User talk:Mollskman/Archive 1

Archive 1

In response to your feedback

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback! For help with getting started, please try Help desk and the help pages.

Garemoko (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Hi Mollskman! Great work at taking care of important tasks - tagging content, removing uncited material and cleaning up references! Your contributions have not gone unnoticed. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia - keep up the good work! :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks!! --Mollskman (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wild Kratts

Oh dear goodness, thank you for pointing out the plot section. I had NO idea that section was that long. I rearranged a few things to the best of my ability; I'd appreciate more feedback on the way it looks now. (Also, I'm aware of the "Maviva" edit thing; I'm just going to let ANI handle that. That user has been a frequent problem in the past, but I'm not even going to touch it. *puts hands above head*) SmallCheez (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove pronunciation guide

I'm not sure why you did so, here. It's not a self-evident pronunciation. I had to work at finding the name heard in the cited audio report. Do you have a rationale? I'll check back here. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've proceeded here. Swliv (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Swliv, No problem on your change since I've been off line for a few days. You say that It's not a self-evident pronunciation? Is that the "standard" for including the pronunciation link? I will comment on the article talk page. Regards, --Mollskman (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

J Welsh

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jack_Welch

Hi - As you made an edit to the arterations would you please read and comment in the BLP noticeboard thread - thanks - Youreallycan 05:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I read the thread and don't really have any comment right now. Thank you for your message. --Mollskman (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool - thanks - Youreallycan 21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Mollskman, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Seinfeld minor characters

I believe that "each with their own special quirks" works fine, is there a special reason you altered it twice? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I think its less verbose and works fine as well. I guess you prefer the former? --Mollskman (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Also, maybe including edit summaries for why you reverted or copy edited, ect, might be helpful rather than just hitting a button to revert another editor, just saying, but really not preaching, if thats ok? --Mollskman (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh... the lack of edit summary was unintentional, as I used the PopUps script to perform an automatic revert (it's pretty convenient sometimes). As for the shorter wording, I feel it takes a bit away from the sentence aesthetics. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem with the edit summary, it just helps. I am not married to this article, actually my first edit, so I wouldn't revert again over such a minor wording issue. If you feel really strongly, just revert or rewrite. Thanks, --Mollskman (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nalbandian headnote

Dear Mollskman, I see you have removed the headnote extension I wrote for Nalbandian, and among other things this has led to a "cite error" for one of my references in the main article text. Leaving that aside, I accept that the incident is under investigaton, but it is part of N's career and the Youtube videos have garnered well over a million hits in only a day or two. It is already being referred to as the worst incidence of violence ever on a tennis court and therefore I will restore a shorter, more neutral reference to it in the headnote - which has an "expansion required" notice on it anyway. With best wishes, FClef (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi FClef, sorry for messing up any citations, ect. I would not include it in the lede as it now stands since it seems a bit undue weight compared to his overall life and carreer, but thats me. As far as worst incidence of violence, that makes me chuckle since I love American Football, and compared to that this is pretty tame to say the least. Hopefully we can continue this on the talk page. I will not revert for now but will try to form consensus. Cheers! --Mollskman (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

BLPN

Hi Mollskman, I opened a subsection here at the Ian Tomlinson discussion on the BLP noticeboard on 23 June to ask whether there was consensus for the changes to the lead, or whether we ought to return to the previous lead. I'm now trying to sum up who supports and opposes the changes. If you're still interested in commenting, would you mind leaving your views here? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fictional American people of Hungarian descent

Actually, this isn't what you think. When I was reading up on Moe on the approved Simpsons Wiki, it said that while there is no way of proving his place of birth, it is a known fact that he does have Hungarian descent. Here is my source if you don't believe me.

And also, Moe's ancestry or nationality is intentionally mysterious as a running joke. Sometimes he's Dutch, sometimes he's Italian, sometimes he's Armenian; in one episode it's even implied that he might be Arab. (And between you and I, I'd like to think that Moe might actually be Maltese and hence that is how he has all of those ancestries rolled into one, but I digress and this is only fan fiction.)

Please give me feedback. The Uncyclopedian (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi The Uncyclopedian, since his nationality is intentionally mysterious, I wouldn't include it in the category, which right now isn't populated. Also, not sure about that wiki as a reliable source. This also runs into original research. --Mollskman (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tyop fixing

Thank you for helping me appear marginally competent by fixing my typo on AN3 earlier. :), - 2/0 (cont.) 03:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

lol, no problem. --Mollskman (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Courteous note for you.

As you already know, you're getting harassed by a tendentious editor who has a habit of warning people on the first 1RR. You're free to ignore him. I looked at your contributions and you're in the clear. ViriiK (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are a STAR!

Hi Mollskman, I am Lionelt--yes the very Lionelt that accurately counted 4RR on Still and reported him. I stopped by to introduce myself, and noticed the great work you're doing on Romney and Ryan. (And the frivolous warning from Still was also a dead giveaway that you must be doing something right, hahaha.) So I've decided to give you a barnstar! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		You are making a positive contribution at the Romney and Ryan articles--keep it up! – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User warning and revision deletion

Hi Mollskman, thanks for helping out with reverting vandalism, I just wanted to bring one user warning you gave to your attention. Regarding this revert, the revert was good, but instead of warning them about the seriousness of what they did you thanked them for there contributions. The edit they made was a serious BLP violation and they needed to be warnred about it with, (a warning which does not assume good faith, as the edit was not and as I said was offensive), either a level 3 or level 4im warning, such as {{subst:uw-blp3}}, {{subst:uw-blp4im}}, {{subst:blp1}}, or {{subst:blp2}}.

