Jump to content

User talk:Mz7/December 2016–February 2017

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

I saw that

I saw the "declined draft" message AFCH added to your talk page. I think I know what happened. The user added {{subst:submit}} to their draft, but they forgot to end a comment (see WP:HIDDEN) they had within the article with "-->" (see [1]), so the template apparently didn't subst like it should have because it was inside that comment along with the rest of the draft. You then came along and cleaned up the draft, fixing the comment. The template then substed correctly, but, because you were the one who had last edited the draft, it assumed you were the creator of it, so it added your username to the |u= parameter, which, of course, stands for username. — Gestrid (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: Aha – I think you're right! Thanks for figuring this out and letting me know. Your explanation makes perfect sense, and I have now updated the |u= parameter to read the submitter's name. Hopefully this resolves the issue for the future. Best, Mz7 (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As a reminder (not that you need it as an AFC reviewer), you can use the template with a parameter to change |u= to the username in the parameter. That is, you can use the template like {{subst:submit|draft creator's username}} to set the |u= parameter manually. — Gestrid (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the tip! Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Mz7,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

hawkesbury bridge

edit this has achieved nothing. the better link is no better than the previous link, which is the link cited by trove. like correcting a disam error, this is just an edit that wasn't necessary. Dave Rave (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dave Rave: I took a look at that edit again, and I agree with you. Not sure what my thought process was, and I apologize. Mz7 (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Vinicius and Tom

On 18 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vinicius and Tom, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during wrestling at the 2016 Summer Olympics, coaches threw plush dolls of Vinicius, the Olympic mascot, into the ring (pictured) if they wished to challenge a referee's call? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vinicius and Tom. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vinicius and Tom), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Hello Mz7: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GSS (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
@GSS-1987: Thank you, and happy holidays to you as well! Mz7 (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Loré Lixenberg

hello MZ7,

i wanted to understand why you also deleted the page i rewrote on Loré Lixenberg, since i have spent time on it for nothing, and to my mind, she really should be on wikipedia (she is already on many links on wiki). thanks to explain why you have done this, after deleting the first version. BestF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Identifiantinconnuidentifiantinconnu (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Responded on your user talk page Mz7 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Adminship

You may have noticed there's a trend to recruit more admins lately. I got to thinking and recalled our occasional friendly exchanges, and between your AfD stats, two GAs, and admin-like activity, I was wondering if you've ever given adminship any thought. Let me know if you are interested, and we'll discuss more :) Pinging Samwalton9 who has also expressed interest — MusikAnimal talk 00:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal. I've thought about it, yes. I posted at OCRP back in May, but there wasn't too much input there (1 comment, which I found helpful). I do feel that the toolset would be a natural extension to the kind of work I typically do on Wikipedia, but I've tended to have a "maybe later" mindset about it. I would definitely be interested in hearing what you think. Mz7 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! I've created User:MusikAnimal/RfA/Mz7. If you could fill out the standard three questions, I'll evaluate and we'll go from there :) At the surface things look good to me. A word of note, this pre-RfA thing is intentionally on-wiki. However if there is something you want to share with me privately don't hesitate to email me. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 05:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Wow, thanks! I actually didn't expect it to move this quickly. I will sleep on this and will see about having answers up later today or tomorrow. Mz7 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
No pressure! Filling out the questions just makes it easier for me to evaluate your chances. Especially things like Q3 are difficult to answer by anyone other than yourself. So take your time, and if you need to rethink things that's OK :) — MusikAnimal talk 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Alright, I've answered the three standard questions with some of my initial ponderings. Thank you again for doing this. Mz7 (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA

You just need to accept the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mz7 and we're good to go! I can transclude for you, or feel free to do so yourself following the instructions at WP:RFA/NOMELSE. Good luck! — MusikAnimal talk 00:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal and Samwalton9: I've accepted the nomination. Per WP:SOCK, I've also declared a few alternative accounts in my acceptance statement. Please take a look at them, and when you've finished, you can go ahead and transclude the RfA. Here we go... Mz7 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My Redirect Request for Hakim Said

I just left a reply to your message to me on my Redirect Request for Hakim Said. As asked by you, I have provided a reliable source to a major newspaper article on Hakim Said there. I am copying the same URL here, too, since I honestly am not sure which one is a better place to send you a reply. http://nation.com.pk/national/17-Oct-2015/death-anniversary-of-hakim-saeed-observed. The alternative name 'Hakim Mohammad Saeed' is shown in this newspaper article right below his picture. Many thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that this source may not be enough, and I've left a response there explaining why. Mz7 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomnation

The next and last step of an editor of the week nomination is to add the individual's name, without pinging him, to the talk page so that others can second or add comments if they so desire. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: Thanks for the tip! This was my first time nominating, so I apologize for missing a step. I've tried to match the format of the other talk page notes; please check to see if I did it correctly. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations...

...on your successful RfA! Good luck with your new responsibilities. Maxim(talk) 11:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your new uniform.

Some stroopwafels for you!

Congratulations! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
I shall once again risk being reported for talk page spam to give another new admin the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed
– nearly ten long, sordid, geez-I-should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.)
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
  5. Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.


Katietalk 12:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.

A cup of coffee for you!

Congrats on your successful RFA! Please take some time to enjoy this cup of coffee I made. It's made with REAL coffee beans, freshly ground with a hand-powered grinder, filtered through a REAL French press, and poured by a REAL barista... Okay, the last part is not true, but everything else about this cup is REAL; this is no fake cup of hot coloured water here. Also, I will always beat you at Huggle, so this cup won't change that! Muhahaha! I mean... congrats... and cheers? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A Beer for you!

Necessary Admin supplies
Sláinte! Congratulations on your successful RfA. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thomas the Tank etc.

