User talk:Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive/Archive28

Top of Page

user talk page .

The article Herbie should not have its article title in italics. It should be in normal font. I looked through the "edit box", and I cannot see what is causing the article title to appear in italics. Can anyone figure that out? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The article in question transcludes

this policy. However, it looks like that, in this case, the italics aren't necessary; I'll fix that issue in a second. Hope that helps! Cheers, m.o.p 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Yes, thanks for the help. That was driving me crazy, as I could not figure out what was causing the italics to appear. Thanks for the help! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for information on how to redirect a page to Bucksport, California. I was bold and did it. Besides driving through what is left of the town several times a week, I noticed that all the old written references (1853 to present) spell it as "Bucksport" all one word. I don't know why two pages were created on same "ghost town," but again thank you for your help, we are now down to one page! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message to you at my User Talk page Landscapnik (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Master of Puppets has put an end to the sockpuppets. Lol thanks.

]

IP final warning

Regarding the final warning on User talk:68.32.41.19, the IP does not want to stop and was warned post final again. The IP needs to be blocked, given that he admits he knows he is editing against policy, and that page probably needs to get permanent Pending Changes. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. History2007 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just to let you know, you deleted Mobiquant without giving due respect to the AfD process [1] which you did not allow to last even 24 hours. I understand that one of article contributors had ARV and was rightly blocked. Still, thanks if you could restore the Mobiquant page and keep it until the decision is reached in due course. kashmiri 22:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have taken it to the talk page but these other users refuse to comment. They aren't giving valid reasons for reverting the edits. The awards are decided by the top critics in India, how are they not RS? I explained but no one else bothered to comment. What should I do? Ashermadan (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with your rationale over at

]

Talkback

JDDJS (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think next time, you should revdelete any edits between when the PA was made and when it was redacted. Otherwise anyone can see what was added, although not in a diff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding warnings/block (FYI only):

For the record, I only returned 72 hours later when I happened to be online via this IP to set the record straight and defend myself. It was determined that the warnings were not justified and the block by Fut.Perf. ☼ was unwarranted (which I knew already). That is not an attack, it is a fact. I saw your messages before I "returned" to clear up the false actions made against me and could have easily not come back to prove those involved wrong. Yet out of principal I knew I had to stand up for myself, so after a long "discussion" on my talk page, it was determined that the warnings were not only insufficient and unclear, they were not considered direct attacks and the block was not appropriate. And I don't need to use this IP address to be productive on Wikipedia IF I wanted. It's a good idea in the future to actually do some research and not get "warning/block" happy or jump the "bash IP/newbies" bandwagon (I'm actually a veteran editor regardless of my use of IPs or activity with Wikipedia). At any rate, I disagree with the "chatter" that took place here: [2] It was NOT a 'good idea' to block me when I hadn't even directly attacked Walter in the first place (nor create an edit war when my contributions were sourced and are now "allowed" again). But whatever, it's over. People's feelings get hurt easily [here], I get it. Nonetheless, blocks don't affect or "hurt" me anyways. That is not the answer to just get users silent. Take time to actually understand everything going on and know the facts/truth. Lessons learned? Best of luck! [3] 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Seb, and assume that your comment was meant in jest - if not, I strongly suggest you review this before you say "IPs are free to insult others". Walter: I see that EdJohnston has warned the editor in question for edit warring, but there haven't been any clear-cut warnings against personal attacks. I left one here; it is up to the editor to decide what they do next. m.o.p 07:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ridernyc (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridernyc (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you schooled this editor pretty good at his talk page. Anyway, I would appreciate a comment from someone who has a grasp on how encyclopedias should work, so could you give your 2cents

]

While I disagree with Rider's current approach, they're free to look for sources that argue their point; if the ones they find are compelling enough (and they can persuade other editors), then the genres on that article may yet change.

I'm going to stick to a neutral observer's role for now in case mediation is required, as I'd like to stay impartial. And the sourcing of Master of Puppets is appreciated - in fact, I might go listen to it right now. Again. m.o.p 17:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 11:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Master of Puppets for your help.Looks fine now. I have further questions though in my talk page.Landscapnik (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied accordingly on your talk page. Glad I could help! m.o.p 19:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoP; still more socks in action here Montgomery High School (Santa Rosa, California). Thank you, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. Blocked - I may just protect the page if they keep it up. m.o.p 19:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I've requested protection, since the vandalism well precedes the latest outburst. Cheers, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for two weeks, actually - looking at the history, I'd say it's about time to give these guys a bit of a break. Thanks! m.o.p 19:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The page was a wreck dating back at least to last summer--I don't have the patience to follow it further, but it's been a students' playground for a long time. Keep it on your watchlist after protection ends....seems a safe bet to recur. Very best, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best - though being in school myself, I can only hope I'll have enough time. Regards, m.o.p 20:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Master of Puppets and Alex,

I am a fellow peer of English lover. He is a IB student at Montgomery and everything he has said is true. Please do not block him. It is quite difficult to prove the existence of the apostrophe club because there are no articles about it online. We can only write from personal experience. This club is completely valid and I ask that you replace the portion of the article. Please help me in resolving this error. Thank you for your time.

-Montgomery High IB student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.41 (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires content to be

notable

and verifiable, it can't be in the article.

Nothing personal! m.o.p 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot verify that the club does not exist either. So you are working under a fallacy. Is there verifiable proof of Noah's Ark or that we actually exist? This is a knowledge issue something all IB students at MHS are taught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.16 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We operate under the assumption that nothing exists. Wikipedia is actually the largest nihilist entity to ever exist-but-not-really-exist.

But actually. Unless something has been verified through third-party reliable sources, we presume it is not notable and not worthy of inclusion. Just because something is real doesn't mean it's notable - for example, my dog is real, and I can prove she is real, but there are no reliable sources that indicate why my dog is notable (as opposed to, say, Laika). m.o.p 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically anything notable is based under the opinion of the person reading or writing. Your dog for example may be notable to a dog lover while someone else may care less. The apostrophe club is a notable achievement for the IB English students. Please replace the article bar the part about medicated schizophrenia. The rest of the article is valid and should be treated as such. I am not sure how I can make the fact that his club exists any clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.66.103 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have a clearly-defined

notability

policy - early on in the project's history we decided that subjectivity is for losers and that we'd instead prefer a nice, arbitrary benchmark with which we can grade all articles.

If you can produce multiple reliable sources about the apostrophe club and why it is notable to people aside from those in the apostrophe club/people who have a fetish for high school English clubs then perhaps it can be re-added to the article. For now, however, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ruin all the fun. Sorry! m.o.p 20:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I produce a reliable source. The importance if the club is a matter of oppinon. How is Rubik's cube club acceptable yet Apostrophe club is not. I could send you a picture of the name written on the board In the English class but you probably would not coincider that a viable source. Just repost it without the reference to the teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.66.103 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the Rubik's club prior to your message, actually, and a bunch of the sports teams. Again, as I said, it's not like I don't believe this club exists - it's just that it's not notable per our criteria. If the club wins national awards (which are documented after the fact) or receives recognition from a newspaper/such, then that's a different story. As it is, we try to keep unsourced content off the project. It's not out of some hatred for english clubs, I swear - it's for our readers' sake. m.o.p 20:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MoP, Aside from a refusal to accept guidelines and a lack of acknowledgement re: why these edits are not acceptable, I don't think our entirely well-intentioned enthusiasts understand the difference between adding snickering commentary to their notebooks, and what may constitute an actionable offense on the web. I'd suggest the history of defamatory edits mentioning the teacher be expunged permanently. Thanks, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content doesn't really meet the criteria listed on

this page, and the editor did acknowledge the inappropriate nature of the comment above - I'll let it slide for now. m.o.p 21:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps not, but I'm thinking that

WP:CRD may apply to purely disruptive editing--writing in a Wikipedia article that a non-notable figure is receiving treatment for a mental disability has only one clear purpose. And as for acknowledgement, I'm less sanguine; both users persisted to ignore warnings re: defamatory content until you blocked them. Cheers, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, thank you for further cutting the unsourced. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I could care less if you remove the lander pus remarks, but please put the clubs and activities back. It makes montgomery look bad and affects the reader. No offense but you are kind of being a Wikipedia Nazi, there is no point in have a page if you take off everything that makes montgomery montgomery. It is rediculous that without a source you can't have any useful information on the Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.71.207 (talk • contribs)

