in the process of reverting it when you did yours. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's odd. Something must be broken in the latest release of MediaWiki, I guess?  Not good if that can happen randomly with little visible warning to people who do not vigilantly check history after editing.   Murph 9000  (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I and others have seen occasional failures to notify e/c in the past. It's obviously not totally broken as it did notify me of a conflict when my reversion of my edit clashed with your reinsertion of yours.  We'll just have to keep a careful eye on it. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess I've always been lucky. I tend to fairly obsessively check history and diffs after editing, and have always found MW's edit conflict detector to be reliable in the past.  I have mentioned it at WP:VPT.   Murph 9000  (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Modern Family templates
A huge for all your help on finishing the merging of the two Modern Family Templates! :) TeamGale (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to help. :) Murph 9000  (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus
Murph,

Thank you for your very civil and objective response. I understand what you are saying about the letters, and I probably won't argue that point, although they are personal correspondence from these people to Jews for Jesus which we have put on our website with their permission. More importantly, If you were to look at the Jews for Jesus Wikipedia page as a whole, I think you would see that it is filled with anti-Jews for Jesus statements. Yes, they are all sourced, but the site is so badly weighted against Jews for Jesus that I noticed that even commenters on the "Talk" page who have no axe to grind one way or the other think it's a sham. One person said it is the worst Wikipedia site they have ever seen. My efforts were in good faith to give an accurate depiction of who we are and what we do. I notice the guidelines say I should not use a lot of links to our own website. I can understand that. But Swordfish took down every single thing I posted, including our Statement of Faith. Even if I didn't post the Statement of Faith myself, whoever does post it on Wikipedia would have to footnote the link to our website. I have seen at least one other Wikipedia site which included the organization's statement of faith.

