Jump to content

User talk:Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive/Archive27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Update on my talk page

[edit]

I updated my talk page after seeing you and another person with a unlogged-in ip talking on my page, not sure why they wanted to debate on my talk page but I suspect it was astroturfing due to my warning to you about the palin stuff. Belgarath TS (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION PLEASE

[edit]

Dear Fellow Wikipedian - I have never made any revisions to this page: Revision history of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. THERE MUST BE SOME MISTAKE. In fact, I have done nothing to violate any Wiki Policies and have only tried to add insightful medical content or helpful links. I would ask for your help in protecting a valid contributor like myself only wishing to help others with relevant medical information and protect me from frivolous edits made by administrators with no real interest in helping the public, only assuming a false sense of power over others. PLEASE UPHOLD the integrity of Wikipedia and review the history of these administrators who delete information and or links without giving reason like " Jfdwolff " on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headache and contribute NOTHING valid to wikipedia! Thank You Neuro114 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Neuro114[reply]

New Message on my talk page!

[edit]

Please reply to my talk page. I've commented.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help possible need

[edit]

As you helped resolve some issues that I was involved in, your help would be greatly helpful on another issue that has arising on the Red River Rivalry article page I would go in to great detail here but I think its best if I let you look at the discussing that is taking place on the talk page any way that you or even someone else can help would be greatly helpful.--SteamIron 06:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

[edit]

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

[edit]

Hey there Master of Puppets, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Master of Puppets/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

[edit]

Hello, Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait

[edit]

Not vandalism, he was just trying to revert a cut-and-paste move. Use of too many exclamation marks isn't generally a blockable offence is it? --Closedmouth (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which was, to my knowledge, notabilified. Is that a word? m.o.p 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:D

[edit]

CharlieEchoTango has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

[[CharlieEchoTango]] 01:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of material at The Deputy

[edit]

One of the editors recently deleted the entire sourced section in The Deputy regarding it's connection to communist propaganda on the (again) completely unsubstantiated and unsourced assertion that it is a "conspiracy theory". I'd like to avoid edit warring, however it seems to me that this is completely unwarranted and verges on vandalism, considering that there is no meritorious basis for deleting the entire section. How can this be dealt with? Mamalujo (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOP, how would you feel about one month of full protection for this article? I see that Ekwos has stopped by to remove the section again. The dispute about the KGB connection has been running for almost a year now. Full protection could motivate people to discuss the issue, and perhaps create an RfC. Thanks EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One month of pending changes is better, I think. I don't like limiting legitimate editors, but this will disallow further warring from disrupting the 'pedia. m.o.p 07:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Gabriel Weinberg

[edit]

I think you should of kept the article so I could of at least merged with DuckDuckGo. I am not writing a third article for the same person. So now Wikipedia will be missing valuable information. Smooth Ddonald99 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my decision to delete the article. We had clear community consensus. Please stop taking thins personally. m.o.p 07:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

[edit]

Actually user:Zjarriretues is removing a reliable source [[1]] that mentions his ethnicity and places another that's more suitable to his national standarts. Although the source Zjarri. prefers is also 'rs' he did not disagree in the article's talkpage with my version [[2]].

Unfortunately when a couple of months passed you prefered to make his revert per wp:ninja, without explaining the reason of this (very) delayed revert.Alexikoua (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself, however, an explanation is needed in the talkpage by the user since he agreed in the past with the version I've presented on Aug..Alexikoua (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend the the IP

[edit]

He/she is at it again. Adding that same sentence on Chicago. Is a block in order? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sent you an email

[edit]

Hi, m.o.p. I sent you an email. Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of your userboxes says you're only 17! I would have sworn you were older than that! ; ) --Kenatipo speak! 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you'll have me up for OUTING you! (just kidding). Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 02:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla

[edit]

Hello, I am wondering why you do not think that Godzilla (2012 film project)‎ does not violate Wikipedia's policy of not being news. Topics are supposed to be of enduring notability. Plans for a film cannot be declared of enduring notability if there are only news reports that are written with a film in mind. The only appropriate way for it to work is if a project failed in development and got retrospective coverage, since it would address the plans themselves. Contemporary news reports could then be used to provide detail, not be used by themselves to serve as the basis of a topic of enduring notability. The notability guidelines for future films exist to ensure that discussion about planned film are relegated to the source of their importance, may it be the source material or a well-known filmmaker. A "film project" like the Godzilla one clearly demonstrates that it is not a topic of enduring notability when if filming begins, the scope has to be redefined as a regular film. In contrast, a film article is created at least when filming begins because per WP:CRYSTAL #1, it will be near certain that a film will come out. Its scope is set for eternity. Godzilla's scope is not. It should have belonged at the franchise article in the appropriate section for the time being. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it doesn't. If you check our crystal ball policy, you'll notice that it says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." That policy is meant to stop unsourced conjecture and speculation by editors, so I think we're fine in this case. m.o.p 14:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is appropriate to report discussion. It was reported at Godzilla (franchise)#American Reboot because the so-called "film project" is not a topic of enduring notability. It reports about a film that is not certain to happen, violating WP:CRYSTAL #1 about including it as a stand-alone topic. To use another example, Shantaram was a failed project to be based on the novel, and we have a film adaptation section at the novel article here. We are able to report discussion because such plans inherit their notability from something else, such as the source material or a famous filmmaker's intent. See also WP:NTEMP: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage... Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." The references in that article were routine news reports for the film industry; actions like buying film rights to a famous work or a project changing directors are the norm. The article did not have critical analysis, either, and is possibly on the promotional side, detailing the film's appearance at Comic-Con with a contemporary news report, not a retrospective one that would give it weight. I will keep my eye on the article, but I ask you to reconsider that plans for a film do not constitute a topic of enduring notability unless there are key events in development that have led to critical analysis (like at The Hobbit film project with all its troubles). Here, with Godzilla, the reports are extremely normal. The studio announces its plans for a film, and a director is attached for it (which is not a guarantee). That's what it boils down to, and it's not enough to be more than a news source. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you've explained your position to me (though I did read your points in the AFD thread) but I can't delve into stuff like this. If you're not happy with my close, you're fully welcome to ask another administrator or even open another AFD. m.o.p 16:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't do anything for now. I would just prefer to keep such articles a rarity. Following films for some time, a lot of people tend to create an article about a film the moment it is announced (or the moment something new happens, like a new director). I do like to report discussion (did so at Concrete Island) but it's more a matter of where for me, to ensure topics of enduring notability. I did want to ask, do you think a merge discussion in general would be more beneficial? I feel like an AFD like that foments a keep-or-delete mentality that overrides the in-between solution of reporting discussion under a broader article until we can be near certain a film will exist. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A merge discussion would be great; I could weigh in and such. Feel free to open one up if you'd like to. m.o.p 23:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

[edit]

Please respond at Talk:2011 Iranian protests. If you are going to enforce blocks on anyone who messes with adding links and templates about the Arab world protests (along with reversions), then you also need to enforce blocks on people who take them off. (Maybe not blocks right away though, I think that part of your initial message is a bit harsh.) I have commented about someone who has done just that on the talk page. Please respond to it. SilverserenC 03:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

userspace

[edit]

yours ;) I've been messing about in there. You recall a problem with a horizontal scrollbar? nada. Also, all those font-families are likely not showing for most people; it depends on their having them installed. Also, typefaces with a space in their names should be single-quoted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at STATicVerseatide's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

STATic message me! 16:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Protect my talk page

[edit]

This IP-hopping anonymous user keeps undoing my striking-out of his/her comment even though it's a clear violation of WP policy, and has been unwilling to get consensus. I need help.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, this IP also misused the edit war template on my talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block an IP

[edit]

Hi I want to block this IP 79.109.143.197 because it say me Gay for hurt me, THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EustaquioAsecas (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-Mail

[edit]

Hello, Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— WWEJobber (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

[edit]

User:146.232.75.208,[3] appears to have difficulty understand original research and battleground mentality. He/she has introduced questionable sources from unpublished, highly nationalistic websites as "sources" for his/her anti-Turkic vendetta throughout Wikipedia.[4][5][6] I have had to restored references and referenced information from neutral published sources that User:146.232.75.208 finds unpalatable. I have also had to remove weasel words within referenced sentences, that User:146.232.75.208 has decided to subvert from their original meaning.[7] Could you take a look at this editor's actions? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nice guy

[edit]

hiii master of puppets, ok do u know the movie Twilght saga ? rply me back i want 2 talk 2 u a lot because i like ur pesonalty.BY Adi21124 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:MoPuppetarmy.png

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:MoPuppetarmy.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Deputy

[edit]

Could we have your assistance at this page. We had previously come to an agreement regarding the nature of the role of Eastern Bloc intelligence in the play: "Yes of course; if the material only used truly reliable sources, was cut down in accord with WP:UNDUE, worded in accord in WP:NPOV, and moved to the correct location, it would be perfectly reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)" Jayjg had indicated at one point he would do a rewrite. He'd also had objections to the source where Rychlak had published (Pave the Way Foundation). He did not come up with the revised section so I reinserted the section with new citations to Rychlak's meticulously researched and footnoted 2010 book, rather than the earlier publication tha Jayjg objected to as self published. I would have been glad to have the section edited for POV and reduced somewhat for weight, but Jayjg seems to have reneged on what he agreed to earlier here and on the talk page. Some editors on the page, including Jayjg, keep tossing around terms like conspiracy theory when it clearly is nothing of the sort. Three noted scholars, all who write on this period in history say it is credible. It's also been published published world wide in top news sources. Mamalujo (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. My concern was not that Jayjg indicated he would rewrite and did not do so, but that he had agreed to allow more of the disputed section in the article rather than a dismissive sentence or two, but when editors began to delete the entire section based on frivolous reasons, he supported it. It appears now that we have, or are in the process of reaching a resolution. The section is now in the article, reduced substantially to account of Jayjg's concers about undue weight. Mamalujo (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Rushing page deletion

[edit]

I would like to know why the stub I created about a pornographic actress by the name Cody Lane has been deleted whereas many other stub of pornographic actors exist, many of them even less notable. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any further discussion of Sarah Palin will result in a warning, and then a temporary block. Thank you!

[edit]

Hmmm, that might be just a tad excessive. We don't want to suppress all discussion, because that's when the pressure has nowhere to go, and people will go and meatball:ExpandScope.

Since scope is already expanded to international media, forcing scope to expand further might be a bit of a Bad Idea (tm). I recommend Not Going There.

If we're really intent on keeping discussions off of WP, we can always create a wikinews article, and link to the "discuss this article" page.

However, at the moment, people seem to be keeping it down to a dull roar anyway.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you caught my side point, but I'd like to stress the part I'm trying to tell you to watch out for!
Long term empirical experience shows that attempts to curtail discussion on wikipedia will not slow down the internet discussion elsewhere (or even on wikipedia). Instead, that's exactly what will feed it more and more steam. So Don't Do That.
Experience shows that the following approaches work:
  • Try to centralize all (spurious) discussion in one place
  • keep it as focused on encyclopedic work as possible.
  • Treat the new users like new users. They don't know our rules yet. Teach them!
  • The foundation would like to see us be more welcoming towards new users. That's a good idea! Let's do that.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And... it went to AN/I (see below) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Notice on Paul Revere

[edit]

You seem to be asserting some admin right to quench discussion on the talk page by blocking and/or warning with the editnotice that I don't think we have, by policy. IAR doesn't cover stomping on people, no matter how annoying a particular conversation is.

Kelly started a WP:ANI discussion on this.

Followups probably best on ANI as I am sure others will want to comment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On review - I'm going to blank the edit notice now. If an ANI consensus develops to support restoring it then I'll not object at all, but I think it's novel and enough of a stretch that the default should be "no" unless consensus develops otherwise. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does a user find a mentor?

[edit]

Hello, m.o.p. How does a user find a mentor? (No, it's not for me -- I'm beyond help.) My wikibuddy, User:Fountainviewkid, has been getting into some scrapes and sometimes needs sage advice and sometimes technical advice. I was looking at the Online Ambassador page but it looks like something different than what we need for Fountainviewkid. The back-story is that FVK is a conservative Seventh-day Adventist and has been butting heads with, SURPRISE!, BelloWello aka WikiManOne, a not-so-conservative SDAdventist. I appreciate whatever you can tell me. Kenatipo speak! 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Lucy Burke

[edit]

OK. This is simple. 86.45.75.42 slapped a speedy tag on the article claiming it was patent nonsense AND unreferenced (although I don't know how the hell you reference patent nonsense). I removed the tag and added references using the existing external links which I then removed as it was a reference. Of the other two external links, one was dead and the other was a sentence. Since then the IP keeps reverting because for some reason he wants the article unreferenced. PTJoshua (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Bluefist's talk page.
Message added 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bluefist talk 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did what you asked but the IP reverted it again. PTJoshua (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're removing everything I say. Please don't do this. It isn't helpful. --86.45.75.42 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll talk to them. Sit tight for a second. m.o.p 21:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did revert when he did it the first time. After the second, I let it go. I tried to explain things on his talk page. PTJoshua (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Deletion of 48gogreen page :Apaleja

[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for quick response. I appreciate your reason. but if you do some research you'll find more then 4 or 5 substantial mentions in local or international media - in a newspaper, on a notable website, etc. - to put forward this article. There is a link on official website of company. http://www.48gogreen.com/static/web

Looking forward for your response. thank you in advance to undelete article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apaleja (talk • contribs) 08:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some articles from International Press (you can use Google translator-if you use chrome it'll provide option immediately):

http://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/wcm/cinema/sezioni_primopiano/PrimoPiano/Gadoev.htm

http://domani.arcoiris.tv/girano-un-corto-in-48-ore-e-arrivano-dritti-a-cannes/

http://www.close-up.it/spip.php?article6724

http://www.flashvideo.it/news/9/2578/

http://www.emilianoromagnolinelmondo.it/wcm/emilianoromagnolinelmondo/news/1trim2011/matteo_cervellati.htm

http://www.radioemiliaromagna.it/cultura/cinema/videomaker_bolognesi_cannes_corto_ecologico.aspx

Also if YOU HAD READ careful our site you should have see the Press link (those are press links not blogs) with all these web press: http://www.48gogreen.com/static/web

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apaleja (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning On Edit Warring of Efik language dispute

[edit]
  • If My Reporting a false article is the reason you want to block me. Then Go ahead and BLOCK me.
I can be Block because I don't care to be part of a web/Encyclopedia of Lies! Although I have contributed anonymously to wikipedia since 2008, I only just signed on a few weeks ago to report an error that I thought was made. But you and your other BIASED administrators have refused to fix this error, instead you're all threatening to block me.
  • : According to Wikipedia A false statement/article is removed immediatley it is realized. Yet as am reporting it you all are threatening me for causing disruption.
  • You all are saying that I called I called Kwami Slow, Dumb etc. Yet Kwami used the words Ignorance first.

"As for Ukwa, your ignorance is not evidence of anything".

What is the meaning of IGNORANCE? S/He also said;

"But we cannot have the same article under two names, nor an article on Ibibio-Efik that does not include Ibibio, nor an article on Efik that does not include Efik. A little common sense would be helpful."

What is meaning of Common sense? Or because Kwami put it very nicely, and mine wasn't? Also I wasn't blanking the Efik page, since I just signed on it takes me a long while to write up an article. According to the statements above, Kwami said I could develop articles on Efik and Ibibio, that is what I was doing when you or your other BIASED administrators returned the articles back to the re-direct.
  • : Since wikipedia says a false statement is fixed immediately it is reported, I explained out the mistakes, but Kwami kept insisting that me a native who speaks these languages was wrong and asked for sources. I provided the sources and Kwami Called A brilliant Historian who is a Million times more knowledgable than Kwami on the language;

"utterly ignorant AND not some random idiot who posted a web page".

Yet you and your other Biased colleges are claiming that am the one attacking Kwami and causing a disruption.
  • : Am done with Wikipedia, am going to be taking this issues to the Founder/head by email, once the Ibibio union are involved it might become a legal matter if Wikipedia still continues to portray this misleading information.