Hello, you may remember me from dealings with a disruptive IP-hopping F1 editor who frequently requested redirects so he could create non-notable articles? Anyway... there is an American version of the show but as far as I'm aware it's the UK production with voice over by US actors. (See Thomas & Friends (series 6). I'm sure you noticed the editor concerned removed messages from his TP. Belated congrats on the Admin!! Eagleash (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Eagleash! I do remember you. Thanks for the clarification on the U.S. redub. I've revised my comments at User talk:Daniel B. Choromanski accordingly. I did notice the warnings that were blanked, but I chose to leave a talk page message in this case since it appears the user might simply have had a misunderstanding about the show. I will continue to monitor the user. One interesting thing I noticed, unrelated to this user, was that the main Thomas & Friends page contained a number of categories such as Category:1980s American television series. I've now removed them. Mz7 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! See how it goes... IP boy is still about but is not quite as disruptive. He also now has an account, but edits typically 'logged-out'. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Eagleash: Ah, good to hear. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Regarding Thomas & Friends, the user appears to have stopped now. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The Thomas editing has continued, contribs. Multiple warnings again on his TP. Eagleash (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Eagleash: Thanks for the tip. I'm looking into the situation. Mz7 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, the user hasn't edited in about 3 hours, but at this time, I feel sufficiently involved that I will not be using any administrative actions against this user. I may draft an ANI report later if the user resumes editing disruptively. Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for your protection in Belen Rodriguez's page. Plaese note that the other user (a troll) always delete in his talk page many of the other people messages, not only with me but also for other user like Adam9007 and Loriendrew. Please, can you block for ever the other user? He is only a troll and a vandal. And why he deleted this edit? It's not logic. And why he destroyed here the section of legal controversy? Can you revert this two edit?--151.67.43.10 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I will like to apologize on the edit war, I know I am not making vandalism. It was user 151.67.43.10 and the IP user is from Italy making multiple IPs making poor sourced content. Could you block 151.67.43.10 indefinitely. So I am here to apologize. I am very very very sorry. Could you block 151.67.43.10 indefinitely The IP from Italy making an edit war. So thank you and please accept my apology. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a multiple, I'm a variable IP. Stop your fake news. You can not delete other people messages. --151.67.43.10 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
To both of you: I don't think either of you are trolling or vandalizing. I think that both of you are genuinely here to make the encyclopedia better, and I think we should proceed with that in mind. The best place to have this discussion is Talk:Belén Rodríguez, and I strongly recommend starting a section there to work things out together. For these reasons, I won't be blocking anyone at this time. To 151.67.43.10: The main issue I see with the edit that you linked to is that "Gossip Blog" would most likely fall short of the standards of reliability we typically expect of sources in biographies of living persons, especially since it has "gossip" directly in its name – see WP:BLPGOSSIP. Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
And why the other user (many days ago) deleted other news about Iannone? For example, I can use this better source like "Oggi" (one of the most important week journal in Italy) but the other user always deleted. And why he destroyed here the section of legal controversy? In this section I used Correre della Sera as source, but he always delete. And why he always delete in his talk page many of the other people messages? This is NOT admissible: you must block him (in the Italian Wikipedia the deletion in personal talk page is punished with a block). --151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is NOT admissibile for the Wikipedia's rules: you must block him for ever. And this is normal?!? No.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, blocking is a measure taken to prevent disruptive behavior, not to punish it. In this case, I think the other user is getting understandably frustrated by the situation, which is prompting them to remove messages – continually reversing each other's changes can create this kind of animosity and is exactly why we should avoid it. With that in mind, I think we should set aside the behavioral issues for now and talk strictly about the content of the article. I appreciate that Oggi is an important weekly journal in Italy, but the specific article you linked to still appears to be in the "Gossip" column of the website – our goal is to publish solid, verifiable content, not to spread gossip. I took a look at the edit you linked to about the legal controversy, and from what I can tell, the other user was shifting a piece of information from one section to another; they didn't remove anything. Perhaps you meant a different edit? Mz7 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not gossip, but an official declaration (the solid, verifiable content), not fake: Il Giornale is better than "Oggi" or I must search in Corriere della sera's (payment) archives? The other user always deleted a part of the controversy section to rewrite the same in personal life: the correct edit is write IN controversy section AND in personal life, NOT only in personal life. And what this is? Can you help me? --151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for my apology. I know it's not my disrutpive behavior. It was 151.67.43.10, the IP user from Italy that almost made the continuous disruptive behavior and kept on harassing me. There might be multiple IP from Italy name 151.67 to continously adding poor sourced content. Also I type in the edit summary on the Belén Rodríguez article WP:NOTTABLOID. For more info on WP:NOTTABLOID, talk to @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: on no current source on it's relationship and WP:NOTTABLOID. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
And why you initially deleted also Daily Mail (DM) and Fatto Quotidiano (FQ), an important news paper in Italy? Only when I re-write you stopped to remove DM and FQ. I'm not a multiple: I'm a variable IP. Plaese, stop your fake news.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
To 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D: Generally, you shouldn't remove other user's edits on talk pages without their permission, unless you are cleaning up your own personal user talk page – the page at WP:TPO explains this in more detail. I am, however, willing to set aside the behavioral concerns for now and focus solely on the content.