Once you take a look at the Jews for Jesus Wikipedia page (if you have the time and opportunity), please let me know if you think this merits dispute resolution. Thank you!Messianicmatt (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, basically, you are already involved in the first steps of the official dispute resolution process, as it starts off with basically informal recommendations, to try to address concerns and reach consensus without needing to invoke formal processes. Please read about the process, to understand how you should proceed.  I've looked at the article, and I'm certainly not convinced that it's particularly good or balanced in its present form.  The topic is clearly a very polarising one, with strong to extreme views present on many sides of the debate.
 * I suggest that you take a slow approach to it, and address just a small number of issues (or even a just single major issue) at any one time. I.e. pick what you feel is the most important problem, and try to deal with that first.  As there has been a major revert of changes, you should avoid editing the article itself, but propose changes on the article's talk page, with the changes only going to the article once there is reasonable consensus to make the change.  Try to avoid any giant "walls of text" in the discussion, as they can be very off-putting to others; keep the discussion slow, steady, calm, and most importantly always pushing towards neutrality.
 * You should probably take a look at the following WikiProjects, and possibly request assistance on their talk pages. Keep it brief and simple, something like "I'm wondering if anyone would be interested and able to help address the NPOV issues with this article?", don't overwhelm them before they have even looked at the page itself.  Make sure you link the article, so it's easy for them to find it.
 * WikiProject Jewish Christianity (talk)
 * WikiProject Christianity (talk)
 * WikiProject Religion (talk)
 * I don't have any involvement with any of the above, so I have no idea how active any of them are, or what their members are like. One way or another, you basically need to recruit the assistance of experienced editors who are good with dealing with controversial religious issues (no, that's not my area of expertise).
 * Good luck!
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Murph9000. You are the only person of the many Wikipedia editors I "talked" with who seems to see any merit whatsoever in my opinion that the site is unbalanced against Jews for Jesus. I understand now some of the mistakes I made in trying to edit the article, but the rest of these folks pretty much bit my head off. I will proceed as you suggest. Thanks again. Messianicmatt (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Murph9000. I just wrote this on Mr. Swordfish's talkpage. As you can see, I already goofed up by not reading your message more closely, where you advised me to make no further edits until talking things over with the editors. But I explained that as best I could to Mr. Swordfish, noting that my edits were minor and sourced from outside Jews for Jesus. Here is what I wrote to him: "Mr. Swordfish. Murph9000 got back to me with some very helpful suggestions on how to approach this. I realize now I unintentionally just violated one of his suggestions, which was not to make any more edits until I "talked" it out with some of you editors. But if you look at the changes I made today, you will see they are all sourced from a non-Jews for Jesus website (an article in the Atlantic Monthly) and that they are relatively minor additions to the existing article. I changed the first line of the article because it spoke of "conversion" of Jewish people, which is a very loaded and controversial term, in my opinion. "Conversion," as you may know, conjures images of the Spanish Inquisition, with the alternative to "conversion" being executiion! So I used the Atlantic Monthly article as a source to describe the mission of the Jews for Jesus organization. Please let me know if these edits I made seem "kosher." If they do, then I hope I am on the right track to improving this article. Thank you! Messianicmatt (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly disputes that change to the lead.  Unfortunately, he has not given a specific reason at present (I could guess at some possible reasons, but I'm not going to do that on a controversial or disputed issue, and that is the major problem with what was essentially a blank edit summary).  I have to say that I disagree with your position on the word "conversion".  I have linked it to our article on religious conversion, so that there can be no doubt about the modern meaning and implications of the word.  To me, conversion may have some horrific implications in history, but it is long before the current time, and I feel that an average reasonable person will see "conversion" as quite neutral in the modern context, without any confusion due to historical usage.  We routinely hear of people converting from one religion to another, without it raising the historical atrocities committed in the name of some religions (and typically completely against the true values of the religion).  It seems to be a perfectly reasonable neutral statement of a simple fact, that the organisation seeks to convert people from Judaism to Christianity (and presumably in a peaceful and generally modern Christian manner, which would directly imply a generally non-violent approach).  To me, the lead paragraph is really the least of the problems with possible neutrality and balance in the article.  The only real problem I see with the lead is that it is possibly too short to properly introduce and summarise the subject (MOS:LEAD).  I reserve judgement on whether the mission statement should be included in the lead, included in the article elsewhere, or excluded, until I properly understand the nature of the dispute around that specific content (I don't clearly know if or why he objects to it at this time).
 * My biggest concern around the neutrality of it is whether there is WP:UNDUE weight given to the negative side of the article. On that point, I simply don't know, it just seems that there's rather a large amount of the article devoted to it, compared to the amount of other content, so I believe that there may be some need to consider the weight and if it should be carefully reduced.  As long as each part of the negative side is factually accurate and supported by reliable sources, it can't just be removed, but it might be possible to reduce some of the detail and more concisely summarise some of it.  That's not something to be determined here, on my talk page.  It's something to be determined on the article's talk page, so that it is done transparently, for all to see.
 * So, again, please raise specific concerns and propose specific changes on the article's talk page, initially dealing with just a few issues (probably what you feel are the most significant problems). Please also raise your concerns at one of the WikiProjects, as I previously suggested, in an effort to find some currently uninvolved editors who have good experience of dealing with controversial religious issues (and non-controversial religious issues too), as their experience could be very useful.
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again, Murph9000. I think the big problem with the opening statement is that it is not sourced! I mean, that's the thing I was so heavily criticized for in my initial edits. And there is no source for that opening statement about Jews for Jesus, whereas I was able to provide a third-party source for my suggested change. As to the term conversion, I will not argue my point with you, but suffice it to say that as a Jewish person myself, there is a visceral reaction to the term "conversion" because of the past atrocities. That's why Jews for Jesus prefers not to use that term, yet is still very clear on the fact that they want to present the claims of Jesus to Jewish people for their consideration. Anyway, I really appreciate your taking the time to help me with this, and I will proceed as you have suggested. Thanks again!Messianicmatt (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Damian Hall article