As I said above - I apologize, but there's a standard we must hold ourselves up to. If there wasn't a sourcing requirement I could easily go and say that Montgomery High has a team of trained shark tamers. The reader wouldn't have a clue as to whether or not I was telling the truth. That's why we rely on sources. m.o.p 21:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the comment about snickering in their notebooks. That would be considered cyber bullying so I sincerely hope that you feel good about yourself that you could put down high schoolers. Further more the creative details that have been added over the course of over a year were created as an experiment about the fallacy of appeal to authority and we were researching companies that are run under this fallacy. We wanted to see how long it would take Wikipedia to fix these. The answer confirmed to us why Wikipedia is banned in an academic environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.48 (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The results of your experiment, conducted on one obscure article over an extended period, are surely infallible and will be the end of this 4,154,988-article project. Now, please drop the issue unless you intend to bring forth some reliable sources. Many thanks, m.o.p 21:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see--'snickering in notebooks' is cyber bullying, but knowingly defaming a person and vandalizing an article over the long term, and playing the 'Nazi' card is okay? And no, Wikipedia is not banned in academia, just viewed with some healthy reservation. Aside: MoP, are we dealing with a series of sockpuppets of the blocked accounts, and is an SPI merited? 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, it's not really worth it. The IP addresses are being assigned dynamically, and I'm not going to block an entire county's IP addresses for some minor vandalism (that has now been corrected). I'll keep an eye on them in the future, but I don't think it's worth bothering a checkuser over. If I notice further malicious activity coming from them, though, then we'll see about getting a CU to check it out. Thanks for keeping an eye on this so far, by the way. m.o.p 21:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry to have clogged up your page with this. Though the sheep in the corner seems unfazed. Cheers, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys realize what you are saying. Honestly, look. You are taking this incredibly seriously. This is a page about a highschool. The only vandalism has been done by you guys by deleting things. It was fine until you inervined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.64.242 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't take it seriously, then how will we ever get the respect of the academics?! ;) m.o.p 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. You are taking your job to seriously. How can Wikipedia ever be a reputable source if everything, even that which is true, is subject to censorship. I do my why can not allow a list of clubs without documented proof ( which is somewhat impossible). Why not just allow the reader to see choose to believe what they want or not instead of making them only be able to read what you feed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.64.242 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance earlier on the 'Lazerfest' page - unfortunately, whoever is guilty of the persistent vandalism has somehow returned and has once again caused me to undo a revision. Was an IP address blocked, or just the specific username ('Creedplus1')? I'm afraid that person is back under another unregistered username. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Hellbilly515 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them as well, thanks for letting me know. For future reference, you can report incidents like this at

WP:AIV. Regards, m.o.p 02:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Commute (disambiguation)

Hi. I see that you deleted

]

Ah, my mistake. I deleted it because it was only linked to three times. I'll restore it now. Thanks for letting me know! m.o.p 14:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring it! —

talk) 15:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Case file related to the recent vandalism at 'Lazerfest'

Just found this, thought since you've been such a great help you could take a look and see what sorts of action can be taken from here, since this person/these people don't seem to be going away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ftheoldies/Archive

Thanks. Hellbilly515 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I removed the auto-subst from this template. While making it substable is a good idea, auto-substing newbie templates isn't a good idea because it's just going to confuse them. Legoktm (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confuse them how? m.o.p 06:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In essence: a very good reason not to subst templates such as {{

]

For all this and more, join in on the discussion at

WT:SUBST! m.o.p 07:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

My talk page

I think I did it :D User_talk:Addshore. If you have any other ways to make it look nicer let me know! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your instructions, I've begun a dialogue of the issues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amir-Abbas_Fakhravar#Page_Protection. Notably, the same issues were the subject of attempts at dialogue on various occasions. Sometimes Siavash777 participated, but most of the time he didn't. Instead, his strategy appears to be to wait until the protection/blocked is lifted and to begin the reverting immediately thereafter. I've also indicated a possible Conflict of Interest concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOP, per your instructions I've tried to engage user Siavash777 in a dialogue concerning the issues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amir-Abbas_Fakhravar#Page_Protection. Let it be known that almost a week later and he has yet to engage me on these issues. Kabirat (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOP, in January and February 2013 user Siavash777 was blocked several time for the disruption and mass deletions caused on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir-Abbas_Fakhravar. Needless to say, with his account unfrozen he is now perpetrating the exact same acts. Any assistance on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Kabirat (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, recently you blocked Lollskate, whom I reported at AIV. Since "autoblock enabled" was not stated, so was his IP autoblocked? I'm quite concerned as he is most likely a sock of an account already blocked before that.

]

If the helperbot edit summary doesn't contain the letters "ADB", autoblock is enabled. m.o.p 08:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interrupt, User:Tbhotch is from Mexico, other user trying to correct edit in that day but Tbhotch undid, please block Tbhotch with no expiry set (indefinite).

P.S. If someone needs unblock Tbhotch, just don't unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofpyrus (talk • contribs) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't help not being suspicious when unused accounts suddenly become active by posting half a dozen block requests on the user talk pages of multiple administrators. What's your qualm with these users? Do you have diffs of any instances where they've broken policy? m.o.p 04:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because You have to stay true to my heritage somehow ;) Have a nice Monday Sir! Hybirdd (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Master of Puppets, I edited the article. Could you please take a look? And I can't upload the photograph, because I think it's restricted. The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/European_Asylum_Support_Office#Civil_society Thanks in advance, EASO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easowriter (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my new profile, on my personal account. Let me know if I can do anything for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.166.42 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is now, after a few kinks, up and running for whenever you're ready. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for the Help. Bobherry talk 20:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, MoP. I found your name listed on

]

Sorry to get back to this so late. I'll check it out as soon as possible; there are a few local sources I should be able to browse through. m.o.p 22:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! m.o.p 23:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 403rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now that I've found a reliable source (http://www.cliftoncollegeuk.com/dvd/#upper - check the pupils varying tie colours) may I please add the information without being blocked? — Preceding

]

Clifton College editing

Why have you removed my edits again? I thought I have now proven from a reliable source that I have only ever been putting factual information about the school?

]

Your attitude towards other editors caused concern. Also, the picture you added was unencyclopedic and a better source could be used for the tie strip citation. m.o.p 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to try and set this new editor on the right track and deal with the incivility towards him from established editors.

I'm afraid this is not the first time Bob and Charles have engaged in similar tag-teaming (note the blizzard of warnings fired off by the two of them alternately, and likewise the reverts of the new editor also made by the two of them alternately), nor is it the first time Charles has been insulting towards younger editors.

Just for the most recent example, collusion on planning AfDs, followed by extremely rude comments.

It's worth keeping an eye on the pair of them. --

]

The heads-up is much appreciated. I'll leave a note on their respective talk pages. Regards, m.o.p 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert to normal per

]

That's an essay. m.o.p 15:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi m.o.p, I just wanted to ask if there was a problem with my indefinite block, or if I had done something else afoul of the rules. You had mentioned it should expire Thursday morning, but appears to still be active. Could you please confirm whether this is intended due to another violation? (Though, I don't see how, since I am still blocked). Thanks, Goorpy (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're able to post on my talk page, your block isn't active. According to this, you shouldn't be blocked. Are you getting any particular error message? m.o.p 04:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, interesting. My talk page still says blocked indefinitely, but I suppose that just stays until I remove it? See: http://imgur.com/Pz8opdd I went ahead a tried to make an edit to a random article (with the intent to revert right away if it was saved)... and the vandal bot flagged it, hah! Anyways, it was live briefly so I think I am indeed unblocked. I was just checking on my talk page, expecting the block message to go away. Thanks for the help. Goorpy (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand now. The actual block message dated to the second won't go away, but you can remove it if you wish. As for the test edit - any edits deemed disruptive or malicious by our bots will be reverted. If you'd like to test in the future, try doing it in the

sandbox. But yeah, you seem to be unblocked. m.o.p 05:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Got it. Oops, sorry about that. I didn't even know the sandbox existed -- I guess it's there for that reason. I'll be sure to keep any tests contained to that page going forward. Thanks for the welcome message, I'll check them out before digging into any edits on real pages. Cheers, Goorpy (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Best of luck, and feel free to give me a shout if you have any questions. Regards, m.o.p 06:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a few months back you marked for protection the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir-Abbas_Fakhravar in light of constant reversions by the user Siavash777. You asked that I notify you in case he engaged in the same conduct once the page became unblocked. I would like to inform you that he and user Foster.Allison have since continued to revert the information on the page even though other administrators keep warning them not to. Kabirat (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page with additional information. m.o.p 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, m.o.p. After seeing an AIV report I posted a warning here not knowing you were doing the same thing. I don't want to be perceived as piling on; should I delete my warning there? Tiderolls 01:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're posted within seconds of each other, yeah. I've removed my warning, as yours is more comprehensive and touches on the BLP issue - I only warned for that personal attack. Thanks for coming to ask me, though! m.o.p 01:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that consideration, m.o.p. Tiderolls 02:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me a final warning, but I think it is a misunderstanding, as I talked to Dutch Arbitration Committee members about a Dutch case about Wikiklaas's dealings at the Dutch Wikipedia. I consider the English chapter of this story closed, but since I'm blocked on wp:nl, I had to inform the commission members through this channel. --Borvo (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you should be worried about someone who talks in Dutch about something Dutch. The Dutch are not to be trusted: they're almost Germans! And who wants to go to a Dutch party, whilst Dutch crossing the street? And of course you must speak like a Dutch uncle, as we Dutch are the worst race of all! (And of course: all Dutch speak Dutch which you can't understand, and the admins want to control everyone everywhere) --Borvo (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand, but OK. m.o.p 06:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That happens when you speak Dutch. But if I were you I shouldn't worry, admins never get blocked or warned. And