I will take this matter to the heads by Email first because they might not be aware of what you all supposed administrators are doing to their image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mops,

Pls read my comments on the ANI page. I think Ibibiogrl means well, she just needs some guidance, and she's not willing to take it from me. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we would like to have contributors from that part of the world, but Ibibiogrl's record here is so unpromising that I think we need good assurances that something will change in the future. (I would welcome any evidence that Ibibiogrl means well. It is hard to improve the encyclopedia when you have no interest in or respect for its policies. Read her statement above if you are uncertain about that). Mentorship has value only for someone who understands that something has gone wrong and would be willing to work with a mentor. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed in this case - I have no grudge against Ibibiogrl, but the editor's attitude, despite multiple pleas for otherwise, remained combative and even insulting at points. If there's a serious expression of guilt and the editor decides they'd like to walk a different path, I'd be happy to help. However, as it is now, I believe the block should stand. m.o.p 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would require some indication that she wants help. Just my 2¢ as the person she's most upset with. — kwami (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, your input is highly appreciated, and very admirable; as the editor in conflict with her, I respect your neutrality and helpfulness. As for Ibibiogrl, we'll see where that goes. Cheers! m.o.p 00:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you adopt me i want a new adopter.

[edit]

Hello, Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(Curiouscorey (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Pit (2nd nomination)

[edit]

I'm a little puzzled by your decision. Three editors (including the nom') wanted to keep, while only two wanted to delete. Either there was no consensus, or the consensus was to keep. What's the point of having an AfD, if admins come along and over rule the consensus? The subject clearly met WP:MUSICBIO because he had released several works with Armada Music. The mention of YouTube was simply to further support the point that besides meeting the criteria to the letter, he meets it in the real world too. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This isn't personal

[edit]

I belive the AFD on Campaign for "santorum" neologism was closed way to early and am contesting your close.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 21. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 12:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Ball

[edit]

Why was this deleted? The discussion AS OF THIS MORNING was in favor of keeping it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_James_Ball 128.107.239.233 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to delete (see here). Cheers, m.o.p 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. But I will not be blocked - _I am adding_ wikipedia to adblock. I also feel regret for having donated to the site before, but this will not happen again. Demonuminon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thomas James Ball

[edit]

Why the hell did you delete his page? Does his suffering mean nothing to you?

Heartless bitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.206.141 (talk • contribs)

Hey, Master of Puppets, OBVIOUSLY there is a public interested in keeping this article. Restore your deletion. Look at the massive flood of comments regarding your deletion here: http://www.<linkremoved>.com/2011/06/24/the-organized-silencing-of-a-man-publicly-burned-to-death/ and here http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/i81rw/the_organized_silencing_of_a_man_publicly_burned/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romerom (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ball HIT A FOUR-YEAR-OLD CHILD, refused to pay child support, called for insurrection, demanded terrorism and violence as a solution, ultimately killed himself (leaving his children without a father) and damaged public property in the process. Even after all that, his incoherent message has mostly been ignored except by the less discriminating people claiming to speak for "men's rights" who haven't bothered to look into the details of his case. (If you really want to damage your cause, adopt a grown man who hits his own four-year-old child and flakes out on his child support as your poster boy.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC) (proud father who has never hit his child in his lifetime)[reply]

Hey, "proud father who never hit his child in his lifetime", not everybody is against disciplining their children by spanking. He said his daughter was licking his hand, and he had told her repeatedly to stop. She didn't, and he smacked her. He didn't punch her, or send her to the hospital, or cause any serious injury. Just enough to have his wife baited into calling the police on him by child protective services. As for child support, he paid his child support until the point where he wasn't able to afford it due to an employment issue. Is that such a crazy thing to have happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.155.1 (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while I do sympathize with the family and supporters, I am not taking sides, nor do I have any bias in this situation. I am not a feminist, nor am I a misogynist - I am fair and neutral towards all people, whether they be abusive fathers or abused fathers.
This deletion was enforced solely in keeping with Wikipedia's long-established policies. Mr. Ball's death, while indeed tragic, was not reported throughout the reliable media enough to show his notability.
I hope this makes sense to all those saddened by Mr. Ball's passing. Cheers, m.o.p 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I understand that you do not think that Mr. Ball's death is something that qualifies as an event and thus deleted said article. I disagree but I do see the merits of your argument. However, you claim to be unbiased in this debate and yet for someone who judges on the letter of the law you break the law and close debate 2.5 days before final judgment is to be rendered. If you have no corner then I ask why make this article a special case that it must be quelled , by your own admission, 2.5 days before any other articles found in similar circumstances are voted upon. I petition you to reinstate and allow the normal course of the discussion continue for the 2.5 days, allow the full opportunity for the pro side to make their case then recluse yourself from the final judgment. This is the only way to ensure transparency so that your claim of neutrality can be believed. CaffOMHW (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahead of things, let me tell you that I appreciate the civility.
Wikipedia's policies aren't law - they're guidelines. As an administrator, it's my job to apply policy in a way that is completely devoid of bias and benefits the encyclopedia as a whole.
On a side note, the deletion nomination was closed 1.5 days before the normal time. The page had a whole work week to be saved, rewritten or reworked; however, due to the lack of outside sourcing that carried reliability, there was nothing to keep that wasn't editorialized or unencyclopedic. I would also like to point out that almost every account that voiced their opinion in the 'keep' spectrum had either only edited that page or had edited very little aside from the page. Meanwhile, the deletion argument was put forward by experienced users.
Though I understand that some people take offense to my early closure, I assure them that one extra day would not have yielded success, and that I took many factors into consideration before closing the discussion.
Again, thank you for the civility, but I won't be overturning judgment or recreating a deletion discussion at this date. m.o.p 08:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

[edit]

thx for the 2 quick updates of my nom ;)

but also can you see the bolivia one. its got support and very nearly out of the news. we could tack it nearer the border.Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ball closure.

[edit]

First of all, I don't think there can be any doubt about where this was heading. That said, I was planning on looking for sources and assumed I had time to do so. Not a big deal (I only found one more source, not enough to get past WP:EVENT by any means), but I would have appreciated the extra time. I do think you've handled the issue well. I felt some of the regulars were a bit vehement/insensitive in their arguments to delete and I was glad to see your condolences in the close. Nice to see the caring about people, even SPAs (who are people too), in that situation. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God you are an ambassador for WP, and against censorship, MoP. When Wikipedia fails, and it eventually will, it will largely be because most people don't like to be gamed and would rather not read well cultivated information that is maintained by dishonest brokers who hide behind rules that are never applied in an even-handed manner. The idea that a story is not relevant merely because it is not yet encyclopedic is ridiculous when one sees all the articles which linger on for months or years in the same state. The idea that a story is not relevant because the motivations/justifications of the user are suspect would be grounds for eliminating half the biographical articles in WP. It smacks of an agenda. The appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual impropriety.173.78.20.96 (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback.
I do my best to maintain an equal, proportionate response in all dealings on Wikipedia; I don't defend things I like, or attack things I dislike, just for the reason of screwing with people. That strikes me as childish. Instead, the most I can do is try to help others understand Wikipedia policies, which are generally mind-bending and hard to grasp (for example, most people ask, "What's the reasoning a war hero isn't considered notable when Donkey Kong is?").
Maybe one day the policies will change. I mean, most of these were written five, six year ago - the world's changing, and I expect they will with time. But, for now, the guidelines handle what comes in.
Again, thanks for the input. I appreciate not being personally attacked - it makes it easier to reply. Cheers, m.o.p 05:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami (2nd nomination)

[edit]

I'd ask that you reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami (2nd nomination). If I end up taking this to DRV, we both know it most likely will be overturned. I'd rather avoid the additional drama however. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The close was thoroughly thought-out, so there's not much ground for me to explore that I haven't already. If you're set on going to DRV, there's nothing I can say which will change your mind, and it's your right to ask for a review. However, current consensus sits at delete (unless the 'keep' side is hiding an ace-in-the-hole reliable source or something). Cheers, m.o.p 04:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, what about the reliable sources we already brought up in the AfD such as this interview in Amiga Future or this news article from nr2.ru? We've already established that Amiga Future isn't sponsored by a hardware company as one !voter there falsely claimed. On a related note, did you discount the !votes from individuals making misleading statements or those claiming there were "no independent reliable sources"? (I could tell you how that !voter happened to show up there, but he isn't going to like it.) I could also link to forum posts by another delete !voter who showed up there who was very much into a "delete at any cost" mode because he doesn't like "amiga clones". --Tothwolf (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources were there before the previous close, and I, like the previous administrator, do not think they're strong enough.
I've already covered what kind of rationale was discounted and what wasn't.
As for your last statement about other editors - I'm not quite sure what your point is, but I don't think it's relevant. As I said, I've discounted any rationale that does not apply policy.
Cheers, m.o.p 05:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no...nr2.ru was only brought up in the second AfD. Strong enough is also an argument to be made in a !vote, not a closing statement. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, the Russian source was indeed added after the first AfD. Still too shaky for a stand-alone article, though. Cheers, m.o.p 13:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on my earlier comment, while I don't really want to get into an "X did this because of Y" sort of thing with regards to this AfD, there were a number of delete !voters who showed up there for personal reasons/vendettas/bias and/or who made false statements about sources. Despite the template at the top of the AfD, the second AfD also didn't suffer from the forum canvassing that the first did. One of the delete !voters actually came by way of the forum and first AfD and was trolling because of his personal dislike of Amiga clones. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they have valid, policy-based rationale, their personal motivation doesn't matter, solely for the reason that an encyclopedia based on liking or disliking things would crumble instantly. I'm sure some of the deletion crew could just-as-easily blame keep voters for being enthusiasts and fans of Natami - but that's not important. As a result, making allegations of personal bias is unnecessary. The help is appreciated, but there's nothing I can do with the information. m.o.p 15:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It matters when someone makes false statements and tries to hide what they are doing behind policy. As for keeps, quite a number appear to be from well established editors who don't appear to be all that interested in Amiga topics. As for myself, I wasn't even aware of NatAmi until the first AfD and didn't even !vote in the first AfD since I thought it was pretty obvious it was headed for a no-consensus close. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if their rationale is grounded in policy, their motivation does not matter, simply because it's impossible to discern someone's intent through text, and because the second someone accuses another of favoritism/malicious intent the entire argument turns into a bunch of people shouting, "You're lying." That's why there's nothing I can do with your information in this case. Cheers, m.o.p 16:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to you, M.O.P., for addressing another editor on your talk page, but I just wanted to jump in this conversation. Tothwolf, with no prejudice against you at all I strongly suggest you take this in perspective. There have been two AFDs and an ANI report over this article. The way you treated me on my talk page threatening DRV because I was a new administrator was, as I feel it, borderline harassing. That you canvassed two other administrators to talk to me was also a below the belt move. In good faith, I relisted the debate and it has closed again as delete. I strongly suggest taking the advice at WP:DGAF into account here and let the issue go. I don't think there will be a problem recreating this article, even pulling the old content back from the deletion log, when the subject has better sources in a broader community. I hold no ill feeling toward you, this is purely honest advice.--v/r - TP 16:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TParis, while you are correct in that this talk page is not the place for this, because you brought this up here and you seem to value honest feedback, I'll address this here.

In no way did I ever threaten you with DRV, let alone because you were a new administrator (discussion in question). I did however upon noticing that you had passed RFA only days earlier decide it best not to press you further in public and instead sent you this short email: "Sigh. I just noticed you just finished your RFA. The Natami AfD was a bad AfD to pick to close right out of the gate. It is likely to end up at DRV and given the magazine I mentioned, overturned. I really wish you would reconsider your close. You might have noticed I didn't even !vote in the AfD itself, however I did point out a number of things and took a couple of people to task for making false or misleading statements." That is the only email I sent you about the matter and not once did I ever threaten you with DRV. Please get your facts correct before making statements such as this because such mistakes can have a negative effect on others.

After you replied expressing your disagreement over the sources (and implied that I might be biased because I sometimes contribute to computing-related articles) I asked a number of other administrators (way more than two, actually) what they thought of the AfD's close because I wanted unbiased feedback to see if I was somehow totally off-track before I initiated a DRV. The feedback I got was fairly unanimous in that the close was problematic. Before I had a chance to draft a DRV however, you reverted your own close and relisted the AfD from scratch with a new listing. In no way did I ever "canvass" anyone to "talk to you" and if others did contact you directly, they did so at their own discretion and for their own reasons.

There indeed have been two AfDs, the first of which you closed (although one could also argue that the second was merely a relist of the first). The AN/I "discussion" you also mentioned wasn't really over this article or the first AfD, it was an attempt by someone to game AN/I when they were unable to bully me on their talk page. Please be more careful making these sort of blanket statements in the future because as I mentioned above such statements can cause problems for others. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're email was exactly like your reply here. You like to make threats without actually making them: "such statements can cause problems". There is very little way your email cannot be interpreted as anything other than a threat of DRV because I am a new administrator. This is all I'll say on M.O.P.'s talk page as I came here to offer honest advice and you don't seem interested in it. If you'd like to discuss further with me, you know where to find my talk page.--v/r - TP 17:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TParis, in no way did I ever make an implied threat. While I may be a little blunt and abrasive at times (or maybe I'm just an asshole), because you had just passed your RFA, I tried to treat the situation with kid gloves.

I was also attempting to assume good faith in that you simply misremembered the facts I outlined above when you made this statement here. It is easy to forget a few details here or there and not everyone maintains detailed notes for this sort of stuff (I do, for a number of reasons, although I didn't always).

As far as honest advice goes, this is a two-way street and I gave you my opinion as well. If you choose to ignore and discount it, so be it, but I'd suggest you be much more careful in the future and get your facts correct before you make the sort of statement you made above. Such statements can and do cause problems for other editors. Who knows, it may just be that you've not been around long enough yet to have witnessed people blocked or punished in some way because someone else didn't have their facts together. (If you do decide you want to continue this discussion, perhaps we should take this elsewhere.) --Tothwolf (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (2nd nomination)

[edit]

hi, i see you agree it was a keep close; what is the proper venue for discussion of an improper reopening of an AfD ? is this edit warring? what warnings are proper? 98.163.75.189 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natami

[edit]

I can do the merge per your suggestion, if you like, just drop a copy in my userspace. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know

[edit]

Apparently the afd for Thomas James Ball has attracted some media attention <linkremoved>.com/2011/06/24/the-organized-silencing-of-a-man-publicly-burned-to-death/ here. I personally have no problem with the close and think based on the arguments you made a perfectly reasonable call, but I figured you might appreciate the heads up in case a ****storm comes your way. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That's just the same little ideological website which has been pushing for the "Martyrdom of St. Thomas Ball" attention since day one; no actual new coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should also mention that the way I found it, was that someone tried submitting it to Fark.com last night. The admins did not greenlight it, so that particular submission/thread did not go to the main Fark page, appearing only to those with Totalfark accounts. The submission said something like "Wikipedia deletes burning man" (I'm not at a computer with TF access so I might not have that exactly right). It might, theoretically, based on the submission, be considered some sort of off-site canvassing (it was submitted with the asinine tag). For what its worth, the thread went uncommented, so I don't think that particular attempt garnered any support. I just wanted to drop a line in case that this was just the first drop of a large storm. If I see anything else, I'll drop a line here. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki ad

[edit]

Hello MOP, you're listed at the WikiAd template as the goto person, and I was hoping you could create an ad for our wikiproject: WP:WikiProject Conservatism? Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4chan raid

[edit]

Unfortunately the 4chan page you linked to in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#4chan raid does not exist now. Can you give a pointer to what is involved? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas James Bell, new information

[edit]

You have stated that not enough "main stream media," (I paraphrase) has discussed this man's self immolation. You need to read, Doctor Helen Reynolds' article on him http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/on-fire-but-blacked-out-the-thomas-ball-story/ to recognize how misguided you are. Please, read it, Pajamas Media, while absolutely reviled by the liberal main stream media, has more readers than most alternative news sites.72.255.45.245 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)"Pajamas Media... has more readers than most alternative news sites." Perhaps. Probably, so do many porn sites; that doesn't mean that we treat them as reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

[edit]

Monterey Bay (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

User:BillyMoses

[edit]

Just as you blocked User:BillyMoses, I started an SPI investigation. Feel free to do with it as you will. Singularity42 (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natami

[edit]

Would you regard a redirect to Minimig#Similar projects and the addition of such references as there were to Natami to that section as consistent with your close, especially if the history is not restored.? DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

[edit]

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bramalea (Züm Queen). This is just stupid. Most of the other VIVA stations have already been deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16th-Carrville (VIVA). There is no difference between these articles. I have worked on most of them, but don't care one way or the other. They should either have all been kept or all deleted. This is a stupid Wikipedia process. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is appreciated, though there's nothing I can do with it but take a note. If you'd like, you can weigh in at the next AfD(s), when/if they arise. Cheers, m.o.p 19:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Myko San – Health from Mushrooms

[edit]

... would benefit from your :hr abilities, if you can spare the time.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help! However, I'm currently away from a computer (typing this on my phone), so I'll have to check in on the 11th of July. Does that sound okay? m.o.p 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wp:NODEADLINE :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 15:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a former Wikipedian

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
It's been a few years since I last extensively edited Wikipedia and I remember you were pretty engaged in the Wikipedia community. Just wanna say congrats on becoming an administrator and for being one of the coolest people on Wikipedia!