Hi, you've got the wrong person. I just moved it to get the capitalisation right in case it was keepable. The article creator is Alaiafonk. But they've got a message from me telling them to put sources or it will go and haven't done anything yet anyway. Blythwood (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, ok, thanks for letting me know, and apologies for disturbing you. Twinkle's automation failed me on this occasion.  Also, thanks for passing the notification on to the correct person.   Murph 9000  (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more complicated than that.  has pasted the article back in over the redirect you created at Damian hall in the move, so now there's a duplicate article as well.   Murph 9000  (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, ffs. They really aren't getting it, are they? Had a look for sources and there are none, so speedy sounds great. Blythwood (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And again! I promise you I'm not the person who wrote that awful article, OK? Blythwood (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry!!! I'm just trying to untangle the pages, and forgot it would spam you.    I realised my mistake around 0.25s after my finger came up off the mouse button… I was just about to self-revert, when you did it.  Sincere apologies!   Murph 9000  (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Just delete all those silly 'I'm a Wiki-Ninja' templates on your user page and we're square, OK? :) Blythwood (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Murph 9000  (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Impossibly vague deletion question
Who was that administrator who deleted my article?-MML Master (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea, and I do not know which article you are talking about. Given that you made a very recent personal attack against me, I do not particularly care either!  Please do not bother me with nonsense.
 * Whatever article it was, it obviously fell short of the required standard for content on Wikipedia, and/or was found significantly deficient under one of the many policies and guidelines. Also, you do not WP:OWN anything on Wikipedia.  I am not inclined to offer any assistance with impossibly vague questions.   Murph 9000  (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your signature
Just one guy's opinion that your new sig crosses the (necessarily vague) line drawn at WP:Signatures. It's really intense and distracting to the eye. You're far from the only one, but I'm feeling froggy. And, if I'm the only one with this reaction, I may rightfully be ignored, insulted, or burned at the stake. Cheers,&#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I acknowledge your opinion, but disagree with it. One of the things mentioned is WP:COLOR, and the issue of high contrast being required for accessibility.  I believe that my choice of colours is consistent with good accessibility design, something I'm always conscious of as a visually impaired person, unlike a great many signatures that I have seen in recent use and frequently struggle to read.  I will, naturally, listen to and consider concerns, but have no intention of changing it at present.   Murph 9000  (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a different problem - as used above, you have two pairs of tags, which is OK; but more recently, you seem to have switched to using the   parser function, this is not permitted - see WP:SIG. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that change immediately on seeing your message. Honestly, I don't consider that to be a parser function, since it is part of mw:Help:Magic words instead of mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions.  I actually switched to it, as it seemed "cleaner" and is documented to be lower cost than HTML tags for some circumstances (although I admit that I can't be certain about this particular case, since that is more for conditional execution paths).  All that said, it is not a hair that I wish to split, and my intention is not to dispute or argue the case, only explain the thoughts and intent surrounding the reverted change.  My apologies for causing you concern.   Murph 9000  (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, if you would prefer it, I'd be happy to eliminate all cases where I have left usage of #tag syntax somewhere in a sig. It would not be a problem or particularly difficult for me to do that.   Murph 9000  (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be great, it would avoid somebody else invoking WP:SIGCLEAN. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, as long as someone else's edit didn't change the format of my sig anywhere, and the API didn't omit anything in the search, that should be them all cleaned. Done as a WP:ASSISTED edit via .   Murph 9000  (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Honest Body Project
Hi I wanted to thank you for helping to clean up The Honest Body Project page I started. I am new and certainly do not want to break any rules. I made a minor edit and added a category and I hope that helps. Is there anything else I can do regarding the COI? NatalieRMcCain (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Natalie. I'm just trying to figure out how best to proceed right now.  I know enough to recognise a COI, but am not necessarily the best person to fully address this for you.  I'll get back to you ASAP with something.  I have left some general info on your talk page, to help you learn about Wikipedia.   Murph 9000  (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help! NatalieRMcCain (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Steam app
Template:Steam app has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!
 Thanks :) Murph 9000  (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks :) Murph 9000  (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahilan Sivanandan PROD
At Talk:Ahilan Sivanandan I've explained why I think your PROD doesn't go far enough! I've put it up for CSD#12 (speedy delete for copy violations). I then noticed that the user has already had two previous CSDs for the same article! Hopefully it will be gone sooner rather than later: and stay gone.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As you can see the article (and talkpage) have been deleted. However, lets keep an eye out if the user tries to recreate the article using inappropriate material, yet another time.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm usually quite happy for people to add a CSD to something I've tagged as PROD, so no problem.  I do the same thing myself, if I spot something like that (always leaving the PROD in place, in case the CSD is declined).  I obviously didn't check the logs on that page, as I'd probably have done a CSD myself if I'd known about the previous ones.  I usually instantly tag copyvios as CSD if they look like a complete copy, without any parts worth saving.  Anyway, thanks, and this is why it's usually good for more than one person to review new pages.   Murph 9000  (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute on Uechi-ryū
In reference to Uechi-ryū and in particular your statement: "Both you and OkinawanUechiMan (talk · contribs) need to stop reverting each others edits, and take it to the talk page." this is why I started the talk specifically to avoid an Edit War and why I have not reverted his edits nor will do so in the future.