WP:BITE is a farce. --Borvo (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at. I don't care what language you speak or what country you call home - if you're causing disruption somewhere, you don't get to continue obsessing about it over here. This is the English-language Wikipedia. We do not exist just so you can continue to pester users from your native Wiki. I don't know how many times I have to say this. m.o.p 06:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pester users? In your opinion I should just accept being called a pitiful dolt and that I'm mentally ill (multiple personality)? --Borvo (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time: your quarrel with nl-wiki is not our business. I do not agree or disagree with what people have said. This is a matter that does not belong on the English Wikipedia. So, for the final time: drop the issue. Don't mention it again. I've given you enough warnings about this. m.o.p 06:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always want to warn me? Do you really feel that almighty and powerful? Ever heard of

WP:BITE?--Borvo (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Now unblocked - What should I do about the contentious modification?

Hi m.o.p., Thank you for having unblocked me (see my talk page). The problem was that I tried to edit a link containing my username. I think my edition is still legit, so I would tend to undo the changes done by Alexf on the Racket_features page that were intended to remove my edits, but I'm a bit worried about the consequences now :) Should I ask Alexf to do that himself, should I do it myself, or should I leave it as is? Thanks, Metaxal (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to approach Alexf if you think your edits have merit - as long as it's clear you aren't attempting to advertise or sell something, it should be OK. But check with Alexf first. Best, m.o.p 17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much. Metaxal (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, m.o.p. I understand what you're saying, and I'm happy to heed the advice of another experienced editor. For the record, it's the very first thing he says about himself at his own user page — "I am a high school student" — and while I do find age and maturity to be relevant in this discussion, and while it might give an admin reason to cut him a break, I won't mention it at the ANI discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that on his user page, yeah. It's just that your remarks about it come off as a bit rude. But I do appreciate you stopping by to explain, and I appreciate your cooperation.

As for giving him a break - if there's consensus that the editor lacks

competence, we can deal with that accordingly. But I appreciate your promise not to mention age in a negative matter. Cheers, m.o.p 17:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

And let me just say thanks for your offering to volunteer and mediate. I've done it two or three times and probably should offer more often — it's one of the best gestures anyone here can make, to give of their own time that way. It's much appreciated. The issue may be over, but if not, I wouldn't mind taking you up on it. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can be seen on my user page that I am a high school student. And it can also be seen that you are deliberately using this to try insult me and pass of personal remarks. If you continue to show this kind of behavior with me or other users it will be reported again at ANI. Also so you know the thing you keep calling wall-text is me using one of the comments from the discussion to assure that I am making constructive edits. Even though knowing that you have deliberately. You say you are much more experienced than me but I never said anything about your experience. You call yourself experienced but all your experience is "false" because even until now you don't seem have to learnt this simple thing that one must always respect others and try to always behave in a polite manner. Nothing in actual is a rant and words like rants are simply made by those who don't want to respect opinion of others. Your comments were removed from talk page because not only they were false accusation but you continied to disrespect me. Your own behavior us disputive and disrespectful. Also if you think teens are less mature then you might want to know that many a times teens make more morally correct decisions than adults and more active in participating to help those who are needy. If guided correctly they can turn out to be much.more positive asset to the society than adults these days. It is actually adults themselves responsible for guiding them on wrong path. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, KahnJohn - remember how I said you were actively engaging others? This is an excellent example of how not to do things. The matter's already settled, Tenebrae has agreed to tone it down in the future, and I've handed out a warning. There is nothing gained from you beating a dead horse and discussing it further - you just come off as combative. So please, leave it alone and get back to constructive editing. m.o.p 23:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you that your trying to mediate many of us about KhanJohn27. But he has been disruptive at us. This is what he said to me on This part of my talk page. He also said this to the talk pages of MarnetteD on this part. I'm not trying to be a bully on this issue, but it was discussed that BOM (Box Office Mojo) is the most reliable source at seen here and get news references on Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, regardless of the problems that this site is having. We don't even know if boxoffice.com gets any outside news reference in anyway. There is conflicting reports on BOM and boxoffice.com on production budget costs and box-office gross numbers on various movies, but it said that BOM is one of our most reliable sources at this time. This issue was already discuss in the archives section on here. I just thought you should know that before you start question our reasons on why we got problems with KhanJohn27. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I've already read the interactions you posted, but the notion is appreciated. Regards, m.o.p 16:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for appreciating my notion from my message. I understand that your trying to help as a solve this problem for many of us. Anyway, check out the perspectives from the user name Drmargi on KhanJohn27's recent actions on the ANI noticeboard and see what you think. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Master of Puppets. You left a message on my talk.page saying that you will be happy to lend a hand at WP:Film. I thank you for agreeing to look into this matter It is in urgent need of admin intervention who is a really experienced editor and has helped in solving many disputes. Thank you very much KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will go back through and cleanup as needed. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello m.o.p. Recently user MarnetteD has passed a very strong insult to user Jodon1971 in the history of her talk page. This can be seen here the history of her talk page. She has said that my comments are attracting flies-go. It can be clearly understood that this user being called fly-go or indirectly an "insect" is Jodon1971 who requested her to stop her combative and insultive behavior. This not the only time she has insulted somebody and induldged in combative behavior with multiple users. It can be easily seen on her talk page and it's history. Atleast 2 users have complained to me about her uncivil behavior. They have rightfully said that if anyone tries to her it upsets her personally. Also her behavior is unnecessarily rude and agressive and is especially bullying towards new users. This user is blaming others not only me of having conflictive behavior while hers own is the most disruptive and disrespectful. She only seems to be trying to enforce her own views and does not care about improving Wikipedia at all. Frankly to say I've heard enough of it and I think something should be done about it. I don't want to complain about her on ANI because honestly saying I might somewhat be biased against her. She should atleast be given a strong warning because it seems that it is the only way she will be willing to improve her behavior. Letting her go will only embolden her behavior. That's why I humbly request you to intervene and do something about it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading that - I'm pretty sure the edit summary was meant as, "this is now drawing flies - go and investigate..." As in, MarnetteD wouldn't like to talk about it anymore and is asking people to go elsewhere. A user is entitled to that decision if they don't wish to discuss things further on their talk page. As for insults, do you mind providing diffs to back up that allegation? I am at work and unable to go hunting through someone's contributions. m.o.p 20:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I surely did misread that. But still she has calked them flies which is a deliberate the insult. Something really must be done about that. Apart from that the only evidence I can say is her misrepresting my statement. She said that "BTW any user who says that they are trying to do the right thing are trying to enforce their opinion" which is totally incorrect.No user has ever been this much agressive as her who has been so early in her first comments to me. From when I ask it has started to mean enforcing opinion. What I really meant was that I'm only contradicting their statements because I have certain proof and trying to be co-operative. Apart from that many users complaining means something is wrong with her. I will try to provide more evidence. I need some rest since the discussion at WP:RS has put a lot of mental stress on me. In the meantime I've told Jodon1971 to contact you. He can tell you more accurately. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also I know and understand that users are entitled to ask people not to comment on their talk page. But they don't have any right at all to insult them even at their own talk pages. I hope you understand that. Thank you.KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flies comment is an extension of the age-old "beating a dead horse" figure of speech. When something dies, flies will swarm it. I think Marnette was just trying to say that there was no point in continuing on with that discussion - I don't think it's intended as an insult.

I'll wait to comment on the other allegation when you've actually shown me that Marnette was being a bully, as you claimed above. m.o.p 23:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Master of Puppets, I'm delighted you are assisting KahnJohn in this matter. I hope his concerns can be dealt with speedily and satisfactorily.

Regarding the "figure of speech", I appreciate your interpretation, but there is only a 50/50 chance you are correct. It could be interpreted this way: The argument is compared to rotting faeces, which as you know attracts flies (especially in hot weather!). So the argument is shit, attracting me (an insect), which she swats away (removes from her talk page, and doesn't even archive it). Given my interpretation it is quite possible she made it deliberately ambiguous as a way to cover herself, if that's the case she has official deniability, so we'll never know for sure.

