User talk:MPS1992

Hello! I want to thank you for helping with this request to remove misinterpreted content from the Brock Blomberg article. You had asked if there was other problematic content, and I've since submitted a second request to remove (what I believe to be) misinterpreted content about journalist Juan Williams. Seems User:Pelagic agrees the content should be removed. Are you willing to consider removing that text from the page? Actually, the last 2 paragraphs of the "Career" section are problematic and subjective (as outlined here), but I'm willing to focus on the Juan Williams content specifically if that's your preference. Thanks again for your help and your willingness (again!) to give this your attention. I also appreciate your feedback and guidance. TY Ursinus (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. I want to thank you for reverting here. Unfortunately, an anonymous editor appears to have an ax to grind because they keep returning to add details about "controversies" that includes misrepresentations of sourced references. The misrepresented content about Juan Williams has been removed, but the misrepresented content about Terry Winegar remains. I've tried many different ways to fix this article, but I'm running out of ideas. Would you please be willing to respond to this request to remove misrepresented text about Winegar? The sentence is not factually accurate. I am also working to add some very basic biographical details to the page. Might you be willing to replace the first paragraph of the current "Career" section with the following?

My goal is simply to fill in career gaps with these fairly straightforward, basic biographical pieces of information that are succinct and reflect his professional research and interests. Can anything else be done to prevent this anonymous editor from adding misinformation to the page? Any help would be greatly appreciated. TY Ursinus (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cow Vigilantism and Normal Vigilantism are indistinguishable in many cases and legally cow vigilantism doesn't have any separate definition in Indian legal system. Also cases may or may not seem like cow vigilantism to different people because different parties have different versions. Hence I mentioned lynching cases associated with Cattle trade in this section.

I find that my edit fit the criteria specified in the WP:PARAPHRASING guidelines since I had very clearly attributed my sources in the text.

CoLGC refers to me, the Chair of the Teddington School Local Governing Committee. Having negotiated the departure of the Executive Head in 2018 and appointed the new Head teacher later that year, and having recently taken the school into a Multi Academy Trust, the Bourne Education Trust, I would appreciate if you could desist from making uninformed edits, and amending mine. An accurate representation of the school's legal status is essential, particularly for the local population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoLGC (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have blocked the above account per WP:ROLEACCOUNT. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please be extra careful, when using Twinkle, that your edits are appropriate. The tools come with an enhanced requirement of care. Thank you. --2604:2000:E010:1100:9C7C:CA0D:F601:680 (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

See here. MPS1992 (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello MPS1992, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Thank you. I don't celebrate Christmas as such, but I do appreciate the time off (they call them Bank Holidays here). By the way, I was fascinated by your example of katana manufacture at BLPN recently. Does this mean that, outside Wikipedia, you are an authority on the authenticity or otherwise of the craftsmanship and usage depicted in the Kill Bill movies? MPS1992 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever gets us out of work. I like to extend my holidays with a little vacation time.

I do know that you can't take a katana on an airplane, and I'm fairly sure that all the people in Japan don't ride around with them strapped to their motorcycles. It was correct in that the forging takes about a month, but then the sharpening and polishing takes about another month. There's a world of difference between a choreographed movie and a real swordfight. The real thing, where you're actually trying to take out your opponent, lasts an average of one to three seconds. If you could last a full ten seconds it would be an extremely long fight, and one of the most exhausting workouts you've ever done. It's quiet, fast, and brutal.