-71.234.90.0 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so much! I'm not sure who you are, but I really appreciate the sentiment. Hope all is well! m.o.p 20:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Thomas James Ball

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas James Ball. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Comment: I don't think you wrongly closed it; with what arguments were made at the time, it was a reasonable close. I just believe strongly that another perspective should be considered. NickDupree (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV comment

[edit]

Ah, thanks for that. I thought I was endorsing the review of the original deletion. Cheers. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

[edit]

Could you please overturn the deletion of these files per File:Signature of Amitabh Bachchan.svg and File:Signature of Zakir Hussain.svg:

Diligent07

[edit]

Appears to be less than new. See User talk:Raoulduke25 where he states that this is a deliberate series of edits.

Can you please help defend our collective effort of including the obscene middle-finger incident in the Cheney Mason article? It should be maintained in the article for public interest, etc. Please see the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cheney Mason discussion page and include your thoughts in favor of having the content remain in the interests of the public, etc

[8], [9] and even imputation that an editor has a connection with the person [10]. He has been on since April, and started off as being experienced on WP IMHO. Kindly keep an eye out please. Especially for any sign of a real "collective effort"? Such as [11]? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Keep up the good work defending the "Wiki" against genre warriors. Thanks for the help! Malconfort (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

Semi protection

[edit]

Saw your revert in Sudhamoy Pramanick. Wanted to semi-protect the article due to repeated erroneous entries by an open IP. Can you plz direct me to the instruction page for the same. On request the IP user has been warnedTinkswiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

OK, this thing with the militant atheism page is impossible

[edit]

These guys are incredible... I could dig up diffs to show you how they revert and wikilawyer even the SMALLEST attempt to move the article closer to NPOV. But that would take a long time for you to read. How about I show you this instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439306187&oldid=439305595

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&action=historysubmit&diff=439304125&oldid=439303853

These guys are utterly without scruples. Who in their right mind would remove the NPOV dispute tag when heated arguments have been raging for weeks and NO moves whatsoever have been made to fix the article? Oh right, that would be someone in their right mind who is running a propaganda platform.

Anyway... I wanted to ask your advice on what to do. These guys are impossible to work with. Most of the other editors have given up and refuse to put this page on their watchlist. So what to do then? Request formal mediation? Articles for deletion? Something else?

Me and the other editors would like to see the page replaced with a disambiguation page... since literally ALL the content has already been covered (better) in Criticism of atheism, State atheism and New Atheism.

Obhave (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Master of Puppets. I noticed this conversation and thought I might add that an RfC was held over this issue a couple days ago in which many editors stated that it would not be a good idea to have the article split per WP:N, WP:RS, VP:V, WP:POVTITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, etc. When this RfC was closed, two days later, User:Obhave opened a brand new RfC on the same issue because he thinks that his way is the only one. This is motivated by his view of the term as personally hurtful. Not only that, he consistently makes personal attacks (e.g. 1 2) and frames Wikipedia like a war zone; he also ignores the comments of other editors who do wish to try to work constructively and compromise with him. The issue is not as simple as User:Obhave portrays it. Even in the new RfC, uninvolved users do not see the supposed problem which User:Obhave keeps pointing to (e.g. 1, 2). I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And why the hell did you remove the NPOV dispute tag? You still haven't answered that! Furthermore, I am flabbergasted by the lies you actually post here... you haven't been working with anyone. Also, you (or someone else in your camp) meatpuppeted previous discussions without even bothering to hide it (by adding no less than eleven religious groups into the discussion, but not Wikiproject Atheism).
Clearly there's no recourse but to request formal mediation to look into the fact that you have indeed blocked every single attempt to make the article comply with NPOV policy. Obhave (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, m.o.p... my opponents are currently twisting your words to make it look as if you were scolding user:Mann_jess all along. Obhave (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jasper Deng page protection

[edit]

MoP, you protected User:Jasper Deng for vandalism at user request and the page cites a "recent spate of vandals" but there's nothing in the page history. Are you aware of oversight issues or is there another reason for the protection?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this. m.o.p 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm! I normally expand out the edits to at least 500, apparently I was only looking at the last 50. Thanks and sorry to bother.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! m.o.p 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a procedure for brutal uncollaborated editing with a destructive intent?

[edit]

I noticed that you recently had problems with proposed brutal editing by Peter S Strempel. Although he has been more sensible on your project in the end (possibly because of your administrator status?) he has not been so with regard to the astrology project pages to which he made a similar 'razor-promise'. Could you please see this Afd request which is one of three he made for major 'history of astrology' articles within the last hour, with a promise on another important page that any comment which is not refrences within 7 days will be removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Babylonian_astrology

Is there anything that can be done about this officially to stop him wreaking havoc with content whilst he knows that the small group of editors providing content on these pages are already stretched to the limit trying to keep up with what needs to be done? I don't understand what drives some people to want to edit WP like this, but I think it is entriely the result of his ego-stress that when he proposed an edit for a passage, no one favoured it. Hope you can help or advise Zac Δ talk 01:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Zac Δ talk 01:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bring this up with Peter. Though I understand that he's acting in opposition to your beliefs, always remember to assume good faith; I believe that Peter is simply trying to help improve Wikipedia. While his methods may be lacking in some areas, he has displayed a pretty decent grasp on the policies he's trying to enforce.
However, I agree that he shouldn't be making any changes if they're not discussed with the community first. Do you mind pulling up a few diffs of where he went against consensus? I'll approach him with your concern then. Thanks, m.o.p 03:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there hasn't been any significant content dispute with Peter. He proposed a change to a section edit which wasn't a very good proposition and a few editors commented but without rancur, and I added a new section post immediately afterwards to point out the proiposed change would contradict with how the definition was given correctly at a later point in the article, outlining how I understood WP policy expected the main astrology article to pull its own content together, along with its summarised content from its daughter pages. Peter never responded to this but other editors started working in that direction immediately. Then, without further discussion or comment, Peter came back four days later to announce an intention to take his 'word razor' to all unreferenced assertions on the main astrology page, its sub-pages, and the portal page itself, to ensure his perceived disagreement was not circumvented in pages he viewed as content forks (I'm still not sure what he means by that). My response to that can be seen - a perfectly reasonable request for him to do what he felt was most productive, but consider that citation-tagging was the way to go. I also placed comments on his talk-page, which you can read if you are interested. That he erupted into a frenzy of AfD requests last night says something, I think, about his unwillingness to discuss and engage in other views. Most of his posts appear as new section declarations that don't appear to have considered the responses other editors give him.
I've summarised this in the ANI request Dougweller started. The deletion requests were a step too far IMO, and I'm concerned that Peter would spring to such drastic measures in reaction to what he perceives to be me not allowing him to do what he wants to do. I'll be away for a few days so I'm tying up my WP activity now. That underlines my concern that he intends to take such drastic action with only one week's notice of intent. Thanks for looking into this. It would be good if something could be proposed to stop huge problems before they occur. 10:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs)
One last request. I have just noticed that a related complaint, which is quite serious but has been sidetracked (deliberatly IMO) by Peter's suggestions that I have prevented him from doing what he wants, has been collapsed as "going nowehere" by an unsympathetic editor.
"Its ben here several days and no admin has even sniffed at a block or ban - clearly you're not going to get admin action. So this should got to WP:DR or WP:RFCU if you want to take it further. I've boldly collapsed this, though I won't be surprised if someone uncollapses it"
If you can find the time could you at least take a look at that related problem, and consider uncollapsing it, because the issues are serious and have gone beyond the point where Dispute resolution are appropriate. I will be away and have nothing more to add, but the problems identified still remain. Zac Δ talk 10:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do?

[edit]

See Talk:History of astrology#Deletion of unreferenced content. ANI time? Coupled with his AfDs he has to be reined in. The AfDs are clearly disruptive. He claims the articles were created as NPOV forks to avoid controversial debate although they were all created in 2006. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a threat at ANI. Those AfDs are purely pointy and if no one objects I'll close them. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied there. m.o.p 08:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page on Militant Atheism - Introduction Section

[edit]

I would just like to bring to your attention the discussion on the Introduction section, Section 16 of the talk page. It has been a week and the discussion and voting have died down, so now seems an acceptable time to rule on the subject and close that debate so the discussion and refining of the article can continue on other topics therein. Thought you'd appreciate the update. Turnsalso (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The update is appreciated, thanks very much. I've been dealing with life for the past two weeks, but I'll be back to close that discussion tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again, m.o.p 22:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just bringing this up again, given the current state of this section. I believe the discussion will be archived automatically if not closed. I'm sorry if I sound pushy with you having a lot on your plate of late. If you would prefer, I could alert User:Fastily instead. Turnsalso (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll jump on it first thing tomorrow morning. m.o.p 06:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I got to it. I've laid out my closing statement - if you have any questions, let me know. m.o.p 00:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Turnsalso (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

[edit]

Hi, thanks for the ITN update. Please refresh Template:In the news/Last update as well. Cheers, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that tab I closed had unfinished business on it... thanks. m.o.p 15:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2008 University of Central Arkansas shootings for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2008 University of Central Arkansas shootings 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 University of Central Arkansas shootings(2nd nomination) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

I was just reminded, can I have my userpage indef. semi-protected? « ₣M₣ » 03:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Both your userpage and the transcluded page are protected. Cheers, m.o.p 20:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore File:DS M&S Dream Canoe.jpg for me. Couldn't shake off feeling it should be kept. Gonna seek input. Thanks. :/ « ₣M₣ » 04:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. m.o.p 05:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Joshua the Independent

[edit]

I can't stay, but I wonder if you could review this user's edits and come to a refined judgment about the block. I don't think it's really a "vandalism-only" account, but I haven't got the time to review the edits in great deal. Some do look constructive. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 21:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - my block script auto-filled the edit summary. The block was issued due to the user's newfound will to disrupt Wikipedia intentionally. Their previous contributions are welcome, but this behaviour necessitates administrative action. m.o.p 21:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Say hi to your imaginary girlfriend for me

[edit]

Unless ofcourse she is a blow up doll. Wikipedians don't have girlfriends you time waster. If you had a girlfriend you wouldn't be making pointless changes to wikipedia to get attention. Copycatinahat (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do love getting hate mail. Thanks for the laugh! Cheers, m.o.p 05:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...further to the above lovely note, I weighed in on Calabe's talk page - there appears to be more confusion here than at first glance. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drop by again, but Silentsizzlingsausage (talk · contribs) would appear to be a duck. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an issue! Thanks for the note, blocked. Cheers, m.o.p 05:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and another one: Trebuchetpulliere (talk · contribs) bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's annoying. Blocked again. I'm hitting the bed for tonight - if this keeps up, submit a report to WP:SPI. Thanks again, m.o.p 06:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit ...

[edit]

...this block confuses me. All I see is one edit that re-adds what appears to be a valid external link (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the above section. The link is apparently a very subtle spam link that Calabe is removing, and socks are springing up to revert him. Swarm u / t 10:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation

[edit]

Dear Master of Puppets, I hope this message finds you doing well. I am writing to inform you that things are once again heating up on the militant atheism talk page. This past summer, you helped to moderate the discussion in order to ensure that editors were being civil and were refraining from making mass changes without discussion. At this time, I think that your monitoring of the talk page closely, once again, for both parties, would be helpful. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll make my way back. Thanks for letting me know! m.o.p 05:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:12.139.96.228

[edit]

I see you reverted links here. Thoughts on what should be done w/ the others? Calabe1992 (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this case is perplexing. Half of this user's edits are constructive (mostly sourced), the other half aren't sourced - and the user won't reply to anybody. I'm also too busy to go through every edit and confirm whether or not it's good. I forgot about this for a while - I'll think about it tonight and figure something out for tomorrow. Thanks for reminding me! m.o.p 05:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

[edit]

You indefinitely blocked an IP. I think something shorter, like maybe five thousand years, would suffice. CityOfSilver 22:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Must not have been looking when I ran my block script. Thanks for letting me know, I've reblocked them for a far shorter (technically, an infinitely shorter) time. Cheers, m.o.p 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyleggat404

[edit]

I've left a reply about that other thing on my talk page but Ashleyleggat404 persists in removing the block notice, despite warnings about WP:BLANKING. It seems clear that he/she has no intention of requesting an unblock so there seems little point in allowing him/her to edit even his/her talk page. Obviously, that's not my call though. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're fully right in that the blanking policy covers indefinite blocks. I've removed the user's talk page rights as a result. Thanks again! m.o.p 00:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Kwsn's talk page.
Message added 15:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kwsn (Ni!) 15:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation

[edit]