In any event, I'm not going to let this bother me. You may have missed my comments on the ANI as part of the discussion about KahnJohn, as they subsequently were marked "unrelated" (on what grounds I'm not sure, as MarnetteD happened to be the topic of discussion).

As I mentioned in my reply to KahnJohn on my talk page, I've only had a brief incident with MarnettedD on one article talk page, hardly a solid case. I just picked up on her "attitude" to him on her talk page and equated it with my own experience, and wasn't happy that she wasn't giving due consideration to less experienced users. This is a character flaw that neither she nor her "wiki" friends seem to acknowledge. I said an apology from her to me would go a long way, especially if it was genuine and not condescending, and I would certainly forgive her iniquities and believe that she had some redeeming qualities. However I don't expect that to happen, and won't get too worked up over it. Such is life, or more to the point, such is Wikipedia. Having said that, I do have some reservations about this "community", but we'll keep that discussion for another time.

Thanks for your assist. -- Jodon | Talk 23:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Jodon. I apologize if you feel neglected due to your exchange - I'll see if there's anything I can do. m.o.p 07:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might have already noticed admin that MarnetteD has again misrepresented my statements again at ANI. And it can't get worser than this. This statements I have made at my own talk page is perfectly the right thing to say. Yes I want to bring a positive change to Wikipedia and Wikipedia states that it must be the real objective of all editors. And yes I said I'll do it alone if no one wants to. This does not mean I'm trying to impose my views. If I was I would never agreed to let go of the matter in order to find amicable solution and accept the fact that I haven't been able to completely prove that BOM is unreliable and BO.com.is reliable. Also please note that I've already replied to her about this misrepresentation of statements and constant bullying of other editors. You'll also notice that Jodan1971 pasted a comment of Tenebrae on my talk page. This is the exact statements which are copied and pasted she has called "wall-text". However first of all it's wall of text not wall text. It is defined as a delibirate attempt to shut down a noticeboard or talk page by deploying irrevelant text which ranges in mass amount of text. It can be easily inferred that her motive behind these actions is not caring at all what anyone says. I hope you will pay due attention to my comment. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a more-detailed post on ANI about it, but, in essence - I think it might be best if you drop this for now. To be honest, most of the comments you've come to me about are due to other editors feeling that they can't discuss something without you replying to them in a lengthy fashion - which there's nothing wrong with in principle, but you can imagine how that gets out of hand during a heated dispute - or without you accusing them of bullying. If it's possible, I'd like you to leave the diplomacy to me. Just take a breather, read over some of the text relevant to this dispute over at WT:Film and the RS noticeboard, and we'll go from there. If an editor is attacking you outright, let me know - do not reply to them. I'll handle the rest. Regards, m.o.p 07:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly saying I don't think I have any accurate evidence about her except her talk page and her somewhat bullying behavior to me even though she has carefully made sure that she does not make a personal attack. However I think you're making a mistske by letting her go. I'm really not blaming you here but I think this will only embolden her behavior. She really seems to give two hoots about others and honestly saying I'm just tired of watching her getting away with it. This matter really needs some serious attention. Apart from that Jodon1971 can give you a more accurate evidence. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note - MarnetteD is a guy. And, don't worry, I've mentioned the concerns above to him. Just don't worry about what will embolden behaviour and what will do what - I can deal with that. Focus on the RS noticeboard and other things. m.o.p 16:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already talked to MarnetteD and told him if that he really has an attitude then please just let go of it. Apart from that I also noticed your and Dmargi's comments and agree with what you say. But still Jodon1971 has rightfully said that some senior editors really have a bullying attitude especially towards new comers and unfortunately most of the time because of fear of being blocked even though they themselves might have done nothing they don't report about their bullying behavior. This just worsens the situation. I hope you understand that I was only trying to help and because of that I reported about MarnetteD. Still as you have advised I should let go of this situation atleast for now. I thank you for assistance. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remeber your advice about not beating a dead horse. As you might have already seen on WP:RS and you can see in [[4]] of Jodon1971. Now it seems he has resorted to lying while still keeping up the personal attack. Did you dismiss the case against him? Were my accusations baseless? That can hardly be so because you hald told him to improve his behavior and stop making sniding comments. He himself had accepted it and agreed tone down his behavior. However I don't think he has done so at all. I don't know if he is trying to get revenge. Needless to say I am totally fed up with his constant bullying. He shouldn't have posted this on Jodon1971's talk page but instead here. I have already requested that he can talk to me on talk page if he wants to in order to better understand and forgive each other. It's always better to have a face-to-face talk instead of having someone intervene and try to get you to talk to each other. I request you to please do something before situation gets out of hand. Thank you.KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I caused you any more hassle by copy/pasting. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, no harm done. Thanks for all your work! Regards, m.o.p 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From late March to early April, I was involved in a conflict with user User:Darkwarriorblake over a disagreement regarding the cast order at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. I believed the cast order should follow the on-screen credits and he believed it should follow the poster. Throughout the discussion, he made numerous personal attacks against me, dismissed many of my points, and later spread false allegations about me to other users. Because this was the first time someone was really slinging insults at me, I didn't know where to go. I eventually decided to the raise the issue of his behavior and actions to the Film Project talk page, but the things I said were mostly ignored, with others justifying what he did and attacking me.

Now that I see MarnetteD and Tenebrae have been reported to you for behaving similarly to Darkwarriorblake, is it too late to make a report about him for the way he conducted himself? Bluerules (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to look into it. Would you be able to provide diffs to back up your allegations? m.o.p 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The majority of our conversation took place at the talk page of The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, where his messages got gradually more insulting. In his final reply to me, he called me an "arrogant idiot", asked how "stupid" I was, and referred to my points as "bullshit". I'll admit I did not conduct myself the best way I could, but I at least made the effort to not make personal attacks and I addressed everything he wrote.

On my talk page, he said I "might have a brain disorder."

He made false allegations about me at the Project Film talk page and referred to me as a "thing". He claimed I ignored him when he mentioned "alphabetic or in-order-of-appearance lists" when I told him such lists were irrelevant to the current discussion because the end credits to The Incredible Burt Wonderstone weren't alphabetical or by appearance. He claimed I'm "happy to use the poster when it suits (my) requirements for getting (my) favorites higher" and showed my edit of The Help as evidence of this. I had never touched the cast order at The Help; I used the poster order for the starring section of the infobox and it's my understanding that's what the starring section is supposed to follow. I told him I never altered the film's cast listing to reflect the poster during in our first conversation and on his talk page, yet he still continued to spread this lie about me when he returned to the Project Film talk page. This time, he also used a quote by me to claim I was going to cause an edit war at Olympus Has Fallen. What I meant by "I proved my order was correct over at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and I'll prove it's correct at Olympus Has Fallen if I have to." was I would open up a discussion on that page to prove why the cast order should follow the ending credits. Lastly, he claimed was bullying others due to my response to User:BattleshipMan when BattleshipMan came to my profile first and was attacking me at every chance he could get. Bluerules (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Added the diff links, my mistake. Bluerules (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look, Bluerules. You committed a series of disruptive editing on many film articles, mostly The Incredible Burt Wonderstone &, on a smaller scale, Olympus Has Fallen and you started a edit war that should be started if it wasn't for you. How the cast list should be ordered doesn't really matter, whatever it is end-credits or not. How the cast should be listed is not part of consensus. I didn't attack you on your talk page. I was trying to explain your disruptive editing and you bullied me and many others who have been reverting your disruptive editing. So stop accusing us for trying to be reverting your edits for the wrong reasons. And you been tried four times to get yourself unblocked and because of that, you we're blocked from chatting on your page because of your attitude. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I did at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone has already been looked into by the admins. However, that was the only edit war I was recently involved in. Most users do not consider my edits to be disruptive. If the order of the cast list does not matter, why even include it? No one else has claimed this aspect of the cast is irrelevant- you previously said the cast order of Olympus Has Fallen should be set up properly and Darkwarriorblake believes the order does matter because it prevents people from bumping up their favorite actors. I didn't say you attacked me on my talk page, you attacked at other locations. The message I wrote in the diff link was not directed at you, but you responded to it by bashing me. I have not bullied anyone- I only respond to the people who message me first. If anything, you teaming up with Darkwarriorblake to go after me is more akin to bullying. Anyways, the issue here is Darkwarriorblake also broke the rules by resorting to personal attacks and making false accusations, just like MarnetteD and Tenebrae did. That's why I brought this up. Bluerules (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done all that I can to not post here m.o.p. but this has to stop. No examples of these accusations against Tenebrae or myself has ever been provided. I would appreciate it (and I suspect that T would as well) if you would, at the very least, point this out to Bluerules. I consider them a violation of

WP:NPA and I feel that they should stop. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I hate to be bother as well, but since Bluerules brought me up: He appears to be misleading by deliberately leaving out context. Any editor can complain about another editor, as User:KahnJohn27 did with me and User:MarnetteD. That doesn't mean there was anything substantive to the complaints. And honestly, people who believe they have to manipulate language to make a point that the facts may not support is troubling. That's all I needed to say. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not out to make accusations about MarnetteD and Tenebrae. KarlJohn27's conflict with these editors appeared similar to the issue I was facing with Darkwarriorblake. That's why I mentioned these incidents. Bluerules (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue with me is that you didn't get your way. You've been banned twice for the same thing in less than 2 weeks, were banned for 5 days and one of the first things you do when you come back is open ANOTHER discussion at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone about the cast ordering because you didn't get your way and the user who did ultimate participate, took my side not yours. It is is not another discussion that needs to be had but you are unable to move on, you have shown this after your first ban where you immediately returned to edit warring, and now after a second ban you are still unable to move on from that single topic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then why am I only making a report about you and not other users who have reverted me? Bluerules (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerules: I apologize for the delay, I've had a lot to do the past few days.