To 151.67.43.10: do you have a reliable source that verifies the content you want to add? If so, present that source here, and we will see if 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D is okay with it. If you two both agree, we can add it to the article. Note that Daily Mail is also not typically regarded a reliable source for a Wikipedia biography of a living person, since it is considered tabloid journalism—see WP:BLPSOURCES. I'm not familiar with Fatto Quotidiano. Mz7 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fatto Quotidiano is the newspaper of Marco Travaglio, this is not fake news or tabloid: it's a serious journal (left wing). This is not gossip, but an official declaration (the solid, verifiable content), not fake: Il Giornale is better than "Oggi" or I must search in Corriere della sera's (payment) archives? The other user always deleted a part of the controversy section to rewrite the same in personal life: the correct edit is write IN controversy section AND in personal life, NOT only in personal life. And what this is? Can you help me?--151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, I just noticed that you did provide a source up above: Il Gionale. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D, are you okay with this source? Regarding the edit warring noticeboard, I've left a comment recommending that you not be blocked at this time, but please be more careful about edit warring in the future: when it becomes apparent that you are in a disagreement, stop reverting and try to engage with the other user on a talk page. Also, stop accusing the other user of spreading "fake news". Focus on the content; I think they were identifying problems with the sources you were using, and I wonder if they're okay with the Il Gionale source here. Mz7 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Il Gionale is not allowed to add into the article. That is an Italian newspaper source. It needs an English newspaper source. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, while English sources are preferred, the Wikipedia verifiability policy does allow the use of non-English sources to verify content, as long as they are reliable: see WP:NONENG. You can try using Google Translate to translate the article if you can't read it. (I can't read Italian either.) Setting aside the language, do you have an issue with the reliability of the source? Mz7 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, there is no English sources for adding to the Belen Rodriguez article in English. I think we should leave the article from now on. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Ehm, the other user ALWAYS DELETE IN HIS PERSONAL TALK, how can I ask with him if he always delete? With his deletion in his personal talk he attack me. This article is written by Il Giornale (right-wing, the "rival" of Il Fatto Quotidiano) and this article is good for you: but for the other user not and this is incredibile: please, he is a troll... can you block? In the Italian Wikipedia if an user "work" like him is not accept: you accept this? He is a troll. --151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If the other user fails to respond, there are different avenues of outside dispute resolution that you can seek. They are described in detail here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I am personally unfamiliar with the Il Giornale source, but it looks reliable at first glance. Mz7 (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If the other user fails to respond, you must block him because he is a troll: in the Italian Wikipedia an user can not destroyed the other people like him. The most important news paper in Italy are: Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, Il Giornale, Il Messaggero, Il Mattino, Libero, Il Fatto Quotidiano and many others.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mz7, 151.67.43.10 has continously attacking and harassing me and calling me a "troll" under "No personal attacks". The result, 151.67.43.10 has made a personal attack first and starting accusing me. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You are a troll because you not respond: Il Giornale (that is serious source) is good for you? YES OR NOT AND WHY?--151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Stop it, you're continuing harrasing me, I want to hear MZ7's reply on "No personal attacks". 151.67, You attack me first and stop calling me a troll. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
False, all false. You always deleted other people (not only me) in your personal talk and this is a personal attack. This is not admissibile. If you deleted other people and don't respond if other people ask you in your personal talk, you are a troll for the Wikipedia's rules.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
151.67, For the last stop calling me a "troll". If you call me a troll, There will be consequences from you and you're comments are disruptive and off-topic. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding "no personal attacks", the core of that policy is this: comment on content, not the contributor. I ask both of you to set aside your concerns about the other user's behavior and focus on the content. This does mean you should not label editors as trolls – removing other users' comments can be disruptive, but it's a mistake that anyone can make, especially if they are new to Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Mz7, my apologies again The IP user from Italy has continously harassing me, attacking me and kept on calling me a "troll". 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Plaese, he is NOT a new user, for example this is ONLY ONE of his deletion in his personal talk page: this is NOT admissible and why he did not respond about Il Giornale that you accepted?--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I told you, Il Giornale cannot be added as a source. My answer is "No". 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Why? Il Giornale is an important newspaper. Please, stop trolling... --151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
THAT'S IT! I am not a troll. You kept on calling me a "troll". Your comments are off topic. I say "No" to Il Giornale. There is consequences for the IP from Italy. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Your aren't a troll? Ok, but you can not use a legal intimidation: Wikipedia did NOT permit this.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Second, the Belen Rodriguez article to be rewritten since this month WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. It was translated word by word that contain poor English sentences, missing subjects, run on sentences and punctuation problems. It needs a strong administator to fix the correct English sentences, poor punctuation problems and missing subjects, could you review the entire Belen Rodriguez article to fix the English sentences correctly. It was rewritten since January 2017. It was requested by User:Veritycheck. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your argument lost the Article for Deletion of Belen: plaese, stop; you lose the AFD.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mz7, I want a super strong administratorby fixing the Belen Rodriguez article by correcting the English language sentences. We are hoping a strong administrator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I do see that the overall quality of the articles appears subpar. This is remedied by general editing from any user; administrators don't have any greater say on the content than other users. I will see what I can do. Please note that I am going to sign off for a few hours as I have a real life commitment that I must attend to. In the meantime, if you don't have any other objections to the Il Giornale source, I think we can add it to the article. Mz7 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Mz7, My decision for the Il Giornale source in "No" that contains the Italian language and can not be added as a source that's contains the Italian language I told the IP user from Italy. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You were blocked for VANDALISM on Spanish Wikipedia: GAME OVER, YOU LOSE. I was blocked for insulting against him in Spanish Wikipedia. Plaese, dear Mz7, block this troll for ever because he did not accept Il Giornale and he use fake arguments.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Mz7, please don't block me, The IP 151.67.43.10 wants me to block permanently and the IP user from Italy has kept on calling me a "troll" over ten times and kept on harrasing and attacking me and making off-topic comments. I know my arguments are not fake. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Plaese, you lost the AFD with the other user (Veritycheck). The article is good: your request is not admissibile.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This line of discussion is not productive. Focus on the content. Mz7 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You and Veritycheck LOST the AFD, plaese stop your fake news.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Stop saying "Stop your fake news." That's considered harassment under "no personal attacks". Also I am not talking about the AFD. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is incredible: the other user did not accept Il Giornale after (please, note: AFTER) when you accepted Il Giornale.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This legal intimidation is forbidden for the Wikipedia's rules. Mr7, plaese block that user.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that as a legal threat – at least not an unambiguous one – and I hope that the editor could clarify what they meant by "consequences". They could have simply meant an editing sanction like a block. Mz7 (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

MZ7, don't listen to the Italian IP's comments my arguments are not fake. MZ7, please block 151.67.43.10 permanently for distruptive comments and assaulting me for violating the English Wikipedia. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not admissible: you can not delete other people messages.--151.67.43.10 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not deleting other people's comments. You're comments are offensive. The Belen Rodriguez article will be rewritten. I say stop this for your own good! 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary of the dispute

The discussion above has grown rather dense, and I would like to provide a summary of it. I will only summarize the content dispute, as I believe that should be the #1 focus of the discussion.