Thank you very much for attending so quickly to what is a childish matter ultimately.

Checking the page I see a "Power That Be" has reverted his edits which means "gentlemen skilled in this work" know what is going on. I am sure if the individual has the evidence he will present it.

I will not engage in any correspondence with him for what I believe is clear from his messages. The old saying about "wrestling with pigs" applies.

Nevertheless, thank you again for attending to this and "bumping it up." --98.227.140.14 (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have reverted his edits, going by the page history, but you didn't cross the line. Reverting doesn't have to explicitly be a direct revert / undo; for a content dispute any edit or combination of edits which is equivalent to a revert counts.  He added content which you then removed, so that was a revert.  He also reverted, by re-adding, etc.  The most important thing is not to break the three-revert rule, or even get close to breaking it.  You did the right thing and stopped before that happened.  With a content dispute, one of the first things I always say is that both sides need to stop reverting, even when there's not really a big problem with reverting.  The reason for that is simple, that it's one of the easiest ways for someone to get into trouble despite actually being in the right about the dispute.  If he does post a calm, civil, and content-focussed message on the article talk page, please do feel free to respond calmly to it and explain your concerns about his desired changes.  Even with past problematic communication, one of the best outcomes is if both sides can calmly state their positions on the dispute on the article talk page, as that gives something clear for others to assess.  Right now, it's really just a question of waiting to see what happens.  If we hear nothing more from him, then the issue is pretty much closed.  If there is any more problematic communication, etc, please feel free to drop a brief message on the help desk to get help with it.  If you keep your side of things calm and civil, you should have nothing to worry about.   Murph 9000  (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for fixing how I accidentally added it to another section when I thought I was creating a new one! Apologies >.< --98.227.140.14 (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2016‎
 * No problem, it can take a while to get used to how talk pages work.  Murph 9000  (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is just an acknowledgement of what you wrote while I was busy putting my reply in the wrong section :( Thanks again for understanding. I agree that I think the matter is closed in that either the individual will cite the webpage for his organization--which I and a number of people cannot find anywhere despite searching--or that is that! It is really a simple matter. Some of the other "Major Organizations" are not that "major"--but they have more than one person! There are a few that are not on the list because they still think it is 1987 :P

That being pontificated, I will state "for the record" that I will abide by whatever the decision is made by the Wiki Powers That Be. If he sends any further screed--I deleted them unread--I will do as you suggest.

Again, thanks for understanding "newbie" mistakes. >.<

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.140.14 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Comments from 152.133.6.3
I am writing to you to discuss this situation currently listed on the "Uechi Ryu" page. I do not understand why the person at the specified IP, 98.227.140.14, continues to delete my entry and speak in distasteful tones. As I am indeed a subject matter expert in this matter, I believe this is some type of person grudge with whoever this person is. If I my add, apparently this individual has no knowledge of me directly and is basing his "ideas" on what they believe or heard to be true.

The Fukken Koryu Bujutsu Kan was founded in 1996 and is a group of like minded individuals that train in a true Okinawan fashion, and are not bound to any other groups in North America. I have been given this name for my association by Ryuko Tomoyose, who is a major figure in this Okinawan Karate style. If I my add, I have lived and trained in Okinawa with Kanei Uechi, who is mentioned in this page, until his death. I trained/lived on Okinawa for over 10 years studying this style. I am one of a handful that have done this. I was granted both my teaching license and teaching certificate from Kanei Uechi.

As for the claim that I am not affiliated with the person I mentioned, I am indeed a student of that person (Tsutomu Nakahodo). I am not however in the association that he heads in Okinawa or North American due to political infighting and actions like those being represented here. This person also believes that having a webpage is justification and therefore is a true representation for an association, this I do not believe is a factual statement, The Fukken Koryu Bujutsu Kan is not a "group" open to the public nor do we advertise for members. That is why I have not responded to his request for "proof". With that said, I will gladly give that to you if you desire that information. Finally, I have attempted three times to resolve this issue, off line with this individual, I have furnished my contact information also, yet I get no response. If you look back in earlier pages, mid 2000, I gave this information to this page freely and openly to this sight and had no issues until this person started this "mud match". I await your response and will gladly provide any material you request.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.3 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)