While I won't condone any personal attacks made against you, I also have to take into account the opinions expressed above. Your recent history - being blocked one week for edit warring, then submitting so many unblock requests that your talk page access was revoked - seems to indicate that you've got trouble following consensus. I know it sounds harsh, but, if consensus agrees on something, you won't do much good trying to push for your version of events. Unless you can get widespread agreement that something should be changed, I'd suggest you leave it be. I understand you're looking to do what's best for the articles you edit, but sometimes it's best to let things go instead of involving yourself further.

That being said, I'll leave a note on Darkwarriorblake's talk page on the personal attack issue. Thanks to everyone for weighing in above. m.o.p 19:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello m.o.p. At ANI you had proposed to me that you can mentor me. After clearly thinking about it I've decidedto accept it. I'll like to know if you want to accept my proposal of mentoring me too. I'm going to take a semi-break from editing for 3 months and I think I will be able to learn a lot from you in that time. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgive me if this sounds silly, but I don't recall offering to mentor you. Not that I'd be opposed, but I don't have very much time these days, and I'll be busy all summer with classes, travelling, and the like. I'd strongly recommend seeing if you can pair up with a different mentor, as I'm afraid I'll just be too busy to spend very much time on Wikipedia. m.o.p 23:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you yourself said at ANI that you'll teach me all about Wikipedia policies. However some comments have been deleted and it was in one of them. But why were those comments deleted? KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so you cannot block me--Penssail (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. How am I involved? m.o.p 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

m.o.p., I am so sorry to see so many editors coming to your talk page to trouble you and make the kinds of comments you're seeing. I'm on a condo board, and I can both empathize and sympathize with what a Wikipedia admin must go through, though I don't think I've ever seen one subjected to so much of the kind of thing that I've seen editors subject you to over the last few days. Stay strong. With regards and respect, Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I emphatically second T's words. You really are going above and beyond to be even handed in all that is going on. Cheers and have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 18:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the sentiment, it's deeply appreciated!

Also, you two may appreciate this. I, too, am put off by unsourced allegations; hopefully this helps in the future. Best, m.o.p 19:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello m.o.p. I'll like to inform you that a voting is taking place at WP:RS to use Boxoffice.com as a reliable source. Till now all editors have voted in the favor of Boxoffice.com. You can see the reason for supporting it as a reliable source in the discussion. Since you had participated in the discussion as well you're vote is required. Also did you contact BOM yet? Even if you didn't it is no problem. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sent them an e-mail on Wednesday. Still waiting on a cohesive reply - until now they've just been asking for clarifications. And, as I was mediating this dispute, I cannot vote without losing my neutrality. Thank you for the invitation, though. m.o.p 23:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOP, KahnJohn is back posting on MarnetteD's talk page despite being asked not to yet again, this time pushing him to "vote" on consensus regarding Boxoffice.com on the RS noticeboard. Even after Marnette's latest request he stop, he came right back, posted again, still pushing him to vote. Care to hop over to his talk page and give him a verbal swat with a rolled up newspaper? --Drmargi (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a sterner message on his talk page. Thanks for the heads-up. Regards, m.o.p 23:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me clarify that I am not "pushing" anyone. I was asking him to vote because a final vote is always required. Second of all MarnetteD himself said that not to post on his talk page unless related to content. And I did exactly that. My posts were completely about content. I would never have commented on his talk page if it wasn't about a serious matter. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but Marnette asked you not to edit there at all. Next time, please obey such requests. Also, on an unrelated note, editors are not required to vote on anything. They may choose to abstain from voting or leave a discussion at their leisure. m.o.p 01:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MOP. I don't know whether KJ is unwilling or unable to understand what Marnette is telling him, but I'm glad to see you so Johnny-on-the-spot. --Drmargi (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drmargi. I don't think KahnJohn means to be malicious - he's just a well-intentioned editor who isn't quite picking up on the normal cues. m.o.p 01:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He's young, too eager and maybe doesn't read/think with quite as much care as we might wish. Funny, though, how things work out; now I've got a headache with a stroppy editor. No good deed, as they say. --Drmargi (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD said "don't edit on my talk page unless related to content". It is in the history of his talk page. He never said not to edit his talk page at all. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His latest message said don't post on it at all, clear as can be. --Drmargi (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the latest but one of his older comments in the history of his talk page said not to comment unless related to content. And that's what I did. It was completely related to content. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Marnette removed your first edit. You proceeded to make the edit again. He replied to you and told you not to edit there anymore. So you edited a third time. You agree that that's a bit ridiculous, right? m.o.p 03:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute the only time he told me not to make any more comments on his talk page after my first comment on "Voting at WP:RS". He never said anything before about not commenting on his own talk page at all. He only said not to edit until related to content. Why is he saying then "I am going to ask one last time that you not post on my talk page again.", I wonder. Also he said in the history of his talk page "Which part not commenting on my talk page you don't understand". If this was the time where he previously said not to comment on his talk page at all then it can be clearly seen that he is also saying that he has made this statement before too when in actual he never has. He only said not to edit his talk page unless related to content.Also talk page guidelines say that "it is better" not to post an editor's page. It never said "you cannot" post at his page and there is no block policy for posting at an editor's talk page atleast until it is an attempt to annoy him. This is because sometimes comments are related to an important matter. Also it does not say that an editor should comnent at all even if the editor asks him not to at all. This because sometimes related to an important matter. So technically there is no reason why I will be blocked. All the times I have posted on MarnetteD's talk page was about important matter even when I asked him to let go of his attitude. I'm really sorry I didn't completely understand what MarnetteD said but that was because in actual he never said not to comment on his talk page at all before that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's blocking you, don't worry. But continuing to post on a user's page after they've requested you stop is considered harassment, and it definitely won't improve relations. Please be more mindful of this in the future. m.o.p 05:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. It was a simple misunderstanding. If he would have just said don't comment at my page at all I still would have understood. Still thanks for understanding. I won't comment on his talk page if he doesn't want me to. If there is really something important then I request you to meditate in between since the consensus hasn't been reached and there might be some important messages that need to be passed between users. That's why I request you to meditate when and if the need arises. I will be highly obliged. Thank you very much. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there's a user named Geragrrt who is constantly genre warring and removing sourced stuff. Can you watch over the rise against articles?

Stgw (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any diffs of this behaviour? I need something to go on. Best, Damage, Inc. 04:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again m.o.p. I'm contacting you about an irresponsible decision made by MarnetteD. As you know he had said that he is going to stand by his previous decision on WP:RS/N that is opposing Boxoffice.com as a reliable source. Now I am not complaining because he is opposing Boxoffice.com. I am complaining because while taking his decision he hasn't considered the latest proof which confirms that Boxoffice.com as a reliable source. But he hasn't even cared to think about it. A voter has the right to abstain, vote against or vote in support of. But a user must always take into consideration all the points and counterpoints and all the proofs that have been provided but it can be clearly seen that MarnetteD hasn't taken the latest proof into consideration. Not only this an irresponsible decision but is also against rules of the consensus. This was what in begginning of the discussion I had reffered to as "anarchy", when editors start acting on their own accord. I request you to do something about this since this is a really serious matter. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey KahnJohn. I'm currently traveling so I don't have much time for this reply. In essence, who's to say MarnetteD hasn't taken recent developments to heart and still decided to keep his current opinion? Please remember to

assume good faith

. Also, in the case that Marnette has decided to step away from the discussion, that's likewise his right; as I've said before, nobody is required to stick through a discussion and may leave at their own leisure.