Dear User:Master of Puppets, I hope this message finds you doing well. Since you were the reviewing administrator for the militant atheism article, I thought I would once again notify you of the massive edit warring and changes that have not gained consensus, which are occurring there at the moment. I might suggest protection of the article, until a new consensus is reached. I've started a new discussion here in order to accommodate some of the issues some of previous dissenting editors had with the current introduction. Your moderation of the talk page and article would be helpful for both parties, as things are currently heating up there. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. I look forward to your response! With regards, AnupamTalk 19:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look into this please consider whether Anupam's actions on the talk page and the entry itself are violations of WP:OWN. He's been driving off those he disagrees with by bludgening them to death with argument and heavily policing the entry claiming that there is a consensus written in stone despite many dissenting voices. Others have taken to simply calling him "the article's owner." I have had enough of this behavior personally and left him a message about it on his talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Master of Puppets, the above user has misrepresented the occurrences at the article. I started another Introduction discussion at the article's talk page but User:Griswaldo has chosen to edit war over a second NPOV tag, despite the fact that one already exists in the article. He has done so despite the fact that the Introduction is being discussed in a peaceful manner at the talk page, in violation of your injunction: "We've only got consensus on this proposed versions (and loose consensus at that) - please do not attempt to subvert said consensus by making undiscussed changes." I have posted a message on his talk page about this behaviour. Nevertheless, I also do not wish to argue with the user personally and would prefer if you could go back to moderating the discussion between the two parties at the talk page. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His "injunction?" Adding a neutrality tag to a specific sentence which an editor disputes the neutrality of is hardly "subverting the consensus by making undiscussed changes." Please stop wikilawyering to get your way. There is a growing consensus against your position regarding this article in general as well, despite your aggressive policing of the entry and the talk page. See WP:CCC, and consider the fact that whatever "loose" consensus MoP mentioned is not written in stone.Griswaldo (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that, like Griswaldo, I am getting pretty tired of the ownership delusions displayed by Anupam at Militant atheism. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that I would mention that User:Griswaldo, after seeing this message, just now decided to comment in the discussion rather than edit war against consensus further. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Edit war against consensus further?" My comment there has nothing to do with your message here. I've made three total edits to this entry ever. One was a copy edit in June, another was reverting an IP vandal, and the third was the revert of your Ownership edit. Please do not insinuate that I'm a edit warrior on this page. It is disingenuous.Griswaldo (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for approaching me with your concerns.
Obviously, I do not support Anupam - this is because I'm remaining a neutral third party, and, therefore, can't take sides. However, Griswaldo: please keep in mind that I did ask for all discussion to take place on the talk page. Why not just add your complaints to the talk page? It would have been much easier to discuss.
I do agree that adding a NPOV tag, while slightly redundant, isn't horrible, but your intent seems to have been to stir discussion on that particular section, discussion that would be much more appropriate on the talk page.
As for your and Snalwibma's concerns of Anupam trying to 'own' the article, I'm curious as to what you two mean; what 'delusions'?
Also, Griswaldo, I don't think Anupam meant to insinuate you are an edit warrior (though this is just my take) - rather, they wanted to add the note that you've weighed in on discussion. m.o.p 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
your intent seems to have been to stir discussion on that particular section - No that's incorrect. I didn't add this tag, I simply reverted Anupam's attempt to own the page when he removed it. I agreed with JimWae's addition of the tag and found Anupam's removal to be unwarranted and a display of ownership.Griswaldo (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, for all intents and purposes, reverting somebody is adding whatever is included in your edit, regardless of who put it there first. You revert a removal, you're agreeing with the edition you're reverting to - simple.
And, if you agreed with JimWae, then we go back to what I was saying earlier - say so on the talk page. Two of you agree? Great! That's closer to consensus. But it means nothing if you express your support by reverting removals.
Again, as I've asked multiple times, please stop saying that Anupam is owning anything without giving me evidence of it first. m.o.p 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Master of Puppets, thank you for your reply to all of us. The reason User:Snalwibma stated that I was attempting to "own" the article was because I reverted an undiscussed removal from the article, which not only myself, but two other users objected to. In fact, two anonymous IP Addresses also reverted User:Snalwibma. I was open to compromise on the issue and stated that I would accept User:Turnsalso's compromise on the issue. I kindly request you to look at that discussion yourself and get an honest reading of it. Also, the only reason I removed the second NPOV tag was because there was already one present, which I did not remove. I only reverted the addition of a second NPOV tag once and even explained myself on the talk page. When I went to the talk page, I found rude accusations and an anti-collaborative spirit, despite the fact that I have been nothing but polite. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I know I should not rise to the bait, but I have to object to the comment "The reason User:Snalwibma stated that I was attempting to 'own' the article was because I reverted an undiscussed removal ..." How dare Anupam presume to know what is in my mind! The reason I describe Anupam's attitude to the article as one of ownership is because that is how s/he behaves - "policing" every edit, pronouncing on whether s/he "accepts" or "rejects" it, peremptorily reverting anything s/he does not like, without discussion, presuming to know others' motives, and judging them as fit/unfit to contribute to the article. This has been going on for weeks, if not months. It is impossible to discuss the content of the article, let alone improve the text, because everything is filtered through the approval/disapproval of the article's self-appointed guardian, Anupam. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that, like Griswaldo and Snalwibma, I got tired of the ownership delusions displayed by Anupam at Militant atheism. I left editting this article after giving complaint to another admin. Before me there were number of editor, who also left editting. To name a few are User:Devilishlyhandsome and User:Obhave. Abhishikt (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well add my name to that list. The current climate is impossible to work under. A variety of issues have been repeatedly shown (for months) by a large number of established editors, who cite established policies in their objections, and yet no changes have been made because: 1) they receive nothing but IDHT or "I disagree" in reply, followed by edit warring, 2) a barrage of SPAs jump in any time it looks like there might actually be consensus, state they disagree, then fail to respond to any further discussion, 3) editors seem to be taking consensus to be a straw poll, where these hit and run SPAs count more than established policies, 4) WP:OWN behavior, which forces others to either edit war or back off, and 5) all this behavior has led to a majority of the editors who have questioned the article to leave, while Anupam and the SPAs have stuck around, opposing changes all the way. I don't know how many times WP:CCC has been cited to Anupam, yet he still cites a months-old discussion which resulted in "no consensus", calling others tendentious or disruptive when they bring up certain issues, even when they are clearly in the majority. That is not collaborative. I stopped editing the article heavily because of those issues. I don't have any delusions that my opinion is worth more than anyone else's here, but I would think that the large number of established, experienced editors who are all saying there's a problem, would indicate something.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your full protection of Militant atheist

[edit]

Please reconsider your full protection. Earlier in the day several editors were reverting an IP editor, who happened to share Anupam's POV. Later I reverted his attempt at blatant ownership (issue mentioned above). By protecting the page, IMO, you're validating Anupam's ownership of it. The rest of us are apparently not enough to establish a consensus if Anupam disagrees with us? Please reconsider.Griswaldo (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, I asked that people think twice about pointing fingers at each other. If you'd like to start a sockpuppetry investigation, let me know, and we can take that avenue - however, don't accuse other editors of ownership without substance. If you think Anupam is trying to own things, give me something. Diffs, edits, anything. I'll check it out for you, but right now, baseless accusations are not what I'm looking for.
Also, notice that I protected the article with your edit being the last one. How is that validating the very person you've been reverting?
The protection will stay until consensus is reached. m.o.p 22:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because protection is what he wants quite clearly. He's stalling conversation and shouting down people on the talk page, where, if you have a look, you'll see he's clearly in the minority. Because of your "injunction" as he calls it, he also claims that no matter how many people agree with a certain change it is illegitimate. I'll be happy to gather some diffs, but my first message to you above was to please look into the situation carefully before acting on it. Did you do that and come to the conclusion that I'm wrong or did you not head that request? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did heed your request. I don't see any ownership behaviour from Anupam, though, being involved in multiple disputes, I didn't have the time to read every last word on the page, so you're free to provide evidence. However, from what I can see, Anupam's last proposal was supported by the majority - not to count (and I don't mean to imply that I decide where consensus lies by looking at pure numbers), but from looking at pure supports versus opposes, eight people (nine including Anupam) support while four oppose. How does that make Anupam's views a minority? m.o.p 22:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what view you are talking about. The current RFC on the introduction is something that most people don't even want to engage because most people think this very entry should be split up and integrated into other entries. I reluctantly engaged the RfC just now myself. The last time the more serious question about the entry was asked, several of the new commentators were not around, and there was "no consensus" found because the opposing side was chalk full of SPAs and editors with a view that is outright hostile to atheism (which is a legitimate view to hold, but it is a minority view). Let me find you some diffs.Griswaldo (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Griswaldo, that is exactly the issue: you do not want to collaborate with other users on the talk page, which is why you were reluctant to participate in the current RfC. Moreover, there were several SPA's on the side of the opposition as well, including User:Jkhwiki, User:Obhave, User:Runirokk, User:Devilishlyhandsome, et. al, all of who have participated in RfCs in the past few months, supporting the opposition. Also, it is your view that some editors are "hostile to atheism"; most of the editors here are simply trying to write an article that meets WP:NPOV. In addition, the split was again recently discussed and the specific case to do so was refuted by several editors. As such, there was no consensus for it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are trying to write an article that violates WP:SYNTH because it conflates New Atheism with oppressive communist regimes and their histories of violence. That's hardly NPOV. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi m.o.p., as someone who occasionally looks at that page (and then washes my hands), I just want to compliment you as having done the right thing in full protecting. By way of unsolicited advice to the involved editors, the best thing they could do is to allow The Wrong Version to sit there a good long time, and devote their energy to other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please reconsider your full protection of Militant atheism; User:Anupam et al.'s contributions—which certainly follow WP:V and WP:RS—deserve protection against misinformed reverts. Thanks Geremia (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of WP:OWN

[edit]
Rearranging the talk page

move comments by others to suit him [12], bump his pet RfC to the bottom of the page [13], and again [14], remove image posted by other editor [15]

I'm not really sure where the ownership is here; nowhere in our policies is it stated that a user can't promote their RFC on the subject talk page. If it's ongoing and they'd like to move it to the forefront, what's wrong with that? More so, some of your summaries seem inaccurate - in that last diff, you state that Anupam is removing images, yet I only see Anupam adding an image (the peace dove that's at the top of the page). Also, you use repeating examples. m.o.p 14:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly the last diff was wrong. Thanks for the vote of confidence. There are no repeat examples nor inaccurate summaries, just a mistaken copy paste of the second to last diff to the last position as well. I have fixed it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using "consensus" claims from one RfC to continually stifle discussion
  • By the way regarding this "consensus" it was apparently 5-7, yet MoP declared a "consensus?" Also, when this message is repeated over and over to different editors who clearly do not agree with it, and who clearly do not agree that there is any such consensus I think it should become clear that the consensus does not exist, at least not any longer (again see WP:CCC). Yet Anupam uses it like his trump card.

[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]

Using "consensus claims from one RfC to reject changes made to article content
  • Same as above. Using the "consensus" bludgeon to get his way. Please note that clearly we ought to edit by consensus, but this consensus is highly disputed, and IMO not there in the first place. The real problem is the way in which Anupam decides to use it like a trump card to remove changes he doesn't like. Ask yourself if all changes post "consensus" have been removed or just the ones Anupam decided he wanted removed.

[24], [25], [26], [27]

Master of Puppets do you need more diffs or is this enough?Griswaldo (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I need more diffs because your "evidence" so far looks like a desperate attempt to incriminate an editor who has been very successful in persuading his colleagues to adopt his proposals. Anupam has presented his proposals, argued the merits and persuaded many editors. Anything you want to tell us about why you're having difficulty doing likewise? – Lionel (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this is as conclusive evidence, either. And, it should be said - if people are editing against established consensus, then people are free to re-evaluate consensus, but edit-warring against it doesn't make much sense. m.o.p 14:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If not ownership then what is this - [28], [29], [30]? He removes two RfCs started by another editor, and revolving around the question that many of us actually find to be the fundamental question to answer regarding the entry. Then he edit wars to keep these RfCs off the page, claiming again to have some sort of authority stemming from your prior actions. If you aren't willing to do something here I'm going to another administrator and I'm going to ask for your initial "consensus," your strong arm administrating, and your lack of action here to be reviewed as well. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam has already apologized for reverting those RfC additions, and we've moved past it. He also didn't claim to have administrative authority, but was waiting for my approval. We've cleared this up, it's not an issue. So no, I'm not going to take any action (as I've said here and on ANI). Now, if you'd like to threaten me and tell me that, since I'm not cooperating with your wills, you'll go to another administrator, that's fine - as I've said, you can seek outside opinions - but remember to keep a cool head, because borderline threats are not appreciated. m.o.p 21:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a threat, "borderline" or otherwise. You are conveniently ignoring a growing number of voices who are all saying the same thing - there is an ownership problem here. The deletion issue has not been "cleared up" as far as I'm concerned. Whenever it is mentioned Anupam insists that he did not "unilaterally" delete the RfCs from the page, which is a blatant distortion, since that is exactly what he did. He continues to act as a policeman at the page, and yes he does continue to cite your authority. Did you bother to read the many diffs I posted above in the second two sections? I will quote three random examples from those I provided for you if you want.
  • When he first deleted the two RfCs he wrote: "rv - see discussion with reviewing administrator; approval needed to start another RfC while one is already occurring."
  • When he deleted a fact tag that JimWae put into the lede: "rv excessive tagging per talk; tag is already extant in header; do not subvert previous consensus but gain consensus for potential additions per administrative notice"
  • When he rejected another recent change to the entry: "accepted edits by User:Jkhwiki; rv removal of longstanding referenced content - see discussion on talk page and gain consensus for action per administrative injunction"
In talk page comments and in edit summaries he consistently does the same thing. He refers to your authority, either directly or indirectly through your "notice" or your "injunction" as he likes to call it. I never said the claimed to have administrative authority, I said that he's using your authority, by way of your comments, such as the closure of the AfD to bully people. Do you deny that he citing your comments, because if you do then I must have fabricated those quotes. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "If you don't do A, then I'm going to go and do B", that's a threat. Anyway, that's not the issue - we've already covered all the issues with the RfC reverting, and Anupam won't do it again. Why keep raising hell over it?
We've already covered everything you bring up. And no, I'm not denying anything. I'm just saying this, and it's very simple: I don't think there has been any blatant ownership here. That's my judgment. If you disagree, again, feel free to raise this with another administrator or on ANI. m.o.p 23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new RFC, I still think there has not passed yet too much time since the last discussion about splitting the article. As far as I knew, repeating these sorts of debates (like splitting, deleting, renaming) before a larger amount of time has passed (like 6 months) is usually discouraged. And as others have also argued earlier, even if having multiple RFCs is possible, it's not very useful, and the new RFC seems to discourage further discussion about improving the lead introduction. So preventing multiple RFCs (and also a RFC about an issue debated not too long ago) does not look to me like evidence of bad faith intentions. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cody, would you mind linking me to the previous RfC on splitting? m.o.p 21:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous attempt to split the article can be found here. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]
User:Master of Puppets, hello! User:Griswaldo is attempting to make it appear that I moved the discussion to the footer in order to demonstrate that I own the article, which is far from the truth. In reality, several editors requested that they wished to discuss the introduction and I wanted to allow them to participate in the discussion so I moved it to the bottom for all to see. You can see other editors' requests to discuss the introduction here: Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 (the edit summary of this user stated "focus on intro paragraph"), Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4. It is bad faith assumptions like this that is making it difficult to edit with User:Griswaldo. User:Lionelt also recently commented on User:Griswaldo's rude behaviour here. I hope this clears things up. Best wishes, AnupamTalk 23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Master of Puppets, the latter differences were due to the fact that newly inserted content was not being discussed on the talk page. Right after the previous introduction was closed as supported, User:JimWae interjected edits without gaining a new consensus for them. In fact, his edits were opposed by the community, which attempted to address User:JimWae's concern's; however, several of the editors who opposed User:JimWae have tried to address his concerns but their attempts to do so have gone unresponded. It is also unhelpful that these new insertions are not supported by any reliable sources. In fact, User:JimWae stated that the reliable sources"are just plain wrong." User:Griswaldo supports User:JimWae's edits and reverts the article against the consensus version but does not participate in discussions which attempt to address some of his concerns because he disagrees with the majority of the editors on the talk page. I hope this clears things up. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Thanks, m.o.p 14:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Master of Puppets, I just noticed that User:Binksternet started another RfC while a current one is occurring. Is this appropriate? I reverted the addition motioning for one until your response is confirmed. If it is acceptable, then I apologize and will revert my edit. I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll form my reply on ANI. m.o.p 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you do please take into account my comment just above, regarding Anupam's edit warring to remove talk page comments (namely these RfCs) posted by others on the talk page. If you still don't think this is WP:OWN then clearly other administrators are needed here.Griswaldo (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Griswaldo, how is going to a neutral mediator to address the issue owning the article? I acknowledge that the article is in dispute and as a result, I am asking an administrator for advice in this matter, NOT handling things on my own, as you have done by edit warring. Your WP:OWN allegations have not only been dismissed by this administrator, but by several other users, including, User:Lionelt, User:Cody7777777 and User:NYyankees51. Thanks, AnupamTalk 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Griswaldo: reverting the RfCs was a mistake, but we've cleared that up now. As Anupam has stated at ANI, the intent was not to discourage discussion. If you think my judgment is compromised, you're welcome to seek another administrator's input. m.o.p 21:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as further evidence of WP:OWN, see this. Anupam adds a comment to everything that anyone else says, as if he/she is the owner of the article and everyone else is a subordinate contributor. This particular instance is pretty benign (although it clutters up the talk page with an unnecessary comment that merely says "I agree"), but I do think that Anupam at least needs to learn how to avoid giving the appearance of thinking he/she owns the article, and to desist from chipping in and saying the same thing over and over again, which almost makes meaningful discussion impossible! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the input is appreciated, as I've said before, making allegations of ownership without hard evidence isn't going to get us anywhere. Anupam is not stopping others from discussing changes or forming consensus, and that's all that matters - refactoring the talk page or commenting on an issue is not against policy, and I'm not going to tell someone to stop editing because it "looks" like they're doing something wrong. As said above, you're welcome to request another administrator's insight if you wish. m.o.p 21:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

Hi

you've helped me out before, with a conflict of interest problem, so having much more experience than me on wikipedia, I thought I would be bold enough to ask again for help.

Similar problem to last, User_talk:Hobbycraft is editing the HOBBYCRAFT article and making changes that aren't citably right. I think the user name suggest and history suggests a conflict of interest case.

Can you please, speak to them addressing this issue.

Thank you very much for your help.