 * Hello, 152.133.6.3. If you are actually, there are two major problems with your edits to the article.  The bold text below links to various important Wikipedia policies and guidelines which have relevance to this dispute.
 * Firstly, they appear to be essentially unsourced, as the reference provided does not allow any verifiability. Verifiability through sources needs to be done in a way that all Wikipedia editors and visitors can readily check on demand, for any occasions in the future where the accuracy of the information might be called into question.  Ideally, all sources should be reliable sources per Wikipedia's criteria, but some limited and careful use of primary sources is allowed.  The issue with the information being essentially unsourced is the reason given for the most recent removal, which is a common step when unsourced information is challenged.  That removal was not by 98.227.140.14, it was by an experienced Wikipedia editor who reviewed the content dispute and took the action he considered correct at the time, based on the information available to him.
 * Secondly, based on the messages you left on 98.227.140.14's talk page, it appears that you may have a major conflict of interest. It appears that you are trying to directly add information about yourself and your own organisation.  This is strongly discouraged by the above policy.  You are welcome to provide information on the article's talk page, and to request changes, but it is strongly recommended that you do not directly add information where there is a CoI.
 * So, as this falls under the dispute resolution policy (in addition to the conflict of interest policy), your next step must be to post calm and concise feedback on the article's talk page. Please ensure that you are logged in to your user account when doing so, so that we know consistently who we are talking to.  You are quite welcome to request additions and changes to the content there, which will be reviewed based on the information supplied.  The changes must be supported by verifiable sources.  The request will be reviewed by other Wikipedia editors, and considered for the article based on its overall merits.  We don't need you to write a huge justification for it, just the basic (short) case for why it should be added or changed, and as many verifiable sources as you can provide to support it.  Since the section in question is "Major organizations of Uechi-Ryū", your sources should be sufficient to convince neutral editors that your organisation is indeed "major".
 * While I'm basically happy to respond to general questions, etc, on my talk page (when I'm available), further discussion (particularly arguments in justification of your requested changes) should only be on the article's talk page, and not here. That is necessary to maintain the open and transparent process of editing content, so that the discussion is available for all Wikipedia editors to review and participate.  You can also ask any policy questions that directly relate to your request there, to keep all related discussion in one place.  Any arguments made on my talk page to justify the content of the article will have no real impact, simply because it is the wrong venue.
 * N.B. We are not saying that your organisation absolutely cannot be included in the article. The problem is that it does not yet clearly qualify for inclusion, until we resolve the issue around sources.  You may well qualify for inclusion if you can provide the necessary sources.  The information must be provided publicly on the article's talk page.  Communication outside Wikipedia (e.g. by email) is generally not appropriate in these processes.  The first part of dispute resolution must normally be a constructive and calm discussion on the article's talk page, a relatively informal part of the process.  If that fails to reach a satisfactory conclusion, there are more formal steps which can be followed after that discussion has been attempted.  Please note that anonymous IP address editors who follow Wikipedia's policies and appear to be constructively editing in good faith have essentially equal status to registered users in content discussions.
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my recent "talk" on the Uechi page, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkinawanUechiMan (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Semi-wikibreak
semi-wikibreak Circumstances within Wikipedia have lead me to choose to temporarily withdraw most of my voluntary efforts from the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. I am taking a semi-wikibreak, and may not be paying a great deal of active attention to Wikipedia for a while, but probably not 100% inactive. For help and general questions, please visit Questions. For issues relating to specific articles, please use the article's talk page.