Again - while I appreciate your intentions here, remember that others have already accused you of battleground behaviour; constant posts like this (which, to be blunt, have no basis in policy) don't help to calm that unease. Try to approach things with a bit more of a level head and I guarantee you'll have a less-stressful time. Regards, Damage, Incorporated 04:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these things out D (formerly m.o.p.) I would like to add that, in point of fact, my last post on the subject was this one [5]. You will notice that I actually agreed to the use of the link. Some people just can't take yes for an answer I guess. I do hope that the constant violation of

WP:NPA regarding myself will stop. Go safe in your travels MarnetteD | Talk 04:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm still using the m.o.p. name, but I don't trust airport WiFi enough to login from that account. Thanks for the well wishes.

KahnJohn, I'd say you owe MarnetteD an apology - he's right in that he did actually weigh in in favour, yet you look to be itching to finud something to criticize.

Of course, if you do aplogize, please do so here - I'm sure Marnette will see it, and we want to respect his wishes on the usage of his talk page. I imagine it will be appreciated all the same.Damage, Inc. 04:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I make myself clear he did not abstain from voting he actually participated in it albeit indirectly. And I am talking about the voting in here section and not section. Actually he voted against Boxoffice.com and I am not making some baseless accusation. The proof is this[6]. No user can vote without taking all points in due consideration. If my requests are to be ignored with excuses like I have disputable behavior then I don' see any point in reporting here. If the reason why users think that my behavior is conflictive just because I'm daring to speak the truth. Wikipedia encourages to speak the truth. No policy says that speaking the truth is conflictive or disputive behavior. All I try to do is make sure no Wikipedia rules are broken. But imsted of taking due consideration of my reports and comnending me I am being blamed of having conflictive behavior and am bullied by some senior editors because I am inexperienced. Is that why I am being bullied? Is that why my reports are never paid any attention to and my comments are dismissed as rants? Is that what Wikipedia has been reduced to, can only senior editors decide what's wrong or right? If that is the reason then I'm not going to report this matter here anymore. I'm taking it to somewhere where this matter is paid due attention. Even if he had voted in favor of Boxoffice.com and the proof was against reliability of Boxoffice.com I still would have made a report of it because that would have been the right thing according to Wikipedia rules. I don't owe anyone any apology but neither I am going to demand it from anyone because that is real good faith. Needless to say you were very quick in pointing out my mistakes but you never pointed the mistake of those who complained about me even though they were the ones who had conflictive behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also so I make myself clear I have been trying to keep the discussion at WP:RS fair and according to Wikipedia rules. However no one ever noticed that let alone even comment about that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2013 (

That's still a vote on the subject and still counts towards consensus. Also, that was not a vote against Boxoffice.com - I quote, from that same section you say is a 'no', "I aired my opinion early on about the acceptability of the site (which I approved)" (emphasis mine) - I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Marnette said, multiple times, that he is OK with Boxoffice.com. Also, again, you can't judge whether or not users have taken all points into consideration. That isn't a thing. If someone express their opinion, harassing them because you feel it isn't legitimate is not an option.

Here's the problem as I see it. I appreciate your dedication to the truth, but you have to understand

pushing your point-of-view relentlessly

.

You do deserve props for multiple things, like helping get the discussion on the RS noticeboard back on track a few days ago. But, to put things bluntly, it isn't your duty here to make sure Wikipedia rules aren't broken. That's what people like me are for. And your reports aren't being shrugged off, but they're unnecessary. I've done my best to break things down for you in regards to why things don't work the way you think they do; if you're having trouble understanding, let me know and I'll try to break it down further.

As for my interactions with other users - while that's not quite your concern, I believe I've treated everyone fairly. I'm not playing favourites, and I've spoken with multiple editors about their behaviour in regards to this dispute. If you feel this isn't enough, you're welcome to seek out another administrator for a third opinion.

Finally, on the note of an apology - I can't make you do it, but, especially after this last message, I think it would be highly appropriate for you to apologize to Marnette, on my talk page, for (effectively) accusing him of bad faith when he supported the resolution in the first place. That's my recommendation. Whether or not you heed it is up to you. Damage, Inc. 06:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(post edit-conflict)Your efforts on WP:RS are appreciated. Again, please don't assume bad faith and think that nobody noticed. Damage, Inc. 06:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He said that Boxoffice.com should not be used in place of BOM. That's what MarnetteD voted upon. But since it has been proved reliable it can be used in it's place. Also the word 'OK' does not mean accepting a source as reliable. Apart from that Tenebrae was let go off easily and even though his rude behavior continued after he said that he'll improve his behavior and you were made well aware that he has done nothing to improve his behavior you didn't do anything about that. Although he has stopped passing off insulting remarks now. He should have been given atleast a warning. On 8 occassions he has made personal remarks and that is a lot. Atleast I tried to improve my behavior and even succeeded a little bit in it. Also why have atleast 3 editors including me complained about MarnetteD's irresponsible behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also this statement of MarnetreD that he is OK with Boxoffice.com was made before the proof of Boxoffice's reliabilty has been discovered. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue this discussion, but I'm disappointed that you're still pushing this. I've asked you, multiple times, to let things go more easily and stop dwelling on irrelevant things. Again - Marnette said he saw Boxoffice.com's usage as acceptable. End of story. Whether or not he made it before, or after, or during the discovery of certain 'proof' is not something you need to worry about. Just let it go.

Also, Tenebrae was warned - I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish by telling me what I have or haven't done. If it's not to your liking, then, as I said, there are hundreds of other administrators who you may approach with this. And, for the last time - stop grinding your axe. MarnetteD is not your concern. If you continue doing this I will be forced to step in as an administrator and issue a warning. It is in your best interests that that doesn't happen. Damage, Inc. 18:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is no point in continuing this discussion with you. Your actions are dissapointing indeed. Apart from that I don't think there is any point in taking this discussion elsewhere if I'm going to be just ignored. I'll let this go for time being now. You have lost all respect I had for you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should really apologise to you m.o.p. as well as to MarnetteD. I had become really furious after m.o.p. said that he will give me a warning. Even though I was very angry at you m.o.p. I went out of line by saying that "you had lost all respect I had for you". I apologise sincerely for that. I only said that because I was angry and wanted to say bad things to you. I accept I was out of line. I hope you can forgive me. Also while I did the right thing about reporting MarnetteD earlier I don't think I should have reported him the second time because his behavior was perfectly civil this time. I also request him to forgive me for this if he can. I humbly apologise to both of you. I agree I should take things more easily and should approach things with a more levelled head. I will always keep that in mind. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying that. MarnetteD | Talk 14:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, appreciate the apology. Thank you. m.o.p 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently Betty Logan has been involved in dispute with many editors at ANI [[7]]. I do not have any relation to this nor have any dispute with her but I thought this is something you should look at. Although I have taken time to comment that she really has disputive behavior with other editors. Most of the editors who have accused of having conflictive behavior themselves have been accused of having disputive and rude behavior. I do not want to take this issue up again and forgive me for saying this but I think there is really something suspicious going on here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your intention here. I follow AN(I) on a regular basis, and, though I do not comment often, I do keep up with the goings-on.

However, try to do your best to tread lightly situations like this;

you don't want your intentions to be mislabeled as stalking. There are many people - not just on Wikipedia, but in general - who will not think for a second before they accuse you of trying to influence situations to your liking. Of course, I don't think that's your goal, but try to be careful. Given that you've brushed against Betty Logan in the past, said accusation would be very easy to make. Regards, m.o.p 08:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate your concern and response and that you recognize my efforts. I deeply thank you and respect you for that. Apart from that I've already said that I won't comment any further as I have already said what there was to say and I'm only speaking on what I see. Also please notice that she has also given

WP:CONSENSUS. But I realize it not my duty to do that but yours so I should leave it in your hand. As I've already said I trust your judgment. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Pending release of Notifications

Hey Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the

Notifications

, or Echo, newsletter.

If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have

on the talkpage

.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
Message added 08:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Adrian (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to contact you like this but if my input is needed regarding this matter I want to inform you that I will be unavailable for a couple of days (3-4 days). Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are cute! Nice picture. Just asking if you can take a look at this article, I created it with some help from another wikifriends of mine

]

Awesome name!

Hello,

I just dropped by to say that you've got an awesome username! As always, Metallica rocks. :)

Cheers,

]

Why, thanks! Metallica does indeed rock. Except for St. Anger. But we don't talk about that around here. m.o.p 20:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did.--Launchballer 22:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I was searching for the actual templated notice, but you did notify him. Sorry! m.o.p 23:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Master of Puppets,

I apologize for not providing diffs. I will do it now accordingly. Iadrian’s allegations do not hold true, although it is true that we both reverted article content repeatedly. It’s true that many of his and my edits are on those two articles and that’s the problem. Also, it is untrue that I created a dummy article. I only tried to revert the article in question, although the article itself was not mine in the first place, since Iadrian took the article

.