Markcoulter50 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked that user for username violations. Thanks a lot for letting me know! Keep up the great work, m.o.p 23:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 18:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

causa sui (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC) You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at causa sui's talk page. causa sui (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editing on militant atheism

[edit]

Your removal of a very long series of diffs is very frustrating, as there have been serious and repeated concerns about sockpuppetry, on-wiki canvassing, and off-wiki canvassing on the talkpage. I can understand why anupam would try to prevent further discussion on the talkpage, but not you. What, exactly, is so defamatory about a long series of diffs? If you could point out exactly which bit of text you feel is defamatory then I will cheerfully restore discussion of one of the article's most serious problems whilst omitting the words that you find objectionable. bobrayner (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's not considered defamatory to repeat the final line: "I merely present the diffs above, and let others draw their own conclusions. Is this a duck? Does it quack? You decide.". Unfortunately, the concerned community no longer has that opportunity. What did you decide on their behalf? Does this duck quack, or not? bobrayner (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your wording, it's the very idea of it. Going to what's allegorically a public place and shouting, "Hey, everybody, this man is a criminal!" is one step below blatantly forming a lynch mob. As I've said, I have no problem with your wording or evidence, just your location of choice. Wikipedia is not, unfortunately, a democracy - letting others draw their conclusions and voice their opinions is not how a sockpuppet investigation works.
So yes, please don't go restoring any of that section. We're not discussing editors, we're discussing the content they produce. Anything else has a sub-board to deal with it (like WP:SPI).
Hopefully that clears things up! I'll be happy to answer any more questions should you have them. Cheers, m.o.p 15:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Bobrayner, I noticed the section you created on the militant atheism talk page. If you do feel the way you do about User:Turnsalso and the anonymous IP Addresses, you can take this up with WP:SPI. Thanks, AnupamTalk 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding my MoP? Above your write: Going to what's allegorically a public place and shouting, "Hey, everybody, this man is a criminal!" is one step below blatantly forming a lynch mob. AND We're not discussing editors, we're discussing the content they produce. Yet you call this edit by Lionelt "good faith," at WQA? MoP, I would not ask you to agree with me or to like me, but can I please ask you not to insult me with these double standards.Griswaldo (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo, I mean no offense when I say this, but I'd appreciate it if you stayed out of discussions which didn't involve you. Also, please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks, m.o.p 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not put words in your mouth. You said that you would assume good faith about Lionel. If you "assume good faith" it means you assume his edits were in "good faith." If you did not intend that meaning I suggest you reconsider what you wrote. Also, if you want me to "stay out of discussion which don't involve me" then I suggest your first order of business should be to do the same thing yourself. You decided to post at WQA, when there was no mention of you or anything you've done in that thread. Once again, I expect people not to practice double standards. So as long as you cannot show me that you will treat me as you ask to be treated yourself, I will not oblige you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop bickering. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish here. I've already explained what I meant when I said assuming good faith, but I'll explain again: I assumed that Lionelt was not hounding or deliberately haranguing you. I did not say, at any point, that his edit content was good faith, and I've told him not to edit like that again. So please stop accusing me of saying things I haven't said.
Also, I posted in WQA because, as a mediator in this case and as an administrator, it's my duty to weigh in on administrative noticeboards, especially when the case is an ongoing discussion I've been participating in for three months. It is not your duty to weigh in on discussions on my talk page that don't concern you. I hope the distinction is clear here. m.o.p 20:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused about something. Content is never good faith. "Editing in good faith" and "good faith edits" refers to the intent of the editor always. It has nothing to do with content. My assumption that you also felt the edits were appropriate comes from the fact that you did not say they weren't appropriate and clearly feel that his intentions were good. If you'd like to set the record straight on that issue you still can. I've asked you twice now to discuss the actual edits that are the focal point of the thread. Also, I moved the thread to ANI, per the suggestion of the editor who marked it "resolved."Griswaldo (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lionelt_--_following_my_past_edits_to_drum_up_support_against_me. FYI, I copy pasted the entire discussion because both you and Collect were critical of my initial post and I thought it was the right thing to do to preserve that criticism in the record of the conversation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your first paragraph: I'm going to give up now, as it seems you're misunderstanding most of what I type, but you're the one who stated that the content was not good faith (as you said, not appropriate), and I agreed - I referred to his intent in replying to you, and said that I assumed good faith in his motives, not his replies. I can't really say that in a clearer way, so my apologies if it's hard to understand. Also, as I've already said, I've left a message for Lionelt about his edits, so clearly I do not feel they're appropriate. m.o.p 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, find these double standards vexing.
Which diff is defamatory?
I had hitherto thought that people on the article talkpage might like to be aware of potential problems with votestacking on the article talkpage (and 3rr evasion, of course). Would it be permitted to add a link to that list of diffs when it's in a different place, or would you consider that defamatory too? bobrayner (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the information is not defamatory, but the way it's presented is - we have specific processes available to pursue should one feel there are sockpuppets about. However, calling someone out with the intent of informing the community is overstepping your authority and damaging to the accused's character. Also, there's no way a community discussion about whether or not one editor is a sockpuppet can end in anything other than a sockpuppet investigation anyway.
So, in closing, please don't bring issues like this to the talk page. If you're concerned about votestacking, take it to the appropriate venue - if your concerns are validated, we'll take measures against said puppets. Cheers, m.o.p 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very disappointed that it's no longer permissible to raise problems with article-editing on the article talkpage. Previous concerns about sockpuppetry were simply ignored; the difference this time is that it's backed by lots of diffs.
I'm fairly confident that the people concerned have sufficient technical nous to make checkuser draw a blank. And, let's be entirely honest, within minutes of me creating an SPI, an admin of the right persuasion will be getting an email suggesting that an SPI needs their attention. And SPI does not see offsite coordination by a facebook group &c. Finally, any null result at SPI will be used at the article in much the same way as previous administrative decisions have been. So, I do not believe that an SPI will improve either the article, or the encyclopædia as a whole. bobrayner (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think the pre-existing methods set in place for situations like this are sufficient, you can always raise that concern at the village pump or suggest a policy revision - however, SPI is the venue for these requests, and the only venue. The talk page can not substitute. m.o.p 17:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

76.228.226.122

[edit]

Thank you for blocking the anonymous user, who is being counterproductive and rude. (although I think the block should have been one week, but I guess ok at least)

Can you also please try to hide the edit summaries of these edits if possible? This and this

Thanks and regards, Bryce Wilson | talk 05:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll extend the block if this behaviour continues after the block period is over.
As for the edit summaries, those don't warrant hiding - I apologize for their content, but they don't meet the criteria of what I should remove. It's best just to ignore them for now. Cheers, m.o.p 05:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good to know, if I did nothing wrong, no permanent block will be enforced. The IP does not volunteer on WP as an admin and so the disproportionately out of line comments and threats of his should be ignored. --Bryce Wilson | talk 05:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. We only hide extremely offensive revisions; milder ones stay in the edit history. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention! Cheers, m.o.p 05:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

Hello, Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Reading. m.o.p 05:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and more

[edit]

Hello, Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Bad Girls Club

[edit]

Hey there! Thanks for sending warning messages to the users. However, they are still putting unsourced information about a WP:BLP cast member. Her last name is unsourced and I reverted it, however, they had put it back on The Bad Girls Club (season 7) article. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Junebea for 2 days for disregarding warnings. m.o.p 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping :) Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]

You have new responses at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:OWN_on_Militant_atheism_by_User:Anupam including one from me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again.Griswaldo (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And again ... but maybe the last. You can settle this question once and for all. See the talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to hear your replies to the last responses posed to you at that page. IMO, I don't know why you went down the road you did, but as far as I can tell you're blatantly misrepesenting facts about your own actions when people are brining concerns to you. You might think that since you closed the RfC the matter is settled, but it is not. You're actions have not made my life any more pleasant in the last few days vis-a-vis trying to deal with Anupam's disruption and I think you owe us all answers. So please revisit this thread and deal with the open questions. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to stop asking the same question again and again. This would be appreciated. Thanks, m.o.p 02:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block question

[edit]

Re Towen92: They were reported to aiv as a promotional account, but had received zero warnings, so I declined. I then saw that you had blocked them as a vandal-only account. Perhaps you blocked the wrong user? Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just block obviously bad-faith accounts on sight. Advertising/spam accounts fall under that category. m.o.p 00:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Dear User:Master of Puppets, I see that you have closed the latest discussion, to split the article, which was supported by most of the editors who participated there, even though this was not the position I held. I would like to thank you for your moderation of the discussions occurring at the militant atheism talk page this past year. I appreciate your voice of neutrality and efforts to mediate the disputes occurring between both sides. I hope you have a pleasant night. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've unlocked the article for whatever may come. If I'm needed again, feel free to let me know. Thanks for the kind words again, m.o.p 05:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reminder

[edit]

That User:LondonPass is still awaiting an answer to their latest unblock request, which you placed on hold a week ago. The blocking admins (now archived already) reply to your post indicated they are having trouble with their web connection and would prefer that the already involved admin make the call. [31] Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're still waiting to see if the user understands COI policy (per Ed's question). I'll prod the user and see if they'll answer. m.o.p 18:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. I forgot I placed an unblock on hold a while back and it sat for two weeks with no resolution, so I just make a habit of checking for stale ones once in a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nextel logo deleted

[edit]

Hi, You deleted the Nextel Communications logo I had uploaded, due to redundancy (although this is a copyrighted logo so it should not have been uploaded to Commons). Shouldn't be removed this one instead of the deleted logo? Fma12 (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, good point. What's the link to the logo in question? m.o.p 01:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support of Sage City Symphony

[edit]

You deleted this page before I had a chance to go back in and add the stuff that you wanted to see, including the links within Wikipedia to important composers such as Lou Callabro (who started this orchestra and cites it in his Wikipedia page) and Susan Hurley whose work we premiered (SC is also mentioned in her Wikipedia entry). (Let alone links about the works we have performed.) And we have a web site at www.sagecitysymphony.org, have existed for over 35 yrs and are a significant cultural resource in the Bennington area such that we receive grants from local, statewide and national foundations.

I broke my wrist last weekend and am doing one-handed pecking so it'll take me a few days to get that loaded in. We are going out for a bit now, but I would appreciate your undeleting the page so that I don't have to re-invent the starting part when I go back in tomorrow to add links. Or delete it entirely so that I can start fresh - at this point either would work as long as I can start some serious work on it tomorrow. I am the webmaster by the way, so I do have access to content and more links.

Thank you, Celia Murray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.127.119 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like JohnCD has fixed everything up. Best of luck, m.o.p 01:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Deterence's talk page

[edit]

I don't know to what degree you are following Deterence's talk page, but considering I left a comment there that was really directed at you, I'm making you aware of it. -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MA

[edit]
After the beating you took you deserve a cold one--on me! Thanks for being fair and balanced – Lionel (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks! Glad to help out. :) m.o.p 03:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Mau5trap Recordings

[edit]

Not sure why this was deleted... it's a legit record label . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neocharles (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC) --neocharles (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existence does not equal notability - the subject has to be notable to get a Wikipedia page. m.o.p 12:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questoin re: AIV

[edit]

You were probably right on this, I mistook his previous warnings to be of the same issue and pulled the trigger too fast. But in general, shouldn't persistent copyright violations be reported to AIV? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, actually, I read it very clearly in WP:VANDNOT: "Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies is prohibited, but is not vandalism unless the user does so maliciously or fails to heed warnings." So if a person fails to heed warnings it is vandalism. My mistake here was that I only warned once. --Muhandes (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, technically it is vandalism, but the user seems to be trying to improve the Wikipedia - that desire to help is misplaced in this case, as they seem to think that using copyrighted content is actually better. Weird. For most cases, yes, you should report copyvio to AIV - as long as they've been warned sufficiently. m.o.p 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, he now did it again and the time stamp is after your last warning. Is it vandalism now? --Muhandes (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if they're outright ignoring warnings. I've blocked for three days. m.o.p 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll warn more than once next time. --Muhandes (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Aside from that, you handled the issue perfectly. Keep up the great work! m.o.p 12:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classmusic

[edit]

WP:COI editing is allowed, but only with overwhelming heed to making encylopedic edits that are reliably sourced and without undue weight towards promotion and other worrisome editorial spins, following editor consensus and above all, no edit warring at all. So, Classmusic is allowed to edit that article, but given given his seeming lack of understanding as to the policies, the article does bear careful watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know. But if somebody's lied to my face about using another account - and to other editors working on the article - I'm not about to let them go without a repercussion or two. I'd like Almost-instinct and Voceditnore to look over the article and fix up anything shifty. Also, I'd like Classmusic to respond to my warning, instead of blanking it and ignoring like they have to the above-named editors.
So, in short, I know that COI doesn't bar editing, but it's enough of a concern that, given the user's recent behaviour, I'll stop them from doing anything until we've figured things out. This isn't too rouge-y, is it? m.o.p 18:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! My 2 pence only, you might think about telling Classmusic he's "not allowed for now" to edit the article, until he's shown a willingness to abide by the policies. I agree that the talk page blanking isn't helpful, but it's not startling, he might be more worried about being publicly humiliated over this, than in skirting the policies as such. Pro fine arts musicians live in something of a small, hothouse world. Time will out as to his behaviour here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Oops, I see you already reworded it haha! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the future, don't you know? Haha. Thanks for the input, though - I'll let you know how things go. Cheers, m.o.p 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr Mop. Thank you very much for sorting out the Cohler issues. I don't imagine that there will be much bother ahead: Voceditenore had done a lot of work on de-puffing the article already and we've almost finished smoothing it out. Jonathan Cohler as an artist clearly warrants the compliments that Cohler/Classmusic has been so keen to scatter on him, so I don't think the article will be tilted in an undue fashion once we've dessicated it with the deathly Encyclopaedic Tone ;-) I had a good look through the Google results for "Jonathan Cohler" - reviews on him are sparse but uniformly good almost-instinct 18:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there you go then. Good luck with it! m.o.p 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His response to your message, m.o.p., was a lengthy I didn't hear that. Perhaps he is unaware of the sockpuppet investigation findings. Anyhow it seems that DeltaQuad has also blocked the Classmusic account. I left a note on his page about using the unblock template, but re-iterated that he needs to read the COI and Autobiography guidelines and stick to them scrupulously, if he gets unblocked. In the Opera and Classical Music WikiProjects, we get a lot of articles for performers, ensembles, etc. created by their agents and PR people, and often themselves. In my experience, the best I can hope for after one of these tussles is that they'll edit their article according to the guidelines in future. I have yet to find a single one who has ever contributed anything else to Wikipedia. Their only interest in the project is as a PR tool. Having said that, at least it results (after much red-pencilling from other editors) in one new article on a notable subject that we didn't have before and in a small way redresses the pop culture systemic bias here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danish election

[edit]

Hi there. I'm just wondering if you could take the time to revisit ITN where you posted the Danish election. The three users who have commented since it was posted (myself included) think it should be pulled from the main page. Not saying you have to or anything, but it would be great if you could look over it again. Jenks24 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's been pulled by another admin. All the best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! I was busy all day and didn't get your message until now. Thanks for letting me know, though! Cheers, m.o.p 19:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

Hey there! :)

Well WP:CRYSTAL has wined down, however, there's currently a WP:3RR edit conflict going on with The Bad Girls Club (season 7). I have notified the two users [32], [33]. The evidence can be found here. They are having an edit-conflict on how the "Duration of cast" should be presented. Since there's no rules regarding anything like that, and it was made up about a year ago, I couldn't warned them to stop their e/c with anything except the 3RR rule. Maybe they need an admin to tell them to stop, so that's why I came to you :) Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary page protection requested. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it has already been semi-protected. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection for edit warring. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright, thanks for requesting for one. I was going to ask to extend the protection date but this is better :) Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drat, AlexiusHoratius got to it before I could get to a computer. Well, it's protected now! I'll check in on the discussion in a bit to see how things are going. Thanks for letting me know, though! m.o.p 02:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lolz well thanks for attempting to protect it. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A touching message

[edit]

Hi stupid,

Why would you take the best friends club page down? We are real people. You are jealous!!

Bryce Board Member of BFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.241.36 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I take my lack of friends out on others. m.o.p 20:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for your help with The Bad Girls Club (season 7) article and fighting vandalism! You're a great person, keep up the good work :) Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton for the compliment! :) See you around, m.o.p 20:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) and you bet cha! Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deleted wiki

[edit]

Hi, Some friends and I recently posted a wiki article that was recently deleted. Unfortunately, we did not save the information that we put into the page to my computer. I wasn't sure if the deleted page was archived or if you would be able to go back through your history or the "trash" and allow me access to it so I can just copy the information back onto my computer. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamosp (talk • contribs) 01:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't allow you access to it, but I can send it to you. Send me an email and I'll send the content in my reply. Cheers, m.o.p 04:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.


m.o.p- Did you send the email with the article to the email address I provided you in the email, or the email that was used for the useraccount that wrote the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamosp (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both, now. If you didn't get it, let me know. m.o.p 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Selena

[edit]

An editor is continuing to insult me and other users who expanded the Selena article. I warned this person (on her/his talk page) multiple times. Can you help please? Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, sure. m.o.p 06:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD closes

[edit]

Please note my correction here. Cunard (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't close that properly at all. m.o.p 23:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Matt Fullerty, The Knight of New Orleans, Parkgate Press - possible sockpuppetry

[edit]

I understand I could have done an SPI, but as I said, I didn't know who the sockmaster is. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 15:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you knew who the sockmaster was, there wouldn't be much point to an SPI, right? ;) Generally, I call the oldest account the sockmaster and all others after it puppets. If you've got enough evidence (as you did in this case) feel free to create a case and list them as suspected socks. m.o.p 22:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Interviews/Vandalism?