The thing is, after Masamune's time (1300s), who is said to be the greatest swordsmith of all Japan and whom this character in the movie was likely modeled after, the art of forging a sword for it's mechanical properties had reached its pinnacle, and nearly every innovation after that was more for improving the aesthetic appeal of the steel. A katana is an excellent weapon for cutting. It will hold an edge for a long, long time if properly used, protected and maintained. (I have one that I've used heavily for over a decade for cutting down small cottonwood trees (up to six inches thick) or for removing the limbs from trees before chainsawing them into firewood --my primary source of heat-- and only just recently had to resharpen it the once.) But it's a poor weapon in the sword-and-buckler style of European fighting. They're rather soft and bend easily, and the edge has little impact resistance so it chips easily. In the Japanese style, blade-to-blade contact is rare, and great care is taken to avoid hitting the edge against anything that could chip it, like a shield or another sword. Block and parry with the flat whenever possible. But for removing limbs and body parts, there's no better tool. (See the movie Predators (the newer one) for a good example of what a real Japanese swordfight might look like.) Zaereth (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to see a great example of real swordfighting moves in a well-choreographed movie, see any Bruce Lee film. Believe it or not, Lee incorporates a lot of fencing strategies and moves into his Jeet Kune Do, using only his fists, such as the "stop-cut" or blocking and striking all in one move. I don't know if all this answers your question, but I hope it helps. Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Why did you undo this edit? --Iiii I I I (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Iiii I I I: see WP:OVERLINKING. MPS1992 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked [...]"

Isn't the place that this state of emergency takes place in important to the article? I can understand not linking a whole bunch of countries if the article is about some general topic like GDP, but this is a location-specific event. Civil Rights Act of 1968 and Executive Order 12170 both link to the US in the lead – if those aren't appropriate examples, can you give me an example of a page that would be an exception to WP:OVERLINKING? --Iiii I I I (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have neither noticed nor documented articles that constitute exceptions to WP:OVERLINK. MPS1992 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I'm gonna add the link back to the page then. --Iiii I I I (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds yummy! MPS1992 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

What on earth has Competence got to do with it?, I asked you politely NOT to correct my English, I see it as being more disrespectful than anything hence why I left you a polite messaging asking you to refrain from such actions in the future,
You are more than welcome to comment on the close but certainly not my English,
Repeated reverts could see you an AN3, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 11:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Guys, please don't argue over basically nothing. The thread has now been archived. Best to just move on. El_C 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.I am learning about the Wikipedia edit and having a study about the topic. I will definitely add the content from a reliable source and citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahila S (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Im at a loss. Are you stuck on a point or what? Even if a link to a site that streams a school's athletics events was encyclopedic content (it's not), an editor adding links to the same website to multiple school articles is spamming, period. There's no GF to be assumed. You however, could assume some amount of GF on my part. This is a sock. You can find the SPI I opened in my contributions. Reverted a different username inserting the same link in different schools yesterday. Thanks for your help. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, I hope you are well. It takes two to edit war. Irregardless, edit wars are rather silly so I will not be edit-warring any further on this topic (if I did in fact edit war). I don't agree that there is no good faith to be assumed; it is entirely plausible that the editor genuinely believed that having these links all over the place would improve the encyclopedia. Now, I am fairly sure that you have some good faith, but it seems to be mixed with a lot of anger, especially as regards newer editors. And you know what Yoda said about anger. MPS1992 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi MPS1992, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick facts Two years! ...

Precious

Two years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MPS1992! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed on the AFC's participants list, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months. Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to regain access to the AFCH script, you can do so at any time by visiting WT:AFCP. Thank you for your work at AFC, and if you start editing Wikipedia again we hope you will rejoin us. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you consider helping to peer review Utah Girls Football League at Wikipedia:Peer review/Utah Girls Football League/archive1? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 05:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed a recent comment you made because investigating what might be personal information regarding other editors is not appropriate. You will be blocked if it is repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to my talk page. Your comment is baffling. I know which editor you mean, but I'm puzzled as to why they are exempt from ever being asked any questions about their work on-wiki.

I'm certainly not going to ask them any more such questions, but that doesn't mean the questions will go away, does it? MPS1992 (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The policy is WP:OUTING and a moment's thought shows that the policy is obviously required because none of us should want others to speculate about our personal lives. In brief, any hint about what might be personal information regarding an editor (even blocked editors) is outing and is not permitted at any page on Wikipedia. If an editor reveals personal information at Wikipedia, it may be appropriate to comment on it. However, even in that case you would have to ask why someone would want to discuss personal information about another editor. If it were important to disclose something in connection with an editor, a private means of communication is required. The approved technique is to email the WP:Arbitration Committee. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks buddy, I'll drop them a line! Still kinda puzzled about why its "speculate about our personal lives" when someone uses their own name to create an account on Wikipedia, tho!