This dispute revolves around a series of edits to the Belén Rodríguez article. Some media organizations have reported on their "gossip" columns that Belén Rodríguez and the Italian professional MotoGP rider Andrea Iannone were in an affair together: [2][3]. A user with the IP address range 151.67.xx added content related to this to the article on 25 January 2017, citing such sources as gossipblog.it. This was reverted by a user with the IP address 2001:569:70dd:7500:39ea:19d8:df90:ef4d a few hours later, citing WP:NOTTABLOID in the edit summary. The users then continually reverse each others' changes until the page was semi-protected, which led to this discussion here.

The most important Wikipedia policy to consider in this case is the biographies of living persons policy, which demands the highest quality sourcing possible before adding information to the article. Information that is attributable only to tabloid journalism, or articles that exist only to spread gossip (i.e. "gossip" columns of news media), should not be included in the article. For this reason, sources like the Daily Mail and "gossipblog.it" should not be used to add information to the article. 175.67.xx pointed out above that Italian news organization Il Giornale published an article with a quote from an interview with Iannone where he stated, in reference to Rodriguez: "Honestly I do not like so much to tell my private life. I can say that yes, we're engaged . There's not much else I should say or confirm. It's all been said, is not it?" He said in an interview with Gazzetta dello Sport. (Google Translate translation.)

This seems like a reliable source because it comes from a national-scale Italian news organization, which presumably has an adequate degree of editorial oversight. 2001:569:70dd:7500:39ea:19d8:df90:ef4d rejects that this source should be used to support adding the content in the article, arguing that an English-language source should be used instead. That argument, however, doesn't align with WP:NONENG, which specifically allows the use of non-English sources as a means of verifying content. On the other hand, this is clearly a sensitive topic for Rodriguez, and as an encyclopedia, we should be extra careful we are not accidentally spreading more unverifiable gossip. One solution could be to include in-text attribution, stating, for instance, "Il Giornale reported that...", before the content. Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment

Basically, I don't find any problem with the use of the Giornale source.It shall be noted per WP:VERIFIABILITY sources in foreign language are accepted and we have seen articles that are solely based on them!

Secondly, calling other users a troll or such epithets may be regarded as violation of WP:PERSONAL even when used in the hear of the moment and we take such violations seriously.

An user is also at liberty to remove practically any message from his talkpage including but not limited to warnings etc.Winged Blades Godric 07:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Further, asking an admin to block another user can be sometimes deemed as necessary but repeating it vigorously does nothing save ensuring continual disruption.Winged Blades Godric 07:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

And I am of the opinion WP:DROPTHESTICK will be a good read for both the users who find themselves embroiled in the controversy and needless mud-slinging.Winged Blades Godric 07:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again

Hi there. About a month ago I requested this article to be corrected by the Guild of Copy Editors due to the numerous grammatical mistakes found throughout the article. This problem was the result of editors lacking a sufficient command of English trying to add to the article. I addressed the need for a complete rewrite on the TALK page. Today, thanks to the hard work put in by Corinne and others from the Guild, they have managed to copyedit the article leaving it in a readable state. In their own words, it wasn't an easy task!

Unfortunately, one of the editors both involved in the dispute outlined here and also largely responsible for the poor quality of edits has started to re-edit the article. Rather than seeking help which was offered by the Guild, they are reversing the many hours of work that was just carried out fixing their mistakes. I have reverted the edit once requesting the user to seek help before making additions and to participate on the talk page. Instead, they have responded with hostile language and further reverts. Is there anything you can do to put an end to this? It would be a shame to see the page return to the state it was in before the Guild worked to repair it. I have notified them here. Thanks for any help you can provide. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Questo utente millanta. Qui io ho semplicemente copiato nella sezione Controversie il testo che loro hanno scritto a proposito del divorzio nella sezione Personal Life. Poi io ho solamente modificato i tempi dei verbi usando il presente invece del passato, inoltre io ho corretto alcune date errate (la rottura del matrimonio risale al 22 dicembre 2015, ma nel testo precedente non c'era scritto l'anno). Io ti scrivo in italiano visto che l'altro utente non capisce la lingua inglese quando io scrivo in inglese. --151.67.32.68 (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
As 151.67.32.68 does not have their own Talk page, I have responded to them here.
It is precisely your problem with verb tenses in English that is causing problems to this article. Just one example for you: the present simple is not used with since. It is the present perfect that is correct. Additionally, the word "sons" in English is not used to describe daughters. It only refers to male children. These are just two out of the hundreds of mistakes that have just been fixed by the Guild.
Your latest edit has introduced several more grammatical errors in a page that was just cleaned up today. Asking an editor to fix a few mistakes is reasonable. However, continually expecting other editors to completely rewrite your edits is not. This is why you should seek help before you edit the article. You need help with basic grammar. For this very same reason, I only edit English page articles and not Italian ones. Likewise, you would be a benefit to the Italian site if you put your energy there and work in your own language. We both want the best page for this article. Non e vero? Non c'è bisogno di essere scortese. (It’s true, no? There is no need to be rude.)
Finally, I urge you to create an account with your own talk page so conversations like this can take place there. If that is impossible, then use the article’s Talk page. That would be the first step in showing that you are serious in your desire to improve the article. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in responding to this. I took a look through the disputed edits, and it looks like there wasn't much substantive change to the content of the article, merely shifting things around. Veritycheck is correct in that it does introduce multiple English grammatical errors. 151.67, are there any specific errors that you want to see corrected with the content, and could you explain (in English please) why you believe the content should be shifted in this manner? I took a look and I think the issue with the date (i.e. that it didn't have an accompanying year) has been corrected. Can you double check? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there again. Unfortunately the editor 151.67..... has once again tried to edit the page leaving it in worse condition than when they found it. They are introducuing grammatical errors, breaking up well written paragraphs, and adding sections where none are needed. The page has suffered from their disruptive editing. Consequently, I have rolled back their edits. The user has been requested to seek help politely numerous times by both myself and Corinne before editing the page. They refuse to do so. What can we do about this? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is NOT true. I contact him here and I asked that his edit is not correct. I only correct some errors (written by other people). He can not delete my edit. Please, can he delete his edit? My edit was NOT an disruptive edit. With my edit I did NOT introduced grammatical or other errors. Please, stop fake news. Belén posed also for Playboy in 2009 and she worked also with Michelle Hunziker in 2016, Veronica is the mother of Belen and I used a source (Corriere.it) for Belen's height. Here (the first edit) I only used "Invio". I have NOT modify the text (I only writter for Playboy and Hunziker), what is his problem? Are he crazy? Here (the second edit) I have only best positioned two paragraphs: what is his problem? And here I have resolved a clarify: what is his problem with me? My edits are all correct. But the user:Veritycheck NEVER read my edits, NEVER!!!!! Please, dear user:Mz7, you must punish user:Veritycheck for his fake news. Naturally here user:Veritycheck did NOT respond to my answer and this is not forbidden by the Wikipedia's rules.--151.67.47.198 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I have responded on my Talk page to this. The attacks are getting personal. Moreover, just looking at the poorly written posts both here and on my talk page alone show clearly that the editor has no place making direct edits to any of Wikipedia's English articles without assistance first. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