[edit]

Hi MOP. I conducted all the interviews and the website is being hosted by the company I used to work for. When the cycle comes around in January or February, they will not be renewing hosting for that site. I'm not self promoting with the interviews, if you notice I don't even list the name or the show or anything that could be considered promotion or advertising in any of the links. The interviews are all historical retrospectives and some have been used as references in articles here on wikipedia and other places. They are completely a labor of love. I don't make any money off the interviews and there isn't any advertising on the videos on youtube themselves. So I dont' really understand about how it could be self promotion or vandalism. All I wanted to do was update the links from the mp3s on the old site to the new links on youtube. If that's not possible, I'll see if I can take over hosting the old site, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen. Wikipedia has been a great resource for wrestling fans to learn about their favorite wrestler in a real and factual setting, my interviews have always been the same and I would hate for wrestling fans to miss out on the real life histories of the people who portray these characters because someone I dont' know and never met seems to have some bizarre misplaced vendetta. I had planned to spend the evening updating the interviews and then be done with it. So it wasn't something where I'd be doing new interviews. There isn't a self involved to promote. Thanks for any assistance. and most of all Thank you for being nice and reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.40.18 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 October 2011‎

Hey, no worries! I'm willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, especially seeing how you're willing to discuss things.
I'm going to swing by WikiProject Professional wrestling (a Wikiproject is a voluntarily-formed group of editors who share a common interest and work together to improve that field on Wikipedia) and see what their take on these interviews is. As I said, I can't vouch for the links being allowed by policy, despite the fact they've been up for so long. However, if they're seen to be relevant to the article and not time-wasters on a reader's behalf, I'm sure we'll find a way to incorporate them into the articles.
Again, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! I'll keep you posted on what the others say. For now, don't change the links back to their YouTube variants - let's wait until their inclusion is discussed. Oh, one more thing - when you're editing on talk or user talk pages, please sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) to reduce confusion for anyone who's following the discussion. Cheers, m.o.p 22:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I really do appreciate your assistance and I apologize that someone else needed to be involved. I've favorited your talk page and will check back within the next couple of days. And thanks for the tips on using Wikipedia. 65.24.40.18 (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it, I'll try to help as much as I can. If you've got any other questions, feel free to shoot me an email or ask here. See you around, m.o.p 00:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.o.P. I tried to use the email function to email you, but it wouldn't allow me to. I also checked the Wrestling Talk page and it didn't look like anyone had responded to the query. I just wanted to check with you and see what the status was and how you think I should proceed. Thanks again for all your help. If it's okay for me to post my email address to you, I surely can. Thanks again. 65.24.40.18 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't post my email publicly, but correspondence here is OK. I'll try to give the interviews a listen myself - maybe I won't understand everything, but I'm sure I'll be able to discern whether or not they're useful. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow! m.o.p 01:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks M.o.P. The interview with Gunner/Phil Shatter would probably be one that would be easy on the ears for a non-wrestling fan. Thanks again and let me know if you have any questions on anything.65.24.40.18 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the Shatter interview a listen, and - aside from discovering that my assumption of these guys being witless knuckleheads (ignorant of me, I know) is completely unfounded in reality - it's great! You cut straight to the chase, and there's a lot of interesting factoids and biographical bits in the beginning. In fact, thanks to this being on YouTube, we could probably source information from the interview (provided it's relevant and not trivial) directly to the time where it's being discussed. Cool stuff! As far as I'm concerned, these are definitely allowable. Of course, I'm not the final word on matters, and every editor has an equal say; if somebody else protests them for policy-based reasons, we'll have to run through that again. For now, I'd say it's safe to add them back in. Oh, and sorry it took me so long to get around to this! Cheers, m.o.p 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.o.P. I went to change over a couple of the interview links and saw that a user named Turtlepump had grown through every wikipedia page that an interview of mine appeared on and deleted the links. I don't really have the time or the energy to go back through and readd or undo all of that. The date it was done was on Nov. 3, so it appears right after you said it was okay to do so. I'm not really in this thing for headaches or for people to act like idiots over, which definitely DOES NOT include you. You have been great. If more people on Wikipedia were like you, then you would have thousands more people contributing and refining wikipedia, unfortunately, it seems there are some seriously mentally challenged people on here, for someone to go through all the people I've interviewed and find their wikipedia entries and then to spend all that time deleting the links shows a severely psychotic level of committment and a level of mental instability that I just don't wish to engage. I mean, that's alot of work to do all of that for no real reason. The reason listed on nearly every entry was that there were hundreds of interviews done with the subject, and that's blatantly false, many of these people were the first times they'd been interviewed about their career history in depth, some of them the first time they'd been interviewed period, but I digress. M.o.P. thank you for being an exemplary Wikipedia member, I sincerely hope that more people like you will join this site and make it what it truly can be. I've decided against trying to add anything at all on here, even if I see things that are blatantly false or incorrect, my experience with other people on here has been frustrating and senseless, and from the blog posts and webpages I see that I'm not the only one who feels this way. But to you my friend, keep up the great work and all the best to you. WDH 65.24.40.18 (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the kind words. Turtlepump seems to be a new user - if you want to, you can provide me with a list of applicable interviews. I'll crosscheck each subject's article with a few searches to see how easily interviews can be found. I can also add the interviews in after reviewing them to make sure they're valid. After all, the assertion that "a bunch of interviews are out there so we shouldn't include any" isn't based in any policy. Hopefully you get this message! Cheers, m.o.p 04:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of mau5trap Recording Page

[edit]

Hello, I was recently searching for the mau5trap page only to find that it had been deleted, may you please tell me why you deleted it? and how this could be avoided if the page was to be remade? thanks in advance -M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.118.75 (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content was vulgar and unencyclopedic. m.o.p 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RHOBH | Rockstarr09 disruptive again!

[edit]

They're at it again! After you fixed the deletion, they came back on and deleted Cedric again! This is one of the people who have been vandalising and/or disruptive many times before. And they've been warned by another Administrator. Please help! Also, is there any way to protect the info so they can't keep deleting it? Thanks! I really appreciate your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonecrusherz (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and warned. m.o.p 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premature closure of the E-Cat AfD

[edit]

AfDs are supposed to run for 7 days. I suggest you self-revert, and leave the closure to an admin who actually reads the comments - your assertion that 'notability' was the only issue totally disregards the numerous references made to [[WP::NOT]]. Frankly, your closing statement looks little more then another !vote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the comments - even the multitude of SPA-created ones - and closed the AfD based on the consensus developed during the discussion. If you'd like to have my decision re-assessed, you're welcome to comment on ANI or open another AfD after sufficient time has passed. Also, please don't say that I've asserted things when all I did was point out a common sentiment's flaws in policy; extrapolating my opinion is not necessarily going to lead you to the right result. Cheers, m.o.p 18:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging for One More Chance

[edit]

Hi! Every time I save an edit I see: "Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

I do not recall editing this article. Kindly point out the revisions that are involved. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the same thing and have not edited this article. In fact, I was working in my personal Sandbox when this notice appeared. --EpochFail(talk|work) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm getting this same notice. After double-checking my history, it's clear that I've not made any changes to that article. Thoughts? -- Pickeju (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so, so sorry guys. I made an error while tweaking powerful stuff behind the scenes. Rest assured it won't be happening again, and your edits are always welcome on Wikipedia. m.o.p 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have hit a wrong key somewhere?

[edit]

When I tried to make an edit, I got this at the top of the page:

"Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC) "

I've never been near that page, so I suspect a misclick. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, I hate filters. I was attempting to make a mockup, but I mistakenly saved the filter page instead of a page I was currently editing. And, consequently, destroyed Wikipedia. I am so sorry to everyone. m.o.p 19:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This also happened to me. Like the above editor, have never edited that page. What is going on? Lozleader (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
S'cool, we all do stuff like that sometimes. At least you didn't delete the main page! ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry. m.o.p 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Test

[edit]

MediaWiki:Test was showing up for *me* when I edited, so I blanked it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It showed up for me too, even after CBM blanked it. It should be deleted or moved somewhere else so it won't show up for every single edit. Parsecboy (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I get the feeling that this MediaWiki:Test showed up for everybody on Wikipedia. Eep. The talkpage here is being bombarded... *hands MoP an ACME brand umbrella* - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the way the regex was coded, it would have caught every edit. Every single one. m.o.p 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious warning about The_Real_Housewives_of_Beverly_Hills

[edit]

I have received this message in my window: "Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC) ". To my knowledge I have never edited that article. Cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the same message and have never edited the article. --EpochFail(talk|work) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the many messages below it seems like there was a misclick or some such :). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The misclick that destroyed the world. I'm so sorry, guys. m.o.p 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more chance

[edit]

Hi,

I just got this message while editing an article,

"Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC) "

Is this some sort of a joke? I have never edited the article The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Yes, i've visited it in the past and read some of it, but i never tried to edit the article.--z33k (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fixed now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got this silliness too just now...--Pharos (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mistake should be reverted - I removed my changes the second after I made them. Unfortunately, they did their damage. m.o.p 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning

[edit]

Hi - When editing I got this message from you:

"Your action has triggered the Abuse Filter: Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

I don't know what this is about, I've never edited that page. --Tachfin (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee that your edit was good. I had a technical malfunction jump me. Apologies! m.o.p 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! What's going on?

[edit]

Hey there, I believe I got this in error:

"Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

I received that while editing an entry about a hotel in Vietnam. I don't see the connection :)

Has someone else logged in with my username??

No, your account is not compromised. I just mistakenly applied a rule that wasn't finished. m.o.p 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

[edit]

I received the following message while editing Fall for Dance Festival:

Page notice Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is very strange — and disturbing — as I have never edited The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was no doubt valuable; however, I made a mistake with some of our anti-vandalism software. My apologies! m.o.p 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring?

[edit]

Hi, I've just tried saving an edit at the Havant & Waterlooville F.C. article, and was confronted with the following message:

"Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

I have not the foggiest what "The Real Housewives of Beverley Hills" actually is, let alone get involved in an edit war on its Wikipedia page. I'm guessing it's just a random error that's somehow popped up, but thought I'd ask you since you're the admin named. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry. It was a technical malfunction of some things I'm testing for the Wikimedia foundation. I apologize for my incompetence. m.o.p 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was just flagged

[edit]

I just experienced what seems to have occurred to the user who posted the message above this one. While editing the CSS Tennessee (1863) page I was flagged regarding the 'The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills' page. What gives? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical malfunction. My apologies! m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?

[edit]

Explanation please. Every time I try to save an edit, I am getting the following message:

Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never edited (or even looked at) The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Please undo whatever you have done immediately. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice apology, and of course it's accepted. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't a personal apology, but it's the closest I can do. I'm so sorry! m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing message

[edit]

Hi, Master of Puppets. While editing Desertec article, I suddenly got the following message:

"Your action has triggered the Abuse Filter Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC) "

This is very confusing as I never edited The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills article. Mu filter log show "University of Oklahoma spelling vandal" which is even more confusing as I never been in the University of Oklahoma or used their computer network. Is there any logical explanation for this. Regards, Beagel (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical malfunction. I've removed the restriction and your editing should continue as normal. m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning message

[edit]

"Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

Please, confirm my case too. The message is irrelevant. GaiJin (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The message is guaranteed to be irrelevant - my deepest apologies. m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistaken flag

[edit]

I just got the same flag as everybody else, though I've never edited the page in question. I'd like an explanation, and to know this doesn't go into any logs or "permanent records" here. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is guaranteed to have not been problematic. This was a technical error and mistake on my part. My apologies, m.o.p 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes happen, we're all just checking on that. I guess the worst effect of your mistake was all the talk page comments you have to deal with. Best of luck. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even mind the talk page part. I'm just feeling quite incompetent at the moment. Thank you for understanding! m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War??

[edit]

Hi.

I've received this weird notice while i was editing my UserPage : Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski has flagged your account for one more chance.

I'd really like to have an explanation on this as i've never edited nor even read about Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.

Thank you! Dynad00d 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a technical malfunction. Please accept my deepest apologies. m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on ANI. m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very confused

[edit]

Hello! I tried to create a wikipedia account today so that I could submit some edits on some outdated information about the railroad that I work at, and generally be part of the community. The following message popped up when I entered my proposed username and email and tried to create an account:

"Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

I've never done any wikipedia editing before. I don't even have an account. In short, I'm very confused. Did I enter in a username that was already taken or something and that's why that came up? Please help. Thank you.

---S. J. Ode — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.237.154 (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be assured that you're welcome to edit, and this warning was in error - I made a mistake while creating it. My apologies! m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I deserve this. m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged edit war

[edit]

Hello Aaron,

I saw this message above my edit box: Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain this? I didn't edit that page and won't participate in edit wars. I saw the edit war, but don't recognize my username at the history page of the article The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Kind regards, Velocitas (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This message showed up to everybody who edited while my technical malfunction was in effect. Your edits did not cause it to show up - my mistake did. I'm so sorry! m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More shame than I'll ever know. Trout away. m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but

[edit]
You have been sentenced to the Village Stocks
for warning everyone all at once


Also

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

:D Alexandria (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps up, you'll have enough fish to feed you all the way through Lent! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can dip the fish in my shame. m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More embarrassing is the fact that you are the first user to be sentenced to the stocks in over three years! Dalekusa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Na, not really. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION PLEASE

[edit]

Dear Fellow Wikipedian - I have never made any revisions to this page: Revision history of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. THERE MUST BE SOME MISTAKE. In fact, I have done nothing to violate any Wiki Policies and have only tried to add insightful medical content or helpful links. I would ask for your help in protecting a valid contributor like myself only wishing to help others with relevant medical information and protect me from frivolous edits made by administrators with no real interest in helping the public, only assuming a false sense of power over others. PLEASE UPHOLD the integrity of Wikipedia and review the history of these administrators who delete information and or links without giving reason like " Jfdwolff " on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headache and contribute NOTHING valid to wikipedia! Thank You Neuro114 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Neuro114[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG much? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, uh... I'm sorry? If you'd like to pass these edits by me Neuro114, you're welcome to re-add them now. m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Haha, you've suffered enough, and it doesn't seem to be over yet. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should get drunk and... make more edit filters?! Haha, thanks. At least people understand. m.o.p 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an edit filter, actually. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Edit filters are people, too!" m.o.p 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may need these

[edit]
The Frying Pans of Sorrow and Repentence
For the trout. I suggest a bit of butter and parsley.

We only laugh because it is not us. Yet. Danger High voltage! 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the fish I have... thanks! m.o.p 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bad day?