Murph 9000 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito Dutta (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello Murph9000. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ok, fair enough. I was a bit quick on that one.  Thanks.   Murph 9000  (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Question from 59.88.211.93‎
I have removed the link. But can you quickly provide an answer why investopedia is considered as a spam link, it looks like a dictionary and the content is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.211.93‎ (talk 04:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked at the site, and it appeared to be low value content surrounded by intrusive advert spam. It did not look like a convincing WP:RS.  As such, I felt that your edit did not enhance the article, both due to the unnecessary addition of a low value source and the inappropriate use of style later in the changes.  Overall, I felt that the change had the characteristics of someone adding spam links to promote a website, on the balance of probabilities.  I cautioned you about adding spam links to ensure that you were aware of the policies, and help you understand them.   Murph 9000  (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * thank you, by advert spams you mean pop-up ads - right.(I wont add that link any more) thank you for the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.211.93 (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok. It's not just popups, it's a flood of irritating dynamic stuff around their content which only serves to distract from the content itself:
 * Overlays that demand to be closed before content is visible.
 * Flashing nonsense in the middle of the content flow.
 * Stuff which adds negative value and demands to use Adobe Flash.
 * The page bouncing around unreadably as the dynamic garbage fights to load and get attention.
 * Constant repeating garbage as you scroll the page.
 * Massive waste of CPU, RAM, and bandwidth from non-content garbage.
 * Unclear boundaries between content and adverts.
 * It feels like a site which is primarily dedicated to serving adverts; with content as a strictly secondary concern which takes up valuable screen space that they would prefer to fill with more adverts. I found it to be an entirely unpleasant site to view, with just endless irritations, right up there with the worst of the worst in terms of prioritising adverts over content.  By spam, I mean all of the non-content garbage that assaults the eyeballs when trying to look at their content.  That all adds up to me not having confidence in the academic value of their content, i.e. the value/status of it as a WP:RS.
 * Others might feel differently about it, and they are very welcome to express their opinions over at the article's talk page, or in their edit actions. I've given my opinions on it.  If I'm wrong, and the site does actually have value, fair enough.  For now, I'm taking a step back from it, to see what other opinions are out there.
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. Its over. Thank you for explaining elaborately. There would be no investopedia link references. Good day.59.88.211.93 (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for engaging in discussion over it. If you wish, and believe you have a convincing case to support the value of the link, please do feel free to make the case over at the article's talk page.  I doubt you'll convince me (stranger things could happen), but I'm one voice amongst many.  Wikipedia very much welcomes and encourages the editorial discussion side of things, within reasonable bounds (i.e. feel free to give it a shot there, stay within the general good conduct for discussions, and read the signs and stop before it gets silly).  Thanks.   Murph 9000  (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a Primum non nocere kind of person, and there is more than enough reasons provided by you to consider the link as a spam. Its all good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.211.93 (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, and you're welcome.  Murph 9000  (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, you too are welcome!  Varun  FEB2003    10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Update
Assume good faith does not mean, "disregard evidence of bad faith." The account had a disruptive username and it's editing history clearly reflected that it was a sock. It was reverted and blocked by a checkuser. Jehochman Talk 00:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed, in general, just I differ on interpretation of the specifics. The username was a poor choice certainly.  The edit history could have equally reflected someone who had been IP editing for years, had finally decided to register, and was venting some free speech regarding WP.  It certainly did have some appearance of being a sock, but their actions had not overtly crossed the line (short of a personal attack, spam, or other quite clear policy issues, I mostly ignore criticism of policy and the like within userspace).  I feel strongly obliged to always give the benefit of the doubt at WP:TH, when there is not entirely clear evidence to the contrary.
 * On the other hand, I was watching their contributions quite closely, I was actually highly suspicious of them, and I would have very rapidly reverted any changes outside of personal userspace which were in the least bit disruptive. Honestly, I wasn't really surprised that my good faith turned out to be unwarranted, but I'm glad that I stuck to it and would do it again, as the simple fact was that their (somewhat odd) question at the Teahouse was their only action outside their userspace at the time, and there was not any real active disruption from them.  I was quite confident that admins would take action if it proved necessary.  If I had CU tools at my disposal, I would likely have judged the account quite differently.  Oh yeah, and there was a small clue in my TH reply that I did have some suspicions, with my link to mens rea, which is not something I would tend to link to someone I thought was acting with entirely clean hands (unless it was actually strictly relevant).
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologize
I apologize for my behavior over the last several minutes. I will make sure to be extra careful to think before I submit any changes if I am off of my prescribed meds, as I am right now (i have ADHD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enormous-fart (talk • contribs) 07:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough, I accept. Honestly, I wasn't even that offended, but a WP:PERSONAL is still a very bad line to cross, as you can't possibly know how it will be received.  Look, you made 2 useful main article edits with good accurate summaries as your first main article space edits. If you are WP:HERE, seriously knock the silly stuff off, or it won't end well for you.  You may or may not need to change your username, but that's not my call, depends on the admins, just FYI.  We get a lot of new accounts who just want to cause some form of trouble, but your case is unusual with two good edits right at the start.  If you are willing to stay within the policies and guidelines, edits like those two to Target and Drug user are very welcome and needed.  I had to give you a big STOP final warning, as you were on a fast route to an indefinite block.  So, it's up to you WP:HERE and play nice by WP:PG, or WP:NOTHERE and gone.   Murph 9000  (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Killing It

 * Thanks, I appreciate it! { Murph 9000  (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Mwahahahaha!
Hello. Yes, the above editor is a sock, one that got me inconveniently autoblocked under the username MWHAHAHAHA! Probably best to take this one to SPI.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would have filed a SPI, but I've had single account suspicions rejected there before.  The username you quoted above doesn't seem to exist (not sure if you meant that as the master's name or not).  So, without the username of a sockmaster, it's not clear to me how I can report it there.  AIV seemed like the easier option, and the admins can initiate SPI from there if they want to.  I'm open to suggestions, happy to file the correct reports.  Feel free to file a SPI yourself, if you have the necessary details, I'm certainly not concerned about who gets the credit for reporting them.   Murph 9000  (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Maine Superior Court justices
Murph9000, thanks so much for your help, I was so pleased to see the job you did on my edit about Robert L. Browne, the Maine jurist. He was a fine man and a consequential judge, and deserved to be included in the list. LoveinMaine (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for your contribution of the information.    Murph 9000  (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Question from GaidakM
but why would you nominate my user page for deletion? username Maryna Gaidak (GaidakM) seems promotional? then i truly don't understand the rules as this is my real name unlike many other users' profiles — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaidakM (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not the name of the page that was the problem, it was the content. Our user page guideline specifies what you may have on your user page, and promotional content is not allowed.  The content looked promotional, so I tagged it as possibly meeting CSD G11.  An administrator reviewed my tag, evidently agreed with it, and deleted the page.  Your username is ok, the content was not ok for a user page.   Murph 9000  (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * im editing it now and hopefully will be able to get it up this time, i had a couple more security articles coming and am confused not on how to present it. but ill give it a try. thanks

Also, could you please explain how is this and many other similar articles not advertisement? i was trying to explore what was out there, looked at approved articles, read guidelines and make one of my own based on this and many other security software publications