IP from Italy has warned

Hi, I am here to tell you that the IP from Italy was warned for edit warring and broken the three revert rule instead of blocking. It was resolved already. I am here to say thank you and I will let you know if the same IP or a different IP from Italy might edit war again between the article and my talk page. And for my request could you extend the article for Belén Rodríguez for another four days to make it over one week. So, once again thanks again, extend the article protection for another four days as my request. And if the 151.67 continues to edit war, I will call you. Thanks for your help. Have a good one, see you later. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to extend the protection preemptively. The protection was an attempt to encourage productive discussion. If the edit warring continues, there are a variety of possible responses, including warnings, reinstating protection, or blocking, depending on the nature of the case. Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Movie soundtrack covers

Hi, I just saw your message on my talk page. I can explain everything about why I added the soundtrack covers of Rio, Rio 2, and Wreck-It Ralph. The reason why I added the covers of the soundtracks was because the "Cover" perimeter in the infoboxes was left blank, so here's what I did: I went on Amazon, downloaded the covers of the albums, uploaded them to Wikipedia, had Theo's Little Bot or DatBot reduce them, and then I added the covers to the "Soundtrack" or "Music" sections of the pages. And yes, I know some of them contain the same image from the film's poster but with the words "Music from the Motion Picture" or "Music by (composer's name)" on the cover. I was just trying to improve Wikipedia by adding missing images. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@DBZFan30: I totally understand where you're coming from. I pretty much did the same thing as you a few years ago. Wikipedia has a goal of sharing free content, so we want to try to use only as much non-free content as needed. Soundtrack covers are often very similar to the film posters – so much so that we can generally use the film poster to convey the same information. Readers looking for content about the film soundtrack will see the film poster and understand that they've come to the right article. I do understand that the soundtrack covers aren't exactly the same – as you mentioned, they have "Music from the Motion Picture" or "Music by (composer's name)" on the cover – but they are substantially similar. I hope this helps clarify a bit. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: The three covers that I mentioned above have been deleted. I have learned from my mistakes, and from now on, i'll only add soundtrack covers that are different from the film's poster. If this is still not the right thing to do, i'll stop uploading them. DBZFan30 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@DBZFan30: No worries. If this soundtrack album cover is different from the film poster, I think that's okay, but I'm not 100% sure. Mz7 (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ultraexactzz's admin anniversary

I actually almost moved it myself, but decided to leave it because Ultraexactzz had listed it that way himself. I was momentarily bewildered when I clicked the 'Cancel' button and saw the name removed. (To think I nearly edit-conflicted on a calendar date page). In retrospect, you probably made the right call, but I did want to let you know that I had already added a talk page notice before I saw your removal. Lepricavark (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I actually undid my change when I saw your message at Ultraexactzz's talk page. I figure 12 minutes into a new day is "close enough" that we can leave the two events together, especially considering that many of us may live in a time zone where 0:12 is still the preceding day. Apologies for the confusion, and thanks for letting me know. Mz7 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I sorta had the same reasoning. No worries about the confusion. I was primarily just amused by the fact that we were both on it at the same time. Btw, belated congrats on your adminship. Lepricavark (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Lepricavark! Mz7 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

HardMental

hey you marked my report for content dispute, what does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardMental (talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read what I typed there? Anyone writes any responses on this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardMental (talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi HardMental. I declined your report to WP:AIV because that noticeboard is only for reporting obvious vandals and spammers. I took a look at your dispute with Chris troutman at Seyit Çabuk, and found that it was a good faith content dispute: essentially, both you and Chris troutman want what's best for the encyclopedia, but disagree on what that best approach is. Remember that this is a collaborative project and all editors are expected to work together. Sometimes, that means we disagree on the way forward, and sometimes, you will disagree with what the majority of other editors think. In this case, it appears you were adding a link to an internal project discussion in the body of the article itself. Links to internal project discussions are not typically placed in articles; instead, they are typically found on article talk pages. That is what I believe to be Chris's argument – and a sensible one too. If you disagree, you need to discuss it with Chris, instead of continually reversing the changes. I hope this helps clarify things. If you need any further clarification, I would be happy to provide it. --Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, there was no discussion whatsoever, see what you did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seyit_%C3%87abuk#edit_warring it is an obvious bully, why can't you message him instead of me!

I didn't even do anything now wth! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HardMental#Talkback

2nd entry here is my exact thoughts if interested: https://www.quora.com/What-are-Wikipedias-flaws

@HardMental: I don't think it is bullying; rather, Chris troutman simply disagrees with the change you want to make. Instead of continuing to revert each other, the normal Wikipedia editing process urges that we take to the talk page and try to come to a consensus with each other through discussion. This often involves listening to what the other side has to say and responding to them respectfully. At Talk:Seyit Çabuk#edit warring, Chris troutman is actually inviting you to stop reverting and discuss the issue with him. Essentially, what you are doing goes against how Wikipedia normally handles featured picture candidacies – even if it is factually correct – so you should be prepared to explain why you think it is appropriate in this case. If you find that you have no explanation, one thing you should consider is whether you've made a mistake. No one here is trying to bully you, we simply disagree with what you are doing. Hope this helps. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