Articles:

• Vlachs of Serbia

Some of his edits:

[8] He doesn't list reference where the Vlachs identify themselves as "Romanians of Serbia."

[9] He intentionally writes that “Vlachs from Serbia” means in fact "Romanians from Serbia”

[10] He added inactive reference.

[11] He did it again.

[12] He removed Serbian language, although it’s official language in Serbia and the Vlachs are bilingual. Serbian is, also, the official language of the Vlach national Council according to their statute.

Less important, but not unimportant, he stated that Serbian language is not related to this ethnic group, which is not true, because they have a lot Slavic/Serbian words in their vocabulary, as well as Romanians have strong influence of Slavic languages (lexis, phonetics, morphology and syntax) on Romanian (from Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian…). Wikipedia article: Slavic influence on Romanian

[13] He stated that "Serbs are not related to Vlachs". This is not true, as can be seen from the preceding explanation, and in addition, the Serbs were participated in the ethnogenesis of the Vlachs, and vice versa. They live together for centuries in the same areas.

[14] He removed reference of the Vlach National Council, stated that “this is a political organization”.

“The National Council represents a minority in the fields of education, culture, informing in the minority language and the official usage of language and script, making decisions on those issues, establishing institutions etc.” (Constitution of the Republic of Serbia).

• Vlach language in Serbia

Some of his edits:

[15] He added Romanian instead of Eastern Romance.

[16] He suggests deleting this article.

But he did repeatedly redirection of this article: [17], [18]

[19] He added a link from BBC Romanian about some political issues as a reference that Vlachs speak Romanian?!

[20] He did it again, [21] and again.

[22] He classified Vlach “as a variety of the Romanian language”, although Vlachs themselves do not consider their language as a variety of Romanian.

[23] Reverted my revision to his and removed my references - official data from the Vlach National Council and Serbian 2011 Census statistics.

Also, the most of his links are inactive links (dead links).

But the diffs are not the point of this problem.

Contribution of user Iadrian emphasize that it is a (

) represents Vlachs in Serbia as an integral part of a Romanian people and their language as an integral part of the Romanian language. This does not fit with the facts in question considering Vlachs in Serbia and other Eastern Romance peoples (Vlach peoples) in various Balkan countries are fully acknowledged as an independent peoples. One people’s history and ethnic identity is used to serve for the sprouts of nationalism thought and personal interest of group propagnda. As I outlined before, he represents a pro-nationalist Romanian point of view. In his answer to you he mentions that I have removed all data that concern the Romanian people and language. That is not simply the case since I have removed references in which Vlachs are being represented as Romanians and their native tongue as Romanian (and also the (dead links)). This is not according to their national self-designation. So that is not (NPOV)) and even more he is advocating the attitudes of Romanian nationalism and propaganda through his references considering that he is using nationalist pro-Romanian publications and sources of certain political fractions and NGOs who do not whatsoever represent the Vlach people as a whole.

While Iadrian tendentiously characterize my comment as "confusing", although it's not addressed to him and draws attention to my presence on Wikipedia and statistics (eg. creating of my account), which is irrelevant to this question, because this is not a competition, it is actually his avoidance of the essence of problem.

Unlike Iadrian I agree with you that this is a content dispute. Also, differing from Iadrian, I believe that this is a problem about a certain subject, as you mentioned .

Overall, the articles in question -

).

I ask for your help in this issue. Thank you. Ljuboni (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with what I have said. I have been careful to not to be too blunt. I think it's better to tell the truth beforehand instead of telling it later. This can sometimes really help avoid a major conflict or dispute later since the users will be able to better understand each other and will also help in avoiding any misconceptions in the future. I'm not saying that I am going to say to the user that I somewhat don't trust them again and again in the future because it's the . I'm only saying that it's better to tell the truth just once beforehand in order to avoid any misconceptions between the users. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, 100%. But starting out with "I don't trust you" isn't the quickest way to most people's hearts. Again, I like that you're being honest. Just remember that there's such a thing as too honest. m.o.p 07:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BOM has finally replied to my query. I've received a reply from Ray Subers, editor at BOM. According to him the reason for this N/A and incorrect foreign gross is because they don't have enough staff. It's as simple as that. Actually this is what they said :-

"We don't have enough people on staff to keep up with this. Simple as that. Sorry.

Ray Subers

Editor, Box Office Mojo"

This reply came 2 days back but I noticed it just today. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that on April 13 you blocked user Maurice07 with a strict warning for edit warring. Today he has been edit warring (again) on Klingon. 141.0.170.190 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so. BTW, MoP, I looked into the 'real' Maurice, now blocked by BladeotNL for a month, and that seems pretty lenient to me. I think indeffing is the way to go. Also, happy days, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's lenient as well. However, the block has already been handed out and I trust Blade's judgment. We'll have to see how events play out after the block lifts.

Thanks for the quick work on reverting that attack, by the way! m.o.p 18:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew what HIAB must not have known. I was unable to add this to the closed report, but thanked another supporter of mine from the noticeboard (on their talk page) with this additional text I thought I'd share with you:

I also may have mistyped something on a talk page that is being taken out of context as I type fast and my keyboard misses some characters sometimes. At any rate, I am so annoyed with how editors (all listed on my talk page right now) are violating rules and nothing has been done about it. So as a smoke screen they "jump the gun" and report me. One is mad I won't update an article of his anymore or something silly. Or if I stand up for myself without being disrepectful, they challenge me as if jealous (without me assuming bad faith). If you look at the edits I make on talk pages, they are polite, friendly and supportive/encouraging. I know that is not the norm around here, but it's how I am. I feel I am being persecuted as a result. It's all very discouraging/frustrating!

The entire issue was done out of spite because of an angry editor from the John Ritter article who I was ignoring. He was Wikihounding me and violated the 3 revert rule among others, yet like those listed on my talk page, nothing is done about it (which encourages them to continue "showboating" and "power-tripping" in my opinion, especially to newbies -- which I'm not -- and IP users). There are a couple others who are "stalking me" while replying to topics I created on talk pages, but I have moved on and ignored them as well. I wanted them all to think I was going away in hopes they'd leave me alone. I do hope they learned from this, and now I hope I can continue doing what I was doing before they got in my way. Take care! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you a private e-mail asking if you could give me some feedback and advice on a situation but due to the nature of it, would prefer if it was off-wiki. Many thanks. + Crashdoom ^Talk 01:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoP. At this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Imran Nazar Hosein has been reposted multiple times are your sure that you mean RFPP? I have never seen page protection used for requesting a speedy delete with or without salting. I just wanted to check in case a) something has changed somewhere along the line and b) in case it might be confusing for the OP of that thread. Cheers and have a good week on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 20:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From

RFPP: "This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, create protected (salted), semi-protected, added to pending changes...". I took the editor's post to be a request for protection, as they had already put a speedy deletion notice on the page. Is it poorly-worded? I can clarify if it threw you for a loop. m.o.p 20:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah there we go. Missed that over all these years. I can't remember ever seeing a salt request there. Thanks for clearing that up and for adding to my learning for the week. MarnetteD | Talk 20:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! We rarely ever see salt requests on that noticeboard, so I won't hold it against anyone for not knowing. Cheers, m.o.p 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Master of Puppets; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to

]

Block

Hello, with respect to this edit, Special:Contributions/91.182.188.115 has been engaging in the same behaviour as the other IP address, and in fact appears to be related to it, so I think it should be blocked as well. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've blocked them and

protected the page for a while - hopefully that helps. Regards, m.o.p 19:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Help needed

An IP address has been inserting Sleeping Dogs as a game in the True Crime (series). However the game is not a part of the series. It is only related to it since it was going to be a reboot of the series but since Square Enix did not purchase rights to the True Crime game it became a separate game from the series and is not a part of the True Crime series. I have commented about this in the history of the article True Crime (series) but the user still keeps inserting it back instead of discussing the matte first. Please help. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much I can do here, as the edit has only been reinserted once in recent months. Feel free to drop a {{uw-unsourced1}} warning on the editor's talk page. Regards, m.o.p 17:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user is going to reinsert Sleeping Dogs again some time later. Apart from that it will very hard to be able to invite an unregistered user for discussion by posting on his talk page since by the time I would have noticed his edits on True Crime his IP address would have already changed. However I have invited the user for a discussion in the history of the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said this before. I'll like you to thank you for your constant vigilance and helping to steer the discussion at WP:RS/N in the right direction. If you wouldn't have intervened the discussion would have gone nowhere. So I think I am right in saying that your contributions were the mostly valuable. Also thank you for your unbiased judgment and being patient as well as being optimistic. Last of all thanks for bringing out some flaws in my behavior and advising how to improve it. Thanks a lot. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I've been quite busy recently, so apologies for the delay in replying. Thank you as well for staying reasonable and being civil. Hope everything is well, m.o.p 22:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

on the

]