[edit]
You blew up the wiki!
This too shall pass. Cheers Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for fixing the edit notice. Cheers, m.o.p 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have anything to say

[edit]
I just wanted you to feel better about call everyone a vandal all at once.  :) It wasn't any trouble and receiving the warning was probably the most exciting interaction I've had in Wikipedia in a long time. EpochFail(talk|work) 20:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, glad I helped you have a fun Wikipedia experience. Hopefully I'll find ways to do that which aren't related to disallowing editing across the project. Cheers, m.o.p 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
The future of anti-vandalism... preemptive warning! You probably stopped more vandalism in a few minutes than I have all day. And if some of them weren't "technically" vandals? Eh... you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs... Cheers!  :) Trusilver 20:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the perfect anti-vandal strategy, isn't it? How can people vandalize if they can't edit at all? m.o.p 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I wouldn't have thought of warning everyone that they're the "University of Oklahoma spelling vandal" myself! WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I had to be thorough. Thanks, though - I'm grateful for the community's understanding. Cheers! m.o.p 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I close of discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer

[edit]

I have reverted your close of the AN/I discussion. As what is being complained about is your own early close of an afd you should not also be the one to say that we have discussed the matter successfully. This is about as clear an example of acting as an interested admin that I have encountered, but I'm not going to pursue that part, if only to avoid a debate over whether the an/i close was an admin action. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. I closed the discussion before the complaint was made, mostly because the original ANI post (about the AfD) was resolved by me closing the AfD. Of course, someone's decision to discuss after the issue has been marked as resolved perfectly OK. I'd contest your point about being an interested admin - again, I marked the issue as 'resolved' prior to concerns being raised - but that's not important. m.o.p 00:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing the discussion with keep is the only sensible course really; one could say that you've reverted the close because you're an interested admin ;) Tmccc (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you performed the same disputed close. at an/i. Please revert it, or I think someone will probably take the matter to arb com.Not me: I've never taken anything there in my life, and I don't think I ever will---almost nobody ever came out of doing or saying anything there the better for it. This would be a great shame, forI have great respect for your work in general. But you are too involved to deal with this. You are really not thinking this through. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think the close is that controversial - after all, the original issue has been resolved - I respect your judgment enough to revert myself. Thanks for the kind words. m.o.p 18:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay

[edit]

There is no such thing as Delete and merge, doing so would be contrary to GNU Free Documentation License#Conditions, specifically, "All previous authors of the work must be attributed."  Do you agree?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every contribution to Wikipedia is released under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, with the agreement that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution. Since a merge is just a recombination of released text to a different location, I see nothing wrong with a delete and merge. m.o.p 17:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree that it is released, this is at the bottom of an edit page:
 

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

But if the edit history has been deleted, where is the attribution?  Moving on, do you want to reconsider your close, or is this ready to take to DRV?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A merge preserves the history of an article, so attribution wouldn't be an issue. As for reconsidering my close - unless new information has come up, my decision still stands. You're welcome to take it to DRV if you so choose. m.o.p 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Air Hawke's Bay

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Air Hawke's Bay. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Unscintillating (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mawarid Bank

[edit]

Hi m.o.p.

Probably worth a little salt on this one. Agree?

Thanks, Bongomatic 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one deletion - is there anything that makes you believe this will be recreated again? m.o.p 02:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why I thought there had been at least one more—perhaps under a different spelling, perhaps not. Either way, no need to season I guess. Bongomatic 06:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sebastian vs Barsoomian

[edit]

at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Barsoomian you wrote :

My first recommendation would be that you two discontinue all communication with each other for the time being. I'll talk to you individually and work as a mediator to settle this issue. If one of you says something the other does not agree with, please do not reply to the offending statement. Just let me know if you think your words or actions are being misrepresented and I'll do the rest. Also, please do not make any edits that the other could even conceivably take offense to, especially not to the articles you've already clashed on. I know it seems a bit much to completely separate you two, but, given that you're both well-spoken and have your wits about yourselves, I feel like any writing one of you produces will serve as a seed for the other's rebuttal. If you can both agree to this, then we can get started with resolution. If not, I'll take more-traditional avenues of sanctioning. Let me know on my talk page - this thread isn't in the best location for dispute resolution. m.o.p 05:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can do that. Barsoomian (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different approach. While I am certain that I am the aggrieved party here, we can try it this way. Let's hope it serves. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're both OK with this, let's try it out. I've put posts on both of your talk pages to begin. Please only answer my post - as per above, don't communicate with the other user. If you see them editing something, try not to get involved. If they make edits that you feel are being made to exploit your uninvolvement, let me know here; do not revert them. Also, please let me know if you feel the other user is grievously misrepresenting your words; obviously, since there's a disagreement, they'll tell things differently, but if you feel they're blatantly lying, feel free to let me know. I'll be watching your talk pages. m.o.p 19:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, its been almost a week since I posted the Diffs you requested, and I haven't heard back from you regarding resolving the multiple issues with the other user. I am concerned that letting this peter out like this is only going to cement the incorrect views of Wiki policies of the other user and make it harder to find a solution that doesn't make him feel like he has no voice in the process. If you were thinking that this delay was going to serve as a 'cooling down period', it will instead only delay the inevitable conflict later on down the road, as I intend to go back to the article eventually and work to get it to at least GA-quality. I am sure the other user wants to make other edits to the article as well, and might want the matter resolved, too. could you give a heads up as to where we are int he process? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious; are you actually planning on working on the problem that you asked Barsoomian and I to wait on forever hold for? It has been well over a month since you were going to try to resolve the problem. I am certain that it hasn't resolved itself; the moment I try to do an edit, Barsoomian is almost sure to revert. Please either pony up to the bar and finish what you started, or let us know that you are unable to continue. Leaving us hanging without a word is incredibly selfish and irresponsible. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My full apologies - I've been putting it off for the last week or so because I've been going through a heck of a time with finals and work. I'll see what I can do tonight or tomorrow - if not, I'll find someone else to step in. I apologize again for leaving you two waiting - hang in there for just a bit more and I'll start working with you guys again. m.o.p 23:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Image from Hoops G.

[edit]

Related to the research I did for the ANI, yet another image turned up with a seemingly false tag. File:Kurt Hubert Franz.jpg, published in 1944 with a tag stating this picture is over 70 years old. Clearly it isn't. I recommend this be reviewed by someone knowledgeable in images - Hoops has appeared to have picked up on the 70+ year tag for images, and seems to be tagging everything in this fashion. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ANI

[edit]

and wha\t about hot stop's comments? thats saintly to you obviously? and not a direct NPA per the subject title(Lihaas (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Please provide a diff to an offensive comment by Hot Spot. m.o.p 00:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's notice board, complaint

[edit]

mop, I'm sorry to come here like this, but that user DIREKTOR is getting out of hand. I have warned him several times about posting falsehoods directed at me. Now I see he has mentioned me for the 2nd or 3rd time on ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ethnic_insults.3F

Can you please help with this? DIREKTOR ought to be blocked for this. I don't know what channels to cross in order to make that request.

All I know is he's stirring up major trouble. I may not be able to maneuver my way here again, so please respond on my talk page. Thank you. Djathinkimacowboy 22:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. My deepest thanks and I will do as you direct. Djathinkimacowboy 04:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mop, I only returned here as to query: user DIREKTOR has been awfully quiet of late, and seemingly very nice. It made me nervous.

Well, DIREKTOR has placed a barnstar on my talk page (I promptly removed it) "for being special". I do not wish to stir the pot about this. It's just that I do not want anything from that kind of editor.

Also, perhaps I make a mountain out of a molehill, but why would he award me a barnstar? Because I have been awarding them where I see they are deserved, so he is parodying me? ["I'm not paranoid," he cackles like Don Knotts] - sorry, I wanted to jump in because I forgot to say, can this indicate DIREKTOR is stalking me? If so, DIREKTOR may be stalking others. What a hassle! Djathinkimacowboy 06:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.. :) I hardly even spoke to you, Djathinkimacowboy. And yes, I am stalking you everywhere (I just don't write any posts so you'never know, bwahahaha...) I gave you a barnstar because you handed out a lot of them (and because you nominated yourself for one :)). I couldn't find a more appropriate one.
MoP, please be aware, this user is very new to Wikipedia and seems to be running some kind of weird, paranoia-infused "defamation campaign" against me - over some meaningless three-post spat. I've half a mind to report him, at least to Wikiquette alerts, as he tends to be quite insulting ("troublemaker" etc.) and extremely misleading as to my behavior, but the guy is new here so I figure there's no need to "make a mountain out of a molehill", as it were. I get the impression someone must've badmouthed me (the user commented "I understand he's quite the troublemaker", referring to me, and suggesting someone told him so.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned you at AN/I

[edit]

Hey, I mentioned the discussion we had on IRC the other day here at this AN/I thread about my edit warring, and I just wanted to cover all my bases and let you know about it. - SudoGhost 03:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covering your bases is always a good thing. Thanks for letting me know. m.o.p 04:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question + Request

[edit]

I see you recently deleted Air Hawke's Bay

a. Can I create a redirect to Hastings Aerodrome, where it is mentioned?

b. Can you let me see a copy of the article, preferably by userfying it to my userspace or, less ideally, by e-mailing me a copy?

Thank You. Buddy431 (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

I made an WP:AN/I that involved a different user and had mention you. Just leaving a note :) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgars edit issue

[edit]

Hi, I wanted to ask an admin to come help resolve an issue on the Bulgars article and came across you. To be up to speed with the issue read my discussions on the latest Bulgar talk page and edit comments and also read my edits and check the sources. If this matter can get resolved then the article can be better and more complete with more than one view, theory etc. Also, if you don’t know much about the Bulgars then this may help: originally the only main theory was the Turkic theory, but in recent years other views and information and theories have developed – such as the Iranic theory for example. This theory has gathered support by a couple of researchers and professors and also a documentary “ The Bulgarians” discusses it. There is also evidence for it – to see the evidence (which will help you in knowing more about the origins of the Bulgars thus possibly helping resolve this issue) it will be really wise to read the sites and sources (links) I have provided in the section “Bulgars” of the talk page and also to see the external links about their language which is at the bottom of the article (if any of the things are not there anymore check the history, but they should be there). Also of note is the fact that there is possible controversy on Jingiby – a look at some of the comments made to him on the Bulgar talk page (now in the history, but you can still check it) and on his talk page directed against him (also in history) signifies possibly that, if people really dislike him so far as to post the words they did, then Jingiby must be doing something wrong or bad. If he was a good editor then maybe people would have not made the comments they did against him. Now there is also some controversy with me I admit – I have been blocked for 24h from edit warring and warned against a link I tried to add, but I have decided to properly listen to rules and be a good, proper editor, and will try not to repeat that. I don’t understand why Jingiby behaves in this bad way, I don’t understand why he is so against other information and theories (especially when they are sourced) – does he have racist tendencies or something like that or negative nationalistic feelings? It has been established that other views and theories exist – they are even associated with credible researchers and research that has been carried out, so it is not some “fantasy” as Jingiby says (when he said that this is not a “phantasy forum). What on earth does he have against this information being included, it will only do the article good and shed more light on the matter – what is wrong with that? It is wrong to include only one view and not others, as other theories exist and have sources – this might erroneously influence the opinion of readers who don’t know any better or who aren’t aware of the other information and research. I mean the edits that I added contain very significant and important information – how can it be just ignored – scientists and researchers have spend precious time of their lives and made an effort to research these new things and their work just gets tossed away, even when it is sourced. The Bulgar page has been very corrupt in this regard, there is no justice. I don’t know if you are aware or not but the question on the Bulgars origins have been a very contested and debated issue that has been going on for many years – its serious, so that’s why this information that I tried to add can actually help this debate. The Turkic theory isn’t proven and not every researcher agrees with it. Thank you in advance for your help. I am going to be away and very busy in the next couple of weeks, so if I don’t reply to messages etc – it is not because I don’t want or don’t care, but because I cant or haven’t had the chance to check the messages. Please wait for me before any big decisions are made, even if it means suspending the matter until I come back and notify people that I am back. I just want to say that it really looks obvious that Jingiby is extremely against the other theory, or anything that is not Turkic – he is so against it that he makes sure to immediately remove it (even though it is sourced and even though it a significant theory!!!! associated with real research and academics) – he removes it without any real reasons or any discussions – where is the justice? – he is in effect censoring the page, he seems to be racist towards Iranics or something (judging from his behavior. I mean how can one just remove significant information that is sourced??? There is no logical reason for what he is doing. He is very, very biased towards only one view, and it become extreme when he removes other information without any discussions and reasons, even when there are sources!He keeps doing this over and over and tells me to stop this “game” The very fact that this is a game to him shows possibly how immature he is and how he isn’t serious about anything. I take the work that I am trying to do on the article seriously and try to behave accordingly – it definitely isn’t a game to me. More on this in my discussion on the talk page. Also in the Bulgar article it says that “genetically modern Bulgarians are more closely related to other neighboring Balkan populations…”With the new information (you cans see it on the source) I have provided, it says that modern Bulgarians are, from the new research, very close to Iranic people – so obviously there exists more than one view/research/genetic evidence. In support of my argument – if you read on the Japanese (ethnic group) page, you will see that there is a number of different genetic research that was carried out – one study shows that Japanese are related to (Han) Chinese while another study shows that they are more related to Vietnamese, genetically (if my memory serves right, but you can go check the Japanese ethnic group article). Clearly from this one can deduce that genetic research is not entirely accurate and one study shows this, but another shows that – there are conflicting studies on genetic all the time. So what then is wrong with me including these other studies which shows the ethnicity of the modern Bulgarians (and thus the Bulgars, since they are one of the ancestors) to be different from that study? – is it not inaccurate and unacademic to only include one study when there are others – if only one study is included then that is sort of like POV and can wrongly influence the opinion of readers who don’t know that there are other studies. The same thing with coffee – one study shows it is good for memory and concentration while another shows it is bad or does nothing. Same with tomatoes – studies show it is good in preventing prostate cance while other studies shows that it is bad for stomach because of tomatoes’ acidity – can you imagine if in the scientific journals and textbooks only one view and study is included and does nothing to mention others studies and evidence – like only mentioning that coffee is good for memoy and concentration without mentioning that other research and evidence says it does nothing or is bad – that would be very unscientific and bad. Same reasoning applies to the Bulgar article. Oh and when I tried to add that, Jingiby said that the article is not about modern Bulgarians but about the Bulgars – he is actually a hypocrite because after he reverted my edit, he added bit more info and sources to say that modern Bulgarians are closely related to other Balkan populations, after he said that the article is not about modern Bulgarians – this goes to show how unconstructive Jingiby is. Furthermore, after reverting my edits a couple of times, Jingiby went on to find sources saying that the Bulgars were only 40-50000 (the one that came to Bulgaria) – it would seem obvious that he is trying to downplay the Bulgar contribution to modern Bulgaria and its genetics – and it seems more obvious when he added the information about their number AFTER I added my edits a couple of times – this just shows how extremely biases he is to the Bulgar contribution to modern Bulgaria and the theories on their origins. He seems not aware though, that these days some researchers say the number must have been far, far greater than just 40-50000, especially considering they subjugated the Slavs so easily and won against the larger Byzantium in 681 (the year Bulgaria was founded, in the battle of Ongal). Also the fact that Tervel could afford and was willing to send 15000 Bulgars without much thought to help defend Byzantium against the Arab invasion shows that the Bulgars must have been very numerous – so as to send thousands of soldiers to go fight on behalf of someone else at a critical time when they just created their country – Bulgaria, especially since at that time there were Avars right next to the Bulgars – the Avars being a big threat. If the Bulgars were 40-50000 then we must also say that half of them would be women, a significant portion would be old and kids, and there would be some who are disabled, injured, sick etc, thus leaving barely any soldiers to defend the country – or even send 15k soldiers to defend Byzantium against Arabs – at the time of the sending of the 15k soldiers to fight the Arabs they obviously also had to have a significant number of soldiers to defend against the Avars and the borders, especially when the state just formed around 30 years prior and is still young. This discussion that the Bulgars in Bulgaria must have been far greater is shown in the documentary “The Bulgarians” on Btv, where a professor discusses it, saying that they must have been far greater in numer. My point here is that Jingiby seems to be trying to downplay their contribution to modern Bulgarians – by adding that part After I added my edits and by removing my edits in the first place – all shows how biased and unconstructive he is. One more thing – if any of the links, sources, evidence that I mentioned is not there it is because it has been removed (on purpose) - if that occurs just check the old revision of the page. Sorry for writing too much, just had to explain things properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Please read the above piece by going into editing it, or by looking at the diff, as it is for some reason glitchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hello User:Master of Puppets! I hope this message finds you doing well. I opened an SPI case here. Are there any other steps I need to take or will everything be handled from here? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like I filed the report correctly and it was closed today. Thanks anyways! With regards, AnupamTalk 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hello User:Master of Puppets! I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could close this RfC as it has been going on for some time now and consensus has been reached. I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently a bit overwhelmed with business and education on the real life frontier. I'll get around to it as soon as I can. Thanks for letting me know! m.o.p 19:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Master of Puppets, thanks for your reply. No problem, you can close the discussion at your earliest convenience. Thanks again! With warm regards, AnupamTalk 05:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist

[edit]

Hey, regarding the .*kai\s?(chen)?\s*q?i?u? filter you added to the blacklist, it seems that it is rather broad in scope (see Wikipedia:AN#Remove_page_title_from_Black_list). Maybe you should consider making it a bit more strict, it is worth noting that Kai is a very common name in Germany. As it is often used as a surname (see for a few examples Kai (name) esp. the surname section), the regex may block many legitimate page creations because it will apparently filter out anything ending in "kai". Thanks, - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here; I added it at the request of another user with valid rationale. Mind talking with Sigma and seeing if you can find some way to narrow down the regex? I'm not too good with this sort of stuff. I'll comment it out for now. Cheers, m.o.p 04:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BigzMMA and Civility

[edit]

Hello, you were recently involved in declining a unblock request by User:BigzMMA with regard to civility and personal attacks. I wish to draw your attention to a specific thread on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard entitled WP:MMANOT, WT:MMANOT. BigzMMA has been making remarks about the other user in the dispute (User:Papaursa) and was warned to ceace making the attacks. A short time ago they made yet annother personal attack and I told them straight out they needed to strike their personal attacks from their latest posting, gave a 1 hour deadline prior to involving an administrator, and dropped a talk page notice on their talk page. As it's now been over 2 hours (I decided to be reasonable), I request that you please evaluate BigzMMA's statements and comment at their talk page. I am also posting this to the talk pages of other administrators who have dealt with BigzMMA before to form a consensus on how to improve the inter-editor communcation. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. Given how much progress Bigz has made - he's at least expressing salient points here, and not just outright slandering - I'm reluctant to take any administrative action. I've reinforced your recommendation, though. An RFCU is probably the best course of action here given these two's long history. m.o.p 05:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Dear User:Master of Puppets, thanks for taking the time to close the RfC. I understand you are busy and appreciate your time and effort. Good luck with your business and education in real life! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) m.o.p 05:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive

[edit]

Be careful. A WP:PUNITIVE block of User:AndyTheGrump is the hobgoblin of the little minds. Especially when it comes to the minds of WP:MMORPG admins.

23:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.171.194 (talk)

I've never not understood anything as much as I don't understand this right now. m.o.p 23:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, remain unenlightend. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP has some kind of axe to grind with me. Odd... I don't remember a damn thing about interacting with that IP address. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoops back again

[edit]

Per the comments left at the previous ANI thread, Hoops appears to be back to the same behavior, moving pages with no discussion, including a significant page move at Joachim Peiper. I'm off on a trip and don't have time to do a full report on this, but again the user is not communicating and appears to have ignored your counseling from before. Can something be done? -OberRanks (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That move you cite seems to be intended to use the more-commonly used name of the person for the title, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Is there any other recent disruption? m.o.p 03:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't investigate the move reason, but did check for a discussion, which there was none as far as I can tell. I also noticed no response at all to your offer for counseling, or even any kind of acknowledge. The same old frustrations. -OberRanks (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check with Hoops and discuss the issue. While undiscussed moves aren't ideal, when done within reason there's not too much to worry about. But yeah, I'll see if I can get them to respond to me this time. Thanks for letting me know! m.o.p 03:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jochen Peiper

[edit]

That is correct. If that is what shows up most often in searches and in the literature, then that is the name that should be used. Admittedly, I should have done more research on it before moving the page. I will try to err more on the side of caution in the future.Hoops gza (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply. There was just a concern that the move had been undiscussed and your intentions unclear. Thanks for clearing that up! m.o.p 03:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted text in Ballad of the Starcrossed Miner

[edit]

Hey there; thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballad of the Starcrossed Miner and redirecting the page. While I don't disagree with the way you closed the debate, would you mind deleting the revision history of Ballad of the Starcrossed Miner itself, as the article consists primarily of copyrighted text? Thanks again. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion isn't suitable in this case, as there are editor-contributed snippets of text (the context paragraph, for example). Anything that's been contributed by editors must be attributed, and can't be revision deleted. m.o.p 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant just regular deletion. I tried to sound like I knew things, but I don't. I meant to ask if you could delete the page and then redirect, instead of simply redirecting, so that all the copyrighted text (and everything else that didn't pass AfD) was gone. I think... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's different. I thought you meant revision deletion. All done. m.o.p 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maisie Williams

[edit]

Hi - I'd like to ask you to reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maisie Williams and to either relist the discussion or to close it as "no consensus". The reason for this is that only three people contributed to the discussion, and they each held different opinions: delete, keep, or merge. I can't quite see how one can find, on this basis, a consensus to redirect. Regards,  Sandstein  20:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that a redirect and a delete are not mutually exclusive. A redirect effectively removes the previous content, replacing it with a link to pertinent information. As for merge, there was no information to merge - I just linked as appropriate. If you'd like, I can get clarification with the nominator to see if this is something they'd be OK with. m.o.p 22:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if one interprets your redirect as implementing the nominator's "delete" opinion, you chose a solution that at most one of the three people who participated in the AfD expressed support for, whereas one person supported keeping the article and another was (unlike you) of the opinion that there was content to be merged. Consequently, the solution you implemented cannot be said to be based on a consensus. I've asked for a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 5#Maisie Williams.  Sandstein  00:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion of a Page..

[edit]

Hi, I had edited a page my name RuralShores which has currently been deleted. I am not sure why this has happened. I wish to know how to get the page back on web and the reason as to why this happened. Also let me know if some content on the page violates any of the policies, so that the same can be removed and the other data retained. Since I am new to wiki request your help in this regard. Vidyasagar410 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Vidyasagar[reply]

Hello! Thanks for writing.
Your page's main problem was a lack of reliable sourcing. The only sources I could find were press releases - you need objective, verifiable sources (for example, from a news paper) to prove this company's notability. m.o.p 05:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. But as per your instruction the content should be verifiable like in it should have atleast appeared on a news paper. And the content added by me had references of the leading Indian news papers but still it was considered as not verifiable which is what I am not able to understand. Also please let me know whether this page can be recreated or the previous content can be retrieved? It would also be of help if you can let me know which sections were not verifiable so that those can be removed and the rest of them can be retained or recreated.

Thanks & Regards, Vidyasagar 115.248.128.109 (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The brunt of the article was sourced to a press release, which isn't a reliable source (as it's not third-party). The one news source provided (from the India Times) only mentions RuralShores in passing. If you could get an article or two that focus on RuralShores, are from a reliable source (like the India Times), and aren't press releases, I'll gladly recreate the article for you. Or, if you'd like, you can e-mail me your e-mail address and I can send you the article text. m.o.p 05:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Below are the links to some of the verifiable resources which have covered RuralShores, let me know if this is adequate for you to recreate the RuralShores page:
Los Angeles Times:http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/21/world/la-fg-india-rural-20100622
Newyork Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/world/asia/13india.html
Indian Express: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/when-bangalore-outsources-to-bagepalli/532943/
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/11091050.cms
Thanks & Regards, Vidyasagar410 (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that looks substantially better in terms of sourcing! I'd say that definitely proves at least basic notability. I've created a draft article for you here; please feel free to expand it and include those sources, as well as information from them (any information that we can cite to a reliable source should be in the article - just don't plagiarize, of course!). Let me know after you're happy with how it looks, I'll check it over, and we'll move it to the main Wikipedia space if it's ready.
Also, when you reply here, be careful not to delete other peoples' comments; I think you're blanking the section under this one out by mistake. Cheers, m.o.p 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. As stated by you, I have made changes to the draft sent by you and I have added appropriate references to the article wherever applicable. Request you to kindly review it and move it back to the web once you feel it is ok to go on to the main space. I also want to know if it is possible to add the company logo in the info box space. Also I have retained the below text since previously you mentioned that I was blanking out some existing information, I am not sure whom it belongs to. Look forward to your response. Regards, Vidyasagar Vidyasagar410 (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to, you can upload the company logo before we move it to the main space to make sure there are no copyright issues. Please read over WP:LOGOS, especially the copyright section. If you feel you understand it, you can upload the company's logo. m.o.p 11:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request you to kindly move the RuralShores page to main space, the logo can probably be added at a later stage as I would require some time to understand the copy right rules. Thanks a lot. Regards, Vidyasagar Vidyasagar410 (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'll pop in and tweak it a bit later on. Let me know if you have any questions. m.o.p 12:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

xxxterm

[edit]

I've written an editorial for OSNews; yesterday it got reviewed and accepted, so I added it and requested move back. Please comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ofermod

[edit]

Being the administrator who deleted Ofermod (band), could you take a look at the improved article? --217/83 15:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll throw any comments I have your way. m.o.p 16:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goldrush is scripted

[edit]

Gold rush is a dramatized reality show. that is not opinion. It's stated in the intros. And i included the references. You're not being helpful. --Ericg33 (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's helpful to replace a section with negatively-worded information while simultaneously removing a source. To top it all off, the fact that the show is scripted is already stated blatantly in the header - there's no need to repeat it. Please try not to be disruptive with your editing. Cheers, m.o.p 09:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war reporting

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your help in making correct reporting. I wonder is it worth to make separate report for the second user Vacio in WP:AN3? --Verman1 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the user related to the current dispute? If not, you can make a new section by following the instructions on that page. m.o.p 20:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Progressive Voice afd

[edit]

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Houston Progressive Voice, did you merge its history into the successor article? If not, please do. I copied the relevant content. (Or if you disagree with a merge, feel free to revert me.) —teb728 t c 06:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I remember attempting to merge Montrose Star, then I saw another administrator had done it - I forgot to check the Progressive one, too. Both have been merged now. Thanks for the reminder! m.o.p 07:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here reverted my content merger; was that intentional? (I don't know what lgv stands for as an edit summary.) —teb728 t c 10:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! History fixes are messy sometimes. Oh, and LGV stands for 'last good version'. I've changed it to your most-recent edit now. m.o.p 18:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning my edit

[edit]

Umm, since you reverted my edit on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_propionate, I advise you to check this link for this particular ester (ethyl propanoate). http://chem-file.sourceforge.net/data/esters/ethyl_propanoate_en.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.247.174.191 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I'll revert it right away - sorry about the mix-up! m.o.p 15:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright.

I've put the page back to how it was when you left it. Since I assume you've worked with this substance, finding a reliable source to cite the fact that it smells fruity (as a previous editor asserted) would be great! I know you didn't add that part in, but I'm no chemist and I have no idea where to look. If not, that's alright. Cheers, m.o.p 15:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, actually I'm just a student checking wiki for the structure I am thinking of, and I was surprised when I saw the formula. I don't know much other than just type in the words in the search engines, so I have no clue for reliable sources. And I have no practical experience with this chemical at all! LOL (PS: This is my first edit in Wiki as well)

Oh, well that's OK! You've corrected the formula, which is an excellent step. We have a few PhDs in chem floating around here - I'll flag one down and see if they can find a source for the smell. Thanks again for editing Wikipedia! m.o.p 15:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Hello, is it considered a personal attack if a user talks bad about another editor by saying: "Meh, I'm over it. Its idiots like him with all the stupid accusations that make me not even bother editing, I'd really just like him to fuck off and let me go on about my business." Apparently, this editor spoke about me on their talk page with another user. Abhijay Talk?/Deeds 15:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal attack, yes. Link to the edit? m.o.p 15:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to that's user's talk page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jer757). Would a warning be appropriate for that user? Abhijay Talk?/Deeds 15:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. I'll keep an eye on the talk page. m.o.p 15:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help MOP. Abhijay Talk?/Deeds 15:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On additional, note this edit ([34]). This person (Jer757) states that I am pestering his 'friend', and instigating him into doing something bad, even though I am not actually doing so. I admit me and his friend got into a bit of a scuffle because I had lost my cool over what he had left about me misusing my role as a rollback, but I had at one point warned his friend about him using inappropriate edit summaries. I admit that they have been rather annoyed because I kept on warning the two about their behavior on Wikipedia, but the wisest thing I have done has left them alone, much to their happiness. Doesn't this sound rather hypocritical of Jer757?
That's not my place to say, nor is it anything I can comment about. Plus, it's in the past - the thing that stands here is that Jer made a personal attack and has to retract it. m.o.p 15:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry m.o.p. Didn't mean to have you drug into this. -Jer Hit me up 18:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, let me know if there's anything I can do to help you guys in the future. m.o.p 19:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

I just accidentally removed a comment using GLOO - got a stick mouse button here. I've reverted the removal ... and I'll now go clean my mouse. My apologies. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I noticed. No harm done! Cheers, m.o.p 15:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ad

[edit]

I'm interested in having an ad for a WikiProject and happened to find your name on Template:Wikipedia ads. My request specifically is, could you also create an ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan? It'd be awesome if you could. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

[edit]
Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hope you have a good one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 06:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Could you please close this discussion after establishing a consensus? X.One SOS 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just returning from a Wikibreak - I'll check it out as soon as I can. m.o.p 23:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hello User:Master of Puppets! I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could close this RfC as the RfC expired today. I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting back from a Wikibreak. I'll check it out as soon as I can! m.o.p 23:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick bit of advice please

[edit]

Someone is in good faith re/adding a link to their own blog on the R v Peacock page. It seems to me to be non-notable, and also clearly a COI issue. Would be correct place to raise this be their talk page or on the R v Peacock talk page? Last time I was involved in an issue like this, I was accused of raising discussions in inappropriate places, and I've got confused. Personally I hate seeing that "you have new messages" orange bar at the top of the screen! almost-instinct 16:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand... you can ignore all that! - someone else started the discussion on the talk page :-) almost-instinct 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ball and List of political self-immolations

[edit]

I hate to bring up this fun chestnut from the past, but there's been some developments, and you were the last admin who had any significant dealings with it. I believe it was last left that there was no consensus to include Thomas Ball in the list. My watchlist has just alerted me to the fact that he's been re-added based on some sources from last summer that were already raised and rejected back then.

Truth is, the time I have for Wikipedia has greatly reduced since last summer, and I'm not sure I have the time or patitence to go through another round on this one at that page. (Nor am I fully decided which side of the issue I fall under.) So I thought I would let you know, in case you had any interest in looking in on the article. Singularity42 (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Attack message: [35] Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

[edit]

Dear Master of Puppets,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford-Georgian Society

[edit]

Dear Master of Puppets,

I am messaging regarding a page on Oxford-Georgian Society which was removed few months back and seems to be due to badly cited informtion and sock puppet abuse. I am a London based reseacher on Georgians in UK and I am keen to set up an Oxford-Georgian Society page as it has very old and fascinating history. There is quite a number of similar pages on Wikipedia, so the topic should not be an issue (Oxford University Polish Society, Oxford University Greek Society, Oxford University Russian Society etc). I have prepared a very well referenced and cited text, but wanted to run it past you before posting, to make sure there are no issues going forward. Please let me know what is the best way to show you the prepared article before it is posted online.

Best regards,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktadG (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Block my illegal account

[edit]

It is socket puppet of sridhar100. I myself reveal the truth. Because I want that I had not remain unlawful in wikipedia.--Gundu1000 (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for File:MoPuppetarmy.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:MoPuppetarmy.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?Sreejith K (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bornem Titans

[edit]

Hi,

zsome 9 months ago you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bornem Titans as "redirect". However, from nearly immediately after your redirect and until now, a user is recreating the article everytime it gets redirected (first reversion of your redirect close had the nice edit summary "administrative-asshole fix"...) As the AfD nominator, I am involved and so I can't protect the redirect. Could you take a look and do whatever you feel needs to be done? Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sango123.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sango123.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An old problem

[edit]

An old problem still going on. I was passing by and noticed the page full of improper image tags. I recall you had mentioned you were mentoring this user at one point. -OberRanks (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orb.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Orb.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians

[edit]

Are you around? I listed you as missing--someone will be searching for you. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filter modification

[edit]

Hi Master of Puppets. About a year ago you had helped produce a filter for Overblood to stop a significant stream of vandalism (changing the name of the main character to "Wienerless Steve" in accordance with the jokes of an online children's show) to this article perpetuated by a devoted group of vandals. The filter worked beautifully and all was well for several months, but the page has since been moved to OverBlood (different capitalization) and because of this the filter no longer applies. The vandals have not forgotten their little games and for the last 5 months they have returned to periodically vandalize the article in the same manner. If possible, could you update the target of the filter to cover "OverBlood" as well as "Overblood"? Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - If it's not already implemented, you may want to add the term "Weinerless" to the filter as well since many of these vandals cannot spell very well. -Thibbs (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

[edit]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. (X! · talk)  · @173  ·  03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master_of_Puppets/Talk/Archive/Archive27&oldid=1147965479"