User talk:MSGJ/2017

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MSGJ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Nomination of Submarine ace for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Submarine ace is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Template lockdown

Hi. here you effectively locked down the template for unstable edits. I can agree with that statement (as my announced I will not revert a 2nd time demonstrates). However, by leaving the template in its altered state, you are effectively freezing it into a non-consensus version. I request that, while maintaining your statement, you revert this edit by CFCF.

The last version with consensus is by December 11. This version I request to reinstall.

I point out that the edit was not the result of a talk (let alone consensus). Minimalistically the editor did 'start a talk' , then the editor did not post any follow up. Actually that is more like another editsummary (one-way announcement). Earlier the editor made heavy but unsubstantiated accusations on my talkpage that I can take as a personal attack. (Thanks for your replies in there). So: twice the editor did not seek consensus for a change.

So far this can be read as 'process issue only' bickering or wikilawyering (But really, PA and non-consensus editing is process only?). On top of this, I add the material (template content) point that my talk-posted colors table shows: the change is actually bad for reasons of color usage. IMO this is a content reason to oppose the the change. If you revert, talks can start to seek consensus for a change. If not, clearly no talk will happen. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR

This template talk says the template is frozen for non-consensus edits,
But the last true consensus version is from Dec 11,
And the colors table in here points to bad color usage now,
So please revert this edit (back to the Dec 11 version).

This does not prejudice any discussion. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, this might have slipped through, but I do request that you revert the non-consensus edit mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Understanding consensus & assistance needed

Hi, I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I noticed your edit to the Breitbart News Talk page where a user requested consensus for an unrelated term ,and you said there was no consensus achieved (at that point). Following up on this, as I don't know who else to ask, it would appear to me that no consensus was ever reached on the term "far right" - although a user is claiming otherwise. Perhaps you can arbitrate on this if you have time? I am happy to be corrected. Thanks. The RfC is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breitbart_News/Archive_3#Survey:_Should_Breitbart_be_described_as_far-right_in_the_lead.3F 81.157.83.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It seems to me that the debate was hijacked by sockpuppets and meatpuppets on the oppose side. It was also badly closed at one point. A total mess. The clear consensus (ignoring the hijackers) was that the term could be used with caution as stated by the second closer. Read the debate—and check all of each users Wikipedia contributions: many of the opposers have little editing outside of that debate or closely related subjects/discussions etc suggesting suspicious behaviour while the supporters are all seasoned editors. Hope this helps — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Add Martin may be busy in RL at the moment. Perhaps another admin may arbitrate if really necessary? — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Electoral College (United States)#Meetings

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Talk:Electoral College (United States).
Message added 04:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Martin. Do you have any response? Infoman99 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to reply to? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding Rooster Teeth to List of Social Networks

Talkback

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

WP shortcuts

Unblock Me

Did your change do something?

Template:Infobox comedian

Language parameter

Edit request for user page User:Levdr1

Nomination for deletion of Template:Documentation/links

Template:Infobox Christian leader

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ambox/small

Undiscussed protection changes

Redirect category shell

Woodsmith Mine

Nomination for deletion of Template:User-multi/l

Nomination for deletion of Template:User-multi/bl

Discussion you might be interested in: 4/21/17 UTC

Barnstar award

Hm

I suddenly saw a change from "Jordanian occupation" to "Jordanian annexation" in a lot of articles. After looking into the matter I noticed that you closed a discussion at Talk:Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank#Requested_move_23_March_2017. That discussion was strangely not mentioned on either WP:ISRAEL or WP:PALESTINE. I am half of a mind that with the outcome of the discussion being so hard to determine as it is, that is enough reason to re-open the discussion and mention it on those WikiProjects. I am sure that I and quite a few other from both these WikiProjects would have been happy to comment on the discussion. What do you say? I don't think there should be any objection to keeping the moved article in its present place, but I do think that this discussion really should have been mentioned on both these WikiProjects to consider it valid. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Jordanian annexation of the West Bank

An editor has asked for a Move review of Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: Sorry I just realised that I did not reply to your message earlier in the month. Perhaps the best would be to leave the article where it is for now but open a new RM discussion and notify the relevant projects? If you are amenable to this suggestion I will make it happen — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That is more or less what I had in mind as well, although it seems at WP:RM they thought I want to have the article moved back. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be heading for "endorse" but there is nothing to stop you renominating and alerting relevant WikiProjects. I would wait a few weeks for the dust to settle before taking any further action though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will probably leave things be as they are, since the move is logical in itself, and I doubt a better target can be found. Also since I recognize part of the participants in the move discussion as active on those WikiProjects. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Create {Recent changes article requests/full/5}

Move review for Bill Potts (Doctor Who)

Your history merges

Alcohol laws of Maine

Block request

911 Link to the strategy discussion on Watchlist-summary

Escalation of template disruption by Codename Lisa

Liberal Democrats

Protection level question

Recent EW discussion

hi

Discussion closed by involved admin

PapiDimmi's edits to the Corvette article.