1-he is not inviting me to discussion he is threatening me there is a fine line between those two you can see the talk page, see what he says and his accusation for me making a contribution there alright? 2-Only mistake I ever did was making an article/post on this site. There is never a consensus where there is an impasse, simple as that. 50-50 talk where both parties clash and no intervention resolves with the strongest obviously. 3-I am being provocative on purpose since I passed the point of receiving any reply symphaty or support basically he doesn't thank me for my contribution doesn't bother to visit the page and see my post even just clicks and passes as if he is the owner posts me articles of no body being the owner on this site and one thing I wonder what would happen if it is picked/won on the nomination, wonder what would happen then, which is an unlikely case where no body knows it exists but i could advertise that post on much more popular sites right? But I rather go on the persons page and humbly post it on most bottom with a porper editing and small letters with a single line so why this attention for this post? Simplest answer he is the nominator for one of the other pictures, which he possibly is, more unlikely answer is he gains his reputation over people like me which is a newbie and open to bullying rather than a helping hand sure. Hope you get what I am saying right? Wow that was some piece of mind. I dare you state otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardMental (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@HardMental: I think I do understand what you're saying, and I think you do bring up some interesting points. Whether a resolution to an impasse ("50-50 talk") is possible is something I have thought a lot about through my time on Wikipedia. I think it is possible if the parties involved the conflict have the right mindset: if both parties present their arguments to each other—their reasons for why they took the actions they did—and listens to each other's reasoning, I think that finding a middle ground solution is possible. But obviously, as you know, this doesn't work all the time (what a world it would be if it did!). If both parties are adamant about what they believe in, the solution to that is to bring in more voices: we have processes available where you can request third opinions and even broader input from the community at large. Our page at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution talks more about this subject.

I would say that Chris was less trying to threaten you and more trying to let you know that aspects of your behavior (e.g. continually reverting changes) are considered problematic. His post on the article's talk page was still an invitation for you to explain your reasoning and allow him to respond likewise. Regarding advertising your nomination on popular pages, I understand why you want to do that—to solicit additional input to the discussion—but realize that our readers, the ones who are here only to learn about Seyit Çabuk, aren't going to know what a "featured picture candidate" even is. A better place to solicit additional input is on the article talk pages, which are typically watched by the editors who wrote the respective articles, or WikiProject talk pages, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, which are often highly watched by editors interested in the subject area.

I do think that newcomers to Wikipedia often tend to struggle in their initial efforts, simply because they don't know all the little details—I can totally see a case where a more experienced editor uses the rules of editing to his advantage in a dispute against a newer editor (I don't think that's what's happening here, though). Ultimately, the first solution I can think of is to try simply to educate the newer editors about how things work. I hope that my comments here have helped you gain a better understanding about how dispute resolution works on Wikipedia. Wikipedia definitely has its flaws, but I think that at the end of the day, it works if we all continue to work together. Maybe that's naive (I am one of Wikipedia's newest administrators), but I'd like to think it's true. Mz7 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You keep missing my point! There is no "middle ground" this is not a frikkin car we are not haggling over it a link simply appears there or not otherwise it would be against physics right? What are you suggesting then I can't understand you did you ask him if he has any idea what he is opposing? I don't think so. I will read the rest of your post. I am just an honest/direct person so I don't like to show my right ear with my left hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardMental (talk • contribs) 04:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@HardMental: Well, in this case, one middle ground that I see is still having the link, just posting it on a different page. For example, as I mentioned above, a possible spot is on the talk page or on a WikiProject talk page. Here, you win because your nomination gets greater input, while Chris troutman wins because the link is no longer in the article. Sounds like a middle ground to me. Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry my "ignorance" on the matter but you and the other person that " contributes " on this site are not intelligent or more knowledgeable than the newcomers here subject-wise, and you are literally taking me for an idiot right now and expecting me to "reach" out to other people to join on this "dispute" while you my "major" excuse my expression by the way goes ahead and teaches me lessons about crazy things, sorry but i would advise you to read the "republic" by Plato and "rules for the direction of the mind" and "discourse on the method" by Descartes, supposing you already did you will be able to openly see over this kind of disputes and outcomes thus optimal resolutions which is already stated and solved hundreds and thousands years ago already. So please as a member of the modern ages try and actually converse assuming you have a like minded opposition, right? please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardMental (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@HardMental: I'm sorry if my tone was condescending – that certainly wasn't my intention. Why can't you post your link on another page, such as a talk page? It achieves the same effect, if not greater. Mz7 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You know it as well as I do It is not forbidden to post it there, so why are you guys keep doing that, I do not want to post it on the talk page, it is a discussion page if you like it so much you post it there, I have to insist that it should stay there just because i have the right to that is all I say so please don't stretch this any further, this is as far as it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardMental (talk • contribs) 05:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The point is that it is not standard Wikipedia practice to place it in the content of an article. I agree that "forbidden" is not the best word, but the placement is certainly unusual. Since it doesn't appear that this conversation can be productive if continued, I will go ahead and disengage. Mz7 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Our old (F1) IP friend

Hello, ...well I did say he wasn't quite so disruptive; (I was being generous). Are you able to strike out the ES here? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Mz7 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. He's put the information back subsequently despite being told on many previous occasions about WP:CWW and copy-vio generally. He also edits under the username Rowde, and his TP is a mass of warnings and unheeded advice which he deletes at intervals. Eagleash (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Eagleash: Do you have an issue with the text that the user is adding, setting the lack of attribution per WP:CWW aside for a moment? The lack of attribution can be corrected by simply adding a link to the source page somewhere in the page history by edit summary. This can be done by dummy edit, if necessary. As a technical matter it doesn't have to be performed by the user who inserted the text. I have to log off for a moment right now, but I will take a closer look when I get back. Mz7 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
No not really; the problem is that he keeps doing this sort of thing (amongst other Wiki 'sins') and despite having been told countless times will not heed advice or warnings. I know it's a bit pointy to make an issue of it but patience wore thin some time back. He's been around since August 2015 (possibly earlier) (about 250 IP addresses to date) and is not really constructive. Several other editors have spent considerable periods trying to tidy up his 'efforts'. Eagleash (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand. For now, I've added the draft to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. Mz7 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The user Rowde has now been blocked indef. 'abusing multiple accounts' but none of the usual editors involved with trying to sort his 'work' know how it came about. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Eagleash: If you need clarification on the block, you'll have to ask the blocking administrator. Note that if Rowde is truly the IP editor you've been having problems with, then this indefinite block allows you to to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. For details on this, see WP:EVASION. Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we're 100% certain it is the same editor. Of his IP addresses, about 95% geolocate to the same area until about a month ago when the range and location changed. Editing throughout has shown the same characteristics to the same pages, both logged-in and otherwise, switching between account and IPs seemingly randomly. Being blocked for abusing multiple accounts is a bit like Capone's conviction for tax evasion! :) Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Update; Favonian blocked him after some confusion with another editor as our boy left an odd message on Favonian's page at exactly the wrong moment. Once the mistake was realised, Favonian changed the block to WP:NOTHERE and restored TP access. Rowde then created a sock to 'accept' his own unblock req. (muddling the 2 accounts in the process) and lost TP access again. Eagleash (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's another ES which needs striking out, if you would be so kind. That's an IP which slipped the radar! Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash:  Done. Mz7 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Mz7,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of ASAP TyY