In this case, because of the seriousness and that it meets WP:CRD#2 you should request that it be revision deleted so that it can't be viewed generally by the public. Have a look at WP:REVDEL#How to request Revision Deletion on how to request revision deletion and WP:RFO for details on how to request oversight (if you can't easily find an admin this is the way to go as they're all currently admins as well).

This isn't intended as anything but a friendly reminder, please don't take it any other way. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. --Mollskman (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

'ce' edit summary means what?

What does 'ce' mean ? Thank You. 173.79.58.147 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi IP, "ce" is shorthand for copy edit. I use it when I am doing minor editing that hopefully isn't to big a deal. --Mollskman (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What did you copy edit? arent the edit summaries suposed ot be clear? 173.79.58.147 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi IP, I am sorry which article are you referring to? and yes, sometimes I could write better edit summaries even though they are not required by policy.--Mollskman (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your removal

re: Mitt Romney. Please check the sources provided. Cwobeel (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I did. --Mollskman (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Trolling

Since you removed the previous notice, I'll make it clear. All your edits today have been to troll another user. If you continue, you will be blocked. I presume you'll remove this as well, which I'll take to mean you've read and understood it. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Calling an SPA an SPA?--Mollskman (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No reply? --Mollskman (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

1 month topic ban on 2012 Presidential Campaign articles

You were notified on 11 Sept 12 that all articles related to the 2012 Presidential Campaign were under article probation. On 19 Sept 12 you were warned again that these three edits were trolling and provoking another user. Today you boldly removed a referenced section of Mitt Romney dog incident. Your edit was reverted and you immediately restored the material with an edit summary that suggests there is a consensus to do so on the talk page despite that the discussion on the talk page has not reached a consensus and is learning toward removing it. You were invited to join that discussion and you chose to revert instead even going as far as to accuse another editor of personal attacks for this diff. It seems to me that you have trouble editing collaboratively on these articles. I'm issuing a topic ban for you from 2012 Presidential campaign articles for 1 month, broadly construed, across all namespaces except to appeal this topic ban to WP:ARBCOM or WP:ANI. In the future, you need to practice WP:BRD and avoid edit warring behavior, especially on articles under probation.--v/r - TP 13:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi TP, I would just note that I did actually use the talk page before and after I was invited. I also mentioned the personal attacked because a user had said I used a "dishonest edit summary" when I had reverted per the talk page where there was no consensus for including the material. Anyways, I will respect you decision since you seem to be acting in good faith. Can I also thank you for your service to our Country? Regards, --Mollskman (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating a topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Immediately after acknowledging your 1-month topic ban from articles related to the 2012 Presidential election, you made substantive edits to Americans for Prosperity ([1]), an article about an organization heavily involved in the 2012 Presidential election. I'm at a loss to understand this immediate and blatant violation of your topic ban. I've blocked you for 1 week for this violation (given your previous blocks for edit-warring and block evasion). The topic ban duration of 1 month will reset once the 1-week block expires, and will now run through October 28. You may appeal the block by the usual means. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh sh$t, i didn't even know that they fell under the ban, seriously. I was thinking Paul Ryan, Rommeny, Semus the dog, I didn't build that, ect. If I knew that was one of the topic banned articles, I obviously wouldn't have edited it. This reminds me of the time I did a "rolling stop" through a stop sign and the cop pulled me over and asked if I saw him there? Of course I didn't or I wouldn't have done that. Seriously, I apologize for my ignorance. --Mollskman (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban applies to "all articles related to the 2012 Presidential campaign". Your explanation does strain my credulity a bit, but on the other hand I can't imagine any other explanation other than that you didn't grasp the scope of the topic ban. Based on your representations here, I'm fine with unblocking you with the understanding that we're clear about the topic-ban scope, and that any further infractions are likely to be dealt with more harshly. If you're not sure whether a particular article falls under the topic ban, the safest thing to do is to ask (you could ask TParis, since he placed it, for example). MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, yes, I would appreciate being unblocked per your note above. Again, I apologize, and I will try to check with TP, or could I ask you? I guess there is no topic related article list per say? Thanks, --Mollskman (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I support this unblock. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Support Unblock Looks like a genuine mistake. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. Mollskman's behavior is, regardless of community probation, genuinely problematic. He followed me around, baiting, insulting and reverting me. Having said that, I don't think he understood the scope of the community probation. If he had, then he would have avoided the revert that got him blocked. So I support his unblock, but not because he's innocent. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If a user is going to be blocked for violation of election articles then there better be a notification on the article that it falls within that realm. Arzel (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mollskman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See above.

Accept reason:

Please ensure that you check with an uninvolved admin (any of those who have commented here will be fine, for exaample) if you are not sure whether an article falls under the topic ban, and refrain from nonconstructive comments about other editors on talk pages. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1