3RR report - Ohio Girl

PapiDimmi

Your edit

I noticed you removed two edits I had made at User talk:LivinRight. Your edit summary said "unwarranted", but I don't see that listed at WP:TPO. Perhaps you can help me out. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't try to wikilawyer. You have left several unjustified warnings on that user talk page and your actions seem to border on harassment. Your report at AIV was improper, and I was unable to find a single example of vandalism. What is your interest in this user and do you think you could you leave them alone for a while? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That editor created Fargher Lake, Washington, and added to it significant unsourced original research. Prior to doing that, that editor--who has made a total of 296 edits to Wikipedia--had been cautioned by four different editors here about adding unsourced content; here about the need to "be accurate in the articles you started"; here about edit warring; here about adding factual errors; here about adding unsourced content; and here about adding unsourced content. As a result, I left this caution about adding unsourced content, as well as the note "Thank you for creating the article. The plethora of unsourced content was unacceptable." You deleted my caution.

Following that I made six edits to the Fargher Lake article to improve it and remove the unsourced content. After doing that, that editor reverted my edits here in order to add back their unsourced content. I reverted their edit, and added yet another caution here about adding unsourced content. You also deleted that caution.

You stated the I have left "unjustified warnings on that user talk page and your actions seem to border on harassment". Please explain. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay a few comments:

The editor is new but seems to be creating good content and has been adding some sources. They should be made to feel welcome.
You may remove any content which you believe to be untrue and there is considerable latitude to remove anything contentious from a BLP which is unsourced. However it is not appropriate to indiscriminately remove unsourced content from the encyclopedia.
The failure to add sources is not vandalism and so your report to WP:AIV was not justified.
A friendly note to the editor asking them to add sources would be a good idea. Alternatively adding {{citation needed}} to any content that you feel requires a source would be appropriate.
You appear to have followed this editor from one article to another. This can be seen as "wikihounding".

Finally, thank you for your efforts to clean up Wikipedia, but please be aware of the wider consequences of your actions. Often a personal note will be received better than a templated warning. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle has a warning for adding unsourced content built in to its drop down menu. I'm one of the thousands of editors who use it. When it hits four warnings, I report it. Perhaps you could start a discussion to remove that feature from Twinkle.

Also, about a third of my edits are to rap music articles. Adding "citation needed" tags to the plethora of unsourced content added daily to these articles would make them look like Christmas trees decorated with warning tags.

Also, WP:DDE suggests getting admin assistance for editors who keep reverting to add unsourced content.

Also, WP:RVAN suggests "it may be helpful to check the page history to determine whether other recent edits by the same or other editors also represent vandalism. Repair all vandalism you can identify". You're suggesting that editors fix only the unsourced edit, but not check the history of a new editor to see if they've messed up elsewere? Just leave it, so as not to hound them and hurt their feelings?

Our philosophies for improving the project clearly differ, and WP:TPO is quite explicit about the removal of another editors content from a talk page. Next time you do this to an editor, I'd strongly suggest you leave a "friendly note" on the editor's talk page explaining your actions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Coupla points:

Many tools offer features and workflows that are inconsistent with community norms about how things should be done. Just because Twinkle offers a facility doesn't mean it should be used in a particular situation (or even ever).
The test for removal of unsourced content is that you genuinely believe it cannot be sourced (assuming it's not e.g. overly promotional or a BLP violation). Willy-nilly removing unsourced content because you "can" is not helpful. It is indeed better to add {cn}, Christmas tree or not, if it seems reasonable that the material may be sourcable. Tip: {subst:ce} will automatically add the date, so later editors can tell how long the tag has been there.

E Eng 22:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

Bundesliga attendance

Disruptive editor

Draft:Causal loop concern

Your draft article, Draft:Causal loop

Your possible help

Help with mobile-friendly Current Events project?

Your draft article, Draft:Gian Francesco di San Giorgio Biandrate Aldobrandini

Template:WITFstub listed at Redirects for discussion

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Process of fixing Portal:Current events archive pages

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Template:Designation

List of active Pakistan Navy ships

Observation

Hey Martin, I noticed that you have posted a message on a disputed edit/edit war to the Beachwood, Ohio article on a user's talk page and I wanted to get more feedback from you on it. Your notification on the talk page of Mark162 follows a message that I had left for him previously. I'm not entirely sure what the editor's angle is, however, given a cursory look at the limited scope and tenure of his edit history, it certainly appears that he has very specific interests in Wikipedia, mainly revolving around the Jewish community in Greater Cleveland and more specifically its BBYO presence there, which is fine (we as Wikipedians often focus on articles that are directly related to our personal interests and passions). However, as you may or may not have seen already, his edits to both the Beachwood article and Jews and Judaism in Cleveland are running between off topic and in some cases speculative original research, not to mention adding some POV wording and in at least one instance his contributions sound like marketing. I have been re-editing these articles to both clean up his prose, but also to keep the articles sounding encyclopedic. Additionally, I have left a message on his talk page but I don't think he paid it much mind because he keeps going back in and undoing my corrections. I'm trying to be diplomatic, but I don't get the impression that this user really understands what Wikipedia is about, let alone has a grasp of writing effectively in an expository fashion. If you would, please take a look at those two articles and let me know what you think. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and I can see some of the problems. I will continue to monitor this editor when time allows. Suggest you keep trying to communicate appropriately, but it may take a short block to get his attention. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: The edit war appears to have been resumed. The editor keeps adding info that offers nothing not already stated in the article and actually just makes it wordier (not to mention also makes a broad assumption about the racial profile of families relocating). Please take a look at the differences in the edit history and let me know what you think. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac

Hi MSGJ. I've just taken a look at Legacypac's appeal against the block you placed, and I have to say, I'm inclined to unblock. The last revert he made (that I've found) was prior to his engagement in the talkpage thread (since he wasn't correctly pinged about it), and since that point he hasn't made any further reverts and has instead engaged in discussion. I'll grant that the editing done at the refdesk was less than stellar, but given the timing, the ongoing discussion and the statement I will not close any more refdesk threads at all, I don't see that this block is preventing damage to Wikipedia any more, and am thinking about lifting it. What's your opinion? Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I was in the process of responding to the unblock when I saw the ec. I am inclined to agree with Yunshui. Legacy didn't actually break 3RR (I see two reverts on one thread and two on another), and so even if we combine the two sets the ongoing discussions and claim of not pursuing such matters further leads me to be somewhat sympathetic. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick reply. Correct, there were 4 reverts. They may not have been within 24 hours so perhaps not technically a breach of 3RR, but edit warring nonetheless. I did not notice the promise to not continue, actually. But all in all the behaviour was quite disruptive and I think the block was justified. But I am offline now so if you really think he should be unblocked then I'll not stand in the way. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. Your reasoning that the block is no longer preventing damage to Wikipedia is sound. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive so I will not oppose the unblock. However I think the block was fully justified in the first place, and I would like the unblock message to reflect that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I accept these points and have now unblocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

thank-you for unblocking. You will understand that I feel the block was quite inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I understand that you would feel that way. But I think you would find that the community takes a dim view of such antics and you are likely to be blocked again if any such behaviour continues. In particular, the lack of awareness shown by reporting an editor to AN3 when your behaviour was worse than theirs, is astounding! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You soiled my block log when I was not edit warring, did not cross 3RR and obviously was not planning to continue to revert. I filed a report about an editor who twice reverted my policy based closes claiming I was being POINTY (itself a very pointy action). I take a dim view of such Admin antics. Just because you got the bit does not make you better than me or give you license to inappropriately block me. Such abuse by Admins soiling my block log is the reason I’ll never get the bit myself even through in every other area of my volunteer work I quickly get asked to take on the most responsible positions. You are just lucky you were not blocked inappropriately before you passed an RfA. If Wikipedia was not such a useful tool on the internet, or if I thought the Admins owned it, I’d quit. Instead I’ll hold the Admins to account as required. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Block of Legacypac

I am aware of the high emotions being generated by the RD issues at the moment MSGJ, however I would suggest that Legacypac was acting in good faith was was not attempting to be disruptive. I would suggest the block be shortened to 24 hours, or ideally, removed with an admonition. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved. Striking above comment. Regards, Irondome (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Watchlist legend help

Would you care to comment?

Darkness Shines

Just FYI, he's now back to reverting people after promising you he wouldn't. At Patriot Prayer. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow two block shoppers, what I actually said. But obviously it is OK for you to break 1RR and make changes without consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Note -From DS' Talk page, quote:

- "Patriot prayer Just wanted to point out that CW Gilmore was topic banned from PP, and that your refusal to reach consensus there seems more disruptive than anything Gilmore was doing, please be civil and discuss things rather that just threatening to edit war. (to any admins reading this I am opposed to any sanctions on Darkness Shines at this time) Tornado chaser (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)"

I'm not the only one that sees a pattern.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not edit warred, and I am discussing suggested changes on the talk page, or am I the only one who has to spend days discussing the addition of two fecking words and everyone else can do what they want without consensus? This is block shopping to force changes through Darkness Shines (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that's why Tornado chaser again came on your TP about that article asking: "Jorm What about his contribs looks bad? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)" Because you are working so hard for consensus and understanding others points of view which you then include into all your work. Sure. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You do realize that commenting on a discussion about PP is a violation of your TBAN right? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the behavior of editors, not the subject. Right, and that's why Jorm wrote you: "Not for nothing, but this behavior is pretty much exactly what I expect from DS; it's par for the course for them to ignore consensus and be misleading in their conversations about the subject matter. You need only look at the mess that is Patriot Prayer to see his behavior.--Jorm (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)" C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@DS, you just got unblocked so step back from controversial pages for a while, that would be the suggestion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You just got unblocked and already you started a RFC to change Antisemitism in UK; you need to slow down on pushing your agenda and pushing everyone around, please. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"@MSGJ: I will not revert the content on the article again, can you unblock me please Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)" This is not helpful. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This conversation is currently being discussed C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I am awarding this barnstar to MSGJ for their tireless work at RMs backlogs. (and for stealing my job!) Keep up the good job! Kostas20142 (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Request to add Rooster Teeth to List of Social Networks

Move review for Jordanian annexation of the West Bank

Block of Legacypac

Related Articles