Hello my friend. Im looking to delete ASAP TyY but i'd like when someone searches "ASAP TyY" to redirect to A$AP TyY ... i'm really bad at the redirecting aspect. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castelliaj (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Castelliaj:  Done – I've now deleted ASAP TyY and replaced it with a redirect to A$AP TyY, which I've restored the article content for. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Messed up. How can I change the title in A$AP TyY to ASAP TyY (No dollar sign)

How can I change the title? Just need to change A$AP to ASAP Im sure it's an odd redirected way. Thank you for your help. Castelliaj (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Castelliaj:  Done. To prevent abuse, only registered users with accounts that are more than 4 days old and have made 10 edits can rename pages on Wikipedia. For instructions on how to do this when your account meets the requirements, see Wikipedia:Moving a page. Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Fake news

It is clear that nothing productive can come from extending this discussion further. I urge all participants to disengage, spend some time away from Wikipedia for a little bit, then propose changes on Talk:Belén Rodríguez first if any need to be made. Mz7 (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Veritycheck's version (see here) is

She started her career as a model, initially in Argentina and then internationally.[7] Belén's younger sister, Cecilia (born in Pilar on 18 March 1990),[8] has also been active in Italian show business since 2008[9] and as a model.[8] Since 2014, Cecilia has been Belén's business partner.[10][11] Since 2015, their brother Jeremías and their mother have lived in Milan.[clarification needed]

MY version (see here) was

Belén Rodríguez started her career as model, initially in Argentina and then internationally.[8] Her younger sister, Cecilia (born in Pilar on 18 March 1990),[9] has also been active in Italian show business since 2008[10] and as a model.[9] Cecilia since January 2014 is Belén's business partner.[11][12] Jeremías, Gustavo and Veronica since August 2015 lives permanently in Milan because they definitively left Argentina.[13]

MY version is VERY SIMILAR than Veritycheck's version, but he always delete MY version. What is HIS personal problem with me? Can you stop the fake news of Veritycheck because his stalking is not admissible? MY version is BETTER than Veritycheck's version. --151.67.47.198 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Now, with the Present Perfect (Veritycheck here wrote that I must use the Present Perfect), it is ok?--151.67.47.198 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
THIS IS NOT NORMAL BECAUSE I USED THE PRESENT PERFECT, BUT VERITYCHECK'S FRIEND ALWAYS DELETE. ARE THEY CRAZY? HIS DELETION IN HIS PERSONAL TALK ARE NOT NORMAL. --151.67.47.198 (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
MY VERSION IS CORRECT BECAUSE I USED THE PRESENT PERFECT (VERITYCHECK HERE ASKED TO ME TO USE THE PRESENT PERFECT). CAN YOU REBUILT MY VERSION?--151.67.47.198 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I have examined the various discussions surrounding the Belén Rodríguez article at Talk:Belén Rodríguez, User talk:Mz7#Here we go again, User talk:Veritycheck#Why?, User talk:Corinne#Control, as well as your comments here. Firstly, Veritycheck is not stalking you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means that we work together to build articles—the very nature of a collaborative project means that we will sometimes disagree on what's best for an article. Veritycheck is just another editor who is working to improve the Belén Rodríguez. As someone who is watching the article, Veritycheck noticed your edits and identified a number of English grammatical issues with them, which they have attempted to communicate to you in each of the discussion threads I linked above. Veritycheck argues that as a result of these grammatical issues, your edits caused the article to be more confusing to a reader, rather than more helpful.

There are a number of issues with your own behavior. At least two editors have identified your command of English as subpar; this isn't your fault, of course, but at least one editor has suggested that you propose changes on Talk:Belén Rodríguez instead of directly adding them in yourself, in order to allow other editors to proofread your contributions so that they are clearer to our readers. This is not intended to humiliate you, but to work together to make the encyclopedia better. Instead of responding this advice, you have continued to introduce grammatical errors to the article, and when challenged, you have accused other editors of trolling and spreading "fake news", when all they were doing was pointing out the grammatical issues with your contributions. It can be frustrating to be involved in a dispute like this, but you must avoid making these accusations and instead respond to the other editors' concerns at their face value. Explain why you think your text is better, and listen to why others think your text is not better. Avoid using all capital letters when communicating on Wikipedia, as this is often interpreted as shouting—inappropriate for a collaborative environment. Finally, you have engaged in edit warring on multiple occasions on the article by continually reversing changes without discussing on the talk page. As a result of your most recent edit war, I have now fully protected the article against editing.

If you continue to accuse other editors of things like "trolling" or "fake news", or if you continue to refuse to listen to your fellow editors regarding your grammatical errors, or if you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing. To avoid a block, I strongly recommend that you use this time while the page is protected to propose changes on the article's talk page, and allow other editors to provide feedback. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me here. Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

False, totally false: you haven't examined nothing; why you don't control the edits? For example, what was the problem with this and this and this and this and this my edits? (The problem is NOT real) The problem is the distruptive edit of Veritycheck (and his friend) and note that when Veritycheck sleep, arrives the other user: they are sockpuppet --151.67.47.198 (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Not helpful. Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's not false 151.67.47.198, you are the most hated and evil Italian IP user! You're attacking Veritycheck and myself. If you continue making disruptive behavior and making off-topic comments. You will make consequences and a possible block. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I am the most hated and evil?!? THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK, THE ADMINSTRATION MUST BLOCK (in the Italian Wikipedia a "devil attack" is punished with a block for ever and ever). This is very incredible... I am disgusted.--151.67.47.198 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry that comment was made. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D|2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D, you are not helping. Mz7 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Italian IP 151.67 is a sockpuppet?