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaidakM (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is not a very good comparison, Malware Bytes has been around for much longer, and it's page is far better referenced (22 vs 5) than the Reason Core Security Anti-Malware page is. 220  of  Borg 20:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good answer.
 * 220 is quite correct, WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally not a good justification for anything on Wikipedia. There are probably many articles out there which should be deleted, and probably will do when someone notices them and initiates one of our deletion processes.  Additionally, the other major issue is WP:NOTABILITY / WP:NCORP.  When the quite strict notability criteria are not met by an article, it is much more likely to be viewed as promotional.  If notability is not clearly demonstrated in the article (and supported by reliable sources), it is unlikely to survive for long, even if it manages to avoid immediate speedy deletion.  In essence, Wikipedia only wants to have articles on the biggest and most significant products and companies, viewed from a global perspective, and is not interested in having articles on the other 80–90% of the market.
 * I strongly recommend not directly creating new articles, but instead use the Articles for Creation process, where you create drafts and then submit them for review. The AfC process does not remove the need to prove notability, but it does avoid rapid speedy deletion and gives you more of a chance to develop an article if you are certain that notability exists.  Also, if something gets deleted, it is normally an extremely bad idea to recreate it before fully discussing it with either the deleting administrator or an experienced editor.  Recreating pages immediately after they are deleted is very often seen as abuse and frequently leads to users getting blocked from editing.
 * If you have any more general questions, you are best to ask them at either the Help Desk or Teahouse, for a faster answer. You can ask me here, but there are usually many experienced helpers available pretty much at all hours of the day on those pages.  If I get busy with something, it can take a while for me to answer non-urgent messages left here.  Thanks.
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks.    Murph 9000  (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

COI on Draft of Tim Solly
Thanks for your note regarding COI. I didn't realise this. I have a question/concern though... I started a page on Tim Solly but now see there will be a huge problem with conflict of interest as I am his wife. There is more than enough information on him in the media/publications/video etc to back up everything I have written and I have tried to reference everything clearly and remain completely neutral, sticking only to the facts. I'm not sure what the best way is to proceed. Shouldn't me adding all the citations override any COI? Alysolly (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Aly. Thanks for openly declaring your COI.  As it happens I wrote a fairly long answer for a more or less identical scenario on the Help Desk yesterday.  So, rather than repeat all that again here, I'm going to point you to it.  The key things are that you need to work with us to address the issue, and for you to read the following documents and follow their advice:
 * Conflict of interest
 * Neutral point of view
 * You can find yesterday's answer for this (to another editor) at . Please have a good read of all of those.  If you have any followup questions (please do ask for clarification, etc), it's probably best to ask them at the Help Desk, both for a faster response and so that you can get the best possible advice from all of us.  You certainly can ask me stuff directly, but it is to your benefit to get answers from all of us on the Help Desk, as the other helpers will often give additional information or add something we individually forget.  Thanks.
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Link
Thank you for providing the link. Is it one-d, or lower-case-lima-d? I just wish that when editors ask about a draft or an article, they would provide a link to the article, which I did, but you provided an additional service by providing a special template for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's L-link D-draft, similarly there's L-link A-article, and other namespace-specific linking templates.  or  are the generic ones, and the docs on those templates let you see all of the other more specific ones.  I agree with you, unspecified or unlinked pages in questions is a major peeve for me (and external links to a lesser extent), so I try to regularly patrol some of the major help pages and both provide the most helpful links and encourage good practice by providing them.  I find it extremely useful to be able to jump directly to talk, history, logs, etc when answering questions.  If the question is extremely simple, I'll sometimes leave it as just a simple link if that's easy to see in the heading or first paragraph of the topic, but I add them for most questions that may need more in depth consideration.  It's also helpful for those of us with less than perfect eyesight (I include myself in this), as dark blue links in the middle of black text are actually quite hard to see at times.   Murph 9000  (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Help No. 4
Since you're obviously online right now, and your userpage says you use MediaWiki professionally, I thought I'd contact you instead of the first guy who helped, whose userpage says he's not online much.