By the way, does that policy mean that the policy WP:COI does not apply if someone can claim that it infringes their rights under the WP:OUTING policy that you mention? MPS1992 (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I told you the approved technique. Anything else would be regarded as harassment which is another strongly enforced policy. Your choice is to email Arbcom or find something else to do. When emailing Arbcom, you might tell them why you decided to research another editor and what you hope to achieve by digging up innocuous editing from more than five years ago. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Johnuniq: In MPS1992's defence, there are multiple editors on that user talk page, all making comments about an article in a particular magazine where a WP editor is the subject (the same editor who's talk page said posts are on). When looking at the article, you see that the subject, (said WP editor), is identified by their WP username, and it appears that this username is their real name. Now, I did not see the comment that MPS1992 posted before you redacted it, but I do know that this magazine article does provide a significant amount of personal info about this editor. So with all that said, I can't imagine what MPS1992 could've done wrong. (But I'm not sure how you are interpreting wp:outing or how stringently you are enforcing it). Given that no one has apparently replied to any of the comments on this editor's talk page, are there any violations there? (And even though I've made a point of not naming the editor or the magazine, have I violated anything here?) I hope not. Any feedback/ clarification would be appreciated. Thanks - wolf 05:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi wolf, thank you for your comment! I think my edit may have mentioned something not included in that detailed published article about that editor, replete with multiple photos of them and descriptions and photographs of their residence, et cetera. All apparently with their consent. But that's exactly why it's interesting that some things apparently need to be suppressed... according to Johnuniq's own edit on this talk page, it's "editing from more than five years ago" that we must not mention in this case. The plot thickens! MPS1992 (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You might not have comprehended the at Wikipedia point from my comments above. OUTING and HARASSMENT are very strongly enforced policies and I urge you to either email Arbcom or find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your comments speak for themselves, I'm only quoting them. MPS1992 (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I investigated the issue before taking action and be assured that what I did is fine. I don't want to put you off but I really suggest you email Arbcom or a trusted admin and ask their opinion. Please drop the matter on-wiki but you are most welcome to ask Arbcom. If you were to do that and were satisfied with the response, I would appreciate you posting here to say so. Of course Arbcom should reverse my action if they judge that to be right outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not buying such assurances, although I will understand if others choose to do so. MPS1992 (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, both MPS1992 and Johnuniq. I think at this point I will just head waaay up into bleachers and watch this from afar. I have virtually no experience with wp:outing and so found myself curious, but I'm not so curious that I wish to get myself involved. Cheers - wolf 05:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, as another admin, I've seen the deleted comment and there was speculation in it that was not appropriate. It was correct to delete it and Johnuniq's advice is solid. Do not talk about anyone's life off-wiki beyond what they chosen to share about it on-wiki. That's true whether that editor is featured in an magazine article or just another one of the hoi polloi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I have now suppressed the edit in question. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 06:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that this now-suppressed edit, which I gather from context (and from what I can recall prior to the suppression) involved personal info not on WP, was made by someone who was an "opponent" (for lack of a better word) of k.e.coffman in the German war effort case. That's a long time to hold a grudge, belies the "who, little old me?" attitude you're showing here, and reflects really poorly on you. Johnuniq's warning is appropriate, but I'm not sure that your apparent motivation was clear at that time. It really is beyond the pale. Looks like you may have gotten away with it without a block this time, but I'd strongly encourage you to avoid flippant nudge-nudge type comments like "The plot thickens!" and others you've made here. They might be bringing you closer to an indef AE block than you might think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll follow-up on Floquenbeam's comment: if you do anything like the suppressed edit again, you will be {{OversightBlock}}'d. If I had been the oversighter handling the suppression, I would have instantly indefinitely blocked you, and I'm confident it would have been held up on review. That was a 100% unacceptable edit that someone with your history on this project should have known better. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

---

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

– bradv^🍁 05:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)