Hi Mz7, So I already apologize to you a couple of weeks ago. And I am still frustrated on my edits. So I need your help. Could you review the article history for Belén Rodríguez. I see a lot of Italian IPs name 151.67. So the Italian IPs name 151.67 and is a sockpuppet and they are making abuse edits. Currently 151.67.47.198 is making abuse edits the Italian IP is a sockpuppet. Could you block 151.67.47.198 indefinetly, please? On the history page of Belén Rodríguez I see a lot of multiple Italian IPs name 151.67. There is 151.67.45.60, 151.67.32.68, 151.67.43.10, 151.67.107.187, 151.67.102.57, 151.67.107.136, 151.67.35.220 etc. So the Italian IP 151.67 is a sockpuppet. Could you block some Italian IPs name 151.67 including 151.67.47.198 and 151.67.43.10 indefinetly, because the Italian IP is a sockpuppet. The Italian IP 151.67 cannot own the article to edit and making poor English again. Everyone has the right to edit. I am looking forward to your reply. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I do not believe they are committing sock puppetry because they are not actively trying to deceive other editors to think they are multiple people. Instead, they appear to have a dynamic IP address, which means that their IP address changes every now and then through no fault of their own. It is fairly easy to identify their edits, since the addresses always start with 151.67, and they have never claimed that "those edits weren't mine". For these reasons, I will not be blocking on the basis of sock puppetry, but I have issued a final warning above for other behavioral issues. Mz7 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I am a dynamic IP address. It is normal that user 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D insulte my dignity? Why you don't punish him? And why you don't control the edits? For example, what was the problem with this and this and this and this and this my edits? (The problem is NOT real) And why Veritycheck always delete in his personal talk with fake arguments in the summary? --151.67.47.198 (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Stop it 151.67.47.198, you kept on insulting me, continously attacking me and you're trying to block me. Just leave me alone! Mz7, please help me could you block 151.67.47.198 indefinetly for continous disruptive comments. Help me Mz7 please? 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
What? You criminalize me and always destroyed all my correct edits. Dear admin Mz7, can you restore my correct edits? Or in the English Wikipedia is not forbidden the criminization that Veritycheck and the other user built against me?--151.67.47.198 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) It was a reasonable question for someone who is not familiar with how dynamic IP addresses work. They were not trying to insult you, but they were asking me about a concern that they had. It has now been cleared up, and it won't be brought up again. Regarding problems with your editing, I have summarized a number of issues in the section above. The bottom line is I want to see you proposing changes on Talk:Belén Rodríguez, and listen to the feedback you receive. If there is a consensus to make a change, I will be happy to implement it into the article. Mz7 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
They always insulting me, but you don't read. Why you don't control the edits? For example, what was the problem with this and this and this and this and this my edits? (The problem is NOT real, but you are a personal friend of Veritycheck and you protect him: there is no alternative, you are in conflict of interets because you refuse to analize the edits)--151.67.47.198 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
151.67, I have already explained to you a number of issues with your editing above: you have continued to insert grammatical errors into articles, you respond to editors who disagree with you not with arguments about the content, but with baseless accusations of trolling, fake news, and now sock puppetry, and you have edit warred. (I have never met Veritycheck before in my life before our interactions on this article, not even on Wikipedia.) The best way forward right now is to work together with your fellow editors by proposing a change, listening to feedback, and coming to an agreement. The talk page is this way. Mz7 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Totally false: you don't analize the edits. You protect Veritycheck and his friend. I will talk with him that insulte me? Are you a clown? Ah ah ah ah ah? In your opinion, can I talk seriously with him that call me as "devil", are you serious? In the Italian Wikipedia when an user call "devil" an other user, the first is blocked for ever: and here? And why you don't punish him for this deletion? In the Italian Wikipedia, when an user delete a message of an admin, the user is punished with a block for ever and ever: and here? --151.67.47.198 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I am very sorry that comment was made. I've warned the user (and they are free to remove warnings from their user talk page on the English Wikipedia). This whole situation has been entirely unfortunate. Wikipedia is not a battleground. For now, I strongly suggest that everyone disengage and spend a few weeks away from Wikipedia (or find another article topic to contribute to). Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Mz7, I am sorry again, I'll tell you what you can do, could you confront the IP user 151.67. If the Italian IP continously talk back to you, reply the IP many times on top. I am sorry I said "evil", so could you cross my comments. So I want you to confront the Italian IP for commenting. Again I apologize. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Mz7, his apologize are only ipocrisy! He is not apoligize: he want only stopped a punishment. I will NEVER accept his apologize because his apologize are false. He always insulting my dignity and you, Mz7, did not punish him? Note that he did NOT give his apologize to me, but only to you because you are the admin that can block him. --151.67.47.198 (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Mz7, don't listen 151.67's disruptive comments. I want to hear Mz7 apology on my almost negative comments so my comments needs to be crossed off. 151.67 stop saying "false" comments. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No comment

No comment, you are not an admin, but a clown. Why you don't control the edits? For example, what was the problem with this and this and this and this and this my edits? (The problem is NOT real) Io ho semplicemente fatto piccole modifiche marginali, non ho modificato il testo scritto da altri utenti: ma evidentemente qui è normale dare al sotto scritto del "diavolo" senza venir puniti. E io dovrei discutere con quelle persone che annullano ogni mia modifica senza darmi la possibilità di dialogare nelle loro pagine personali? Io dovrei discutere nella pagina di discussione della voce per avere un consenso che loro, abusando delle regole, mai daranno? --151.67.47.198 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Mz7,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7/December_2016–February_2017&oldid=1143186270"