Could you check the "Add link to template" section at WP:HD? I asked for help doing something and I was shown what to do, but at the end I've left a note about being confused by the other user's comments regarding span and sidebar. I can do some MediaWiki work by copy/pasting and figuring out what certain things do, but I'm totally unable to follow the other user's instructions. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. I tested the deletion URL from the HD thread on my localhost wiki (with full bureaucrat rights), and that part seems fine.  The delete-reason thing is to integrate with some custom code in MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js, and you also need delete-criterion.  You would add   in your template, for the WP custom sysop JS to detect.  The sysop JS then adjusts the standard MW UI's delete link (in the "More" menu/tab at the top (in the Vector skin)).  Hopefully that explains the missing details.  Basically add both the link in the displayed text of the template, and those hidden spans so that the standard "Delete" UI option is also pre-loaded with the same thing.  Feel free to ask for more clarification.   Murph 9000  (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I'm still confused where those spans go.  Would you add them directly to a sandbox?  This revision of my sandbox is a simple copy/paste of Template:AFC submission/draft, and this revision is the result of adding the code supplied at WP:HD to the text in question.  Could you just edit my sandbox by adding the spans where they belong?  Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, can do. That extra HTML can basically go anywhere that's within the #if that encloses the extra text for stale drafts.  I've added them in what should be a reasonable enough spot.   Murph 9000  (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ellipses usage
Unless I am reading the style guide wrong, isn't the Ellipses supposed to go between words without any spaces? Therefore, isn't this incorrect "That Mr. Trump was able to obtain the location... is testimony to [his] persistence and to his skills as a negotiator."? Thanks! NationalInterest16 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, I mean shouldn't there be a space before the ellipses as well as after it? NationalInterest16 (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ahh yes, you are correct, in that situation there should be a space both before and after. I didn't spot that was missing, only that you changed from the recommended style based on the wrong style guide.  I have corrected it.  Thanks for spotting it.   Murph 9000  (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Geekstreet
Murph, I was wondering why you found it necessary to welcome this user to Wiki? There was already a similar welcome message on the page (from July) which was also more 'specific' relating to their membership of the F1 project. The user had placed a 'to do' list above the earlier message which may have confused the issue. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I simply didn't see the existing welcome, probably a combination of it having a different section heading from the usual and being down the page a bit (and being one of the plainer styles of welcome, not suggesting that is a bad thing, it just isn't quite so obvious). I've self-reverted now, on the basis of unnecessary noise, thanks for pointing it out.   Murph 9000  (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. The more the merrier maybe? Yes, I cut out some of the early parts of the message and the heading resulted from a message at my talk-page re the Penske F1 car which was why there was additional verbiage in the middle! Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk‎
I'm not sure why, but apparently by reverting that removal of 27k worth of treads, you may have pinged everyone who commented in that content. At least, you pinged me, and it seems to be the revert that did it. This may be a glitch that needs some attention. Timothy Joseph Wood 19:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I had a feeling it might do something silly like that, but such is life.   Murph 9000  (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:RichBoi Streeter‎
I pointed this and the draft version out to the admin who salted the article. Meters (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was fast. Already done. Meters (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Murph 9000  (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hi - instead of semi-protecting the page you reported to RFPP, I put pending changes on it for six months since we've not tried that yet and it's not that frequently edited. I see you aren't a reviewer; if you'd like me to give you the permission so you can review the changes to this article and others, I'd be happy to do it. Just ping me if you want it. :-) Katietalk 21:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Katie, yeah PC is a reasonable solution, it just needs something to mitigate the nonsense. Yes, please, I'll take a reviewer bit and promise to use it wisely and cautiously.  Thanks.   Murph 9000  (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katietalk 21:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks.    Murph 9000  (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Murph9000. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMurph9000 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.


 * User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/ConfirmRollback is what you're after. NQ-Alt (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.    Murph 9000  (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ramphotyphlops - Indotyphlops
I updated the taxonomy to reflect the name changes by Hedges et al 2014 Scott.Eipper (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Questions about Javascript and toggling annotations
See Village pump (technical). The Transhumanist 15:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Message from Beca124
Thank you for your message. I've forgotten which comment I was referring to, but I do have some information which wiki may find helpful. Remaining neutral on any topic is the better way of informing those interested in learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beca124 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

CybrHome
Hey, remember I once proposed external link templates for portals like CybrHome, Product Hunt, Medium etc. and we had debated on the same with other editors/admins. well to my surprise instead of working on a template someone has completely deleted the page CybrHome itself. It was okay if template were not accepted but deleting the page itself for proposal of a template is not justified I think. Some person has deleted the entire article without discussion stating it as promotional. As you know I had once asked you to review that page as well as the portal and there were no issues. I firmly believe it was completely factual and written from a neutral point of view with about 15 citations. How can someone delete entire page and all my improvements made. It was my first contribution to wikipedia and its gone. Wondering if I should continue contributing or not as nothing is reliable here. I know it is not you who deleted the page but still I am writing this to you because you're the most sensible and practical admin I have seen on wikipedia. Waiting for your views, advice and insights here. DataManiac (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Want to help test advanced new tools planned for Recent Changes?
Hi Murph9000! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re an active Twinkle new user welcomer. The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle Welcomer. Include the following information:


 * Username


 * Email where we can reach you


 * Your city or time zone


 * Best time to talk to you


 * Your primary use(s) of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks!

Dchen (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)