Recently an unregistered user has been edit warring over the budget of the film Snitch. The user is again and again inserting the budget of the film as $15 million without any source at all. Not only that no reliable source mentions the budget of the film to be $15 million. I have repeatedly told the user multiple times in the history section of the film that he needs a reliable source for his edits. However the user has not cared about this at all and it looks like he's trying to impose his own views. Also on the talk page of the article I've recently asked the user to stop edit-warring and discuss this matter with other users. Also I had inserted the budget of the film as $35 million with a source which I thought was reliable. However since there was no proof for it 's reliabilty I myself removed that edit. The user has been induldging in edit-warring. I also told about this situation to Darkwarriorblake however looks like he couldn't do much since the user is unregistered. I ask for your intervention in this matter. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the change has been made in a few days. If it happens again, let me know. m.o.p 22:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you either supply a better filename for File:B3a.jpg (which you uploaded in January 2006), or just delete it as a useless? Thanks. DS (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has again reinserted the budget of the film as $15 million without any source. Even if he has reinserted the edit after few days it still is edit warring. Please do something. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for one month. m.o.p 04:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I found a page for a non-existent region named Upstate California. I became suspicious after I updated a dead link on that page which seems on first glance to be a very thorough and detailed wiki page. My edit was reverted with a reason about "governmental rivalry." Because of the odd reason, I read the article more carefully, read every one of the links, did a web search, and wrote the page creator a few questions on his talk page. His reply was off topic and defensive.[24] Subsequently, I did a thorough Google search and all I could find was

• (1) the Wiki article Upstate California,
• (2) a forum asking for information on the term,[25]
• (3) a link to the Upstate economic development council "UEDC" which is cited in the article, [26]. That entity is not a real economic development agency which are governmental bodies, but instead an alleged 501.3.c non-profit, complete with a donate button. I checked the IRS non-profit lookup with that name and address, and was unable to verify if they ever even applied for a 501.3.c. The Wiki page claims they've been around since the 1970s, I would think that more would be found than mentions in various minutes such as the Eureka citation which only say "attend meeting with Upstate ...", the link from Pacific Gas and Electric saying they donated $10,000 for a conference and the opinion piece by a local politician which only mentions that she attended the event; and
• (4) a link to the Upstate California Connect Consortium which operates in a group of different counties (Lake, Colusa, Glenn, Sutter and Yuba Counties) [27] than are given on the Upstate California page and accompanying map [28], but UCCC is an official entity with many news articles and governmental citations.[29][30]

My concerns fall into the following categories:

• Citations & dead links: The NY Times article [31] describing it as a marketing campaign name has quotes from others who have not heard or do not use the term. The SF Gate article cited has been 404'd by the publisher. The other "citations" are brief mentions in obscure publications, none have solid information about the area or the UEDC which has supposedly been in operation for over 30 years. Nearly every link in the section Notes is dead.
• Pages that link to it: Looking at the pages that link to "Upstate California" I see that a template has been created which puts this term on many pages,[32] even though few wiki pages of substance link to it.
• Prior problems with the term: An interesting discussion occurred here.[33]
• Standard regions: The regions of California do not include "Upstate."[34].
• Notes section: The section named "Notes" contains information about the UEDC, most of the links are dead and the remainder contain little to no information about any "support" or activities of the UEDC.
• History of hoaxing: The page creator has apparently created at least one other "Upstate" page for another U.S. state[35] which was subsequently deleted.[36] Wiki defines hoaxing as "It is considered a hoax if it was a clear or blatant attempt to make up something, as opposed to libel, vandalism or a factual error." I believe that the page "Upstate California" falls under this definition.

While I have edited Wikipedia for a few years I have no experience with this kind of issue. Any assistance you can render in this regard will be most gratefully appreciated. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply - I've been quite busy.

Looking through quickly, I can see why you're concerned. However, after digging around, I found the 404'd San Fran Chronicle article here - it looks like, at least historically, the term isn't a fabrication.

I can't find any further information on usage of 'upstate California', so it may be a failed rebranding - I'm not too sure. If you'd like, I can try calling the Upstate California business listed on Monday and see if they can provide further information. I'm not sure we should dismiss this as a hoax yet, though I think you did a splendid job looking at it from all sides. m.o.p 07:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, I am glad you found the 404'd SF Chron article, but that's from over 10 years ago, the term hasn't caught on and isn't used. It's very much like this user's other page on "upstate Connecticut" which is hilarious, because there's not enough Connecticut to have upstate or downstate. I wouldn't be so concerned about hoaxing except for that Upstate UED which isn't with the big donation button and no 501.3.c. or if the page starter hadn't been so venomous in his replies to me. To avoid Original Research, I will only say that having lived in Northern California for 1/4 of my life, I had never heard the term before finding that page; never see it used, find few to zero phone listings for that name and still think that group is trying to pull a fast one based on how that page is written, and all the dead links in the Notes section. I'd be happy to hear what you find out ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's me living in Canada, but trying from multiple phones just leads me to a busy signal when I dial the number provided on their website. I do agree, though - the term doesn't seem to have traction, at least according to Google. Perhaps this is something you'd like to take to

AFD? m.o.p 07:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no better luck calling that number, all I get is a busy signal, too. I don't know how to start an AFD, I read the instructions and ended up fairly confused. Please advise? Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the "failed rebranding". For what it's worth, I greatly reduced the article, bringing it down from its inflated position as a commonly used term for a region of California (which it isn't) to an article about a public relations campaign from 2001. I removed 35 kb of text, which is a whole lot. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Binksternet! m.o.p 06:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP, Oh "M.O.P" !!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropped in on your Talk page to say that I love that a 22-year-old has a reference on his user page to a song that was already an oldie by the time I was 22. :) Lawikitejana (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A consequence of growing up with a father who wouldn't stop playing classics, I suppose! m.o.p 06:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I speek with you in Croatian language? I have long searched whom to contact regarding issues on the Croatian Wikipedia, it seems to me that you're the one who can understand Croatian in order to understand how bad the situation is in that community. Are you the one?

Same articles:

http://www.h-alter.org/vijesti/mediji/nezavisna-wikipedija-hrvatska http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Komentatori/AnteTomic/tabid/330/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/191538/Ante-Tomi-Miljenko-pria-o-jednom-narodu.aspx

Unaprijed zahvaljujem DobarSkroz (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you participate in these at FACs? I'm in dire need of one here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nintendo DSi/archive5‎. Last one was in archive3. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STATic message me! 03:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been taking place here on which you may wish to comment. Since I've taken a different view to you, please let me know if you think I've got it wrong. If you want to unblock to allow a change in username, go ahead. I almost feel sorry for this guy, he's in a hole and can't stop digging Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll comment there. m.o.p 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did a personal attack by claiming that I was using AN/I as my personal, whatever, and I take offense at that type of policy violation on biting and AGF. I suggest an apology would be appropriate and think you should probably recuse yourself from the thread after that apology as your views could be influenced by a possible "payback" vindication. This issue was brought before the OR/N and the village pump policy on whether or not you could use sources that say "western hemisphere" in an "incorrect" way from a geographical point of view but correct from a political POV. So, I have attempted, but it is hard to discuss when the person wants to simply revert, and violates policies with a "DONTHEAR" and "BATTLE" mentalities.Camelbinky (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can international premieres for English speaking countries be added to episode lists? I just think that readers in the UK, Canada, etc. should have premiere dates for their country.

]

Sorry, which article does this refer to? m.o.p 19:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 19:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Giorgioalomi

Hi, you removed the user Giorgioalomi from UAA in this edit, and I was wondering why? He has recently created the deleted page that he was founder/owner of, Alomi, here. The page was deleted by Yunshi, in the deletion log it says:

"20:22, 19 October 2013 Yunshui (talk | contribs) deleted page Alomi Real Wood Floors LLC (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". On the talk page which was next deleted, the user explicitly said that he was Giorgio Alomi, (he can also be seen here) who was in the family business. However, is this not a case for UAA, instead for the COI noticeboard? Thanks, Matty.007 08:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I was removing blocked users. I think I mistakenly grouped that account in with ones that were already blocked. User has been blocked accordingly. m.o.p 08:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Matty.007 09:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping the vandalism coming from User:143.111.80.64. Wonder what he has against southern Indian film. SeoMac (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? It was my pleasure. Best, m.o.p 06:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an error, or something that should be explained:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist&curid=12242061&diff=578069372&oldid=577420920 —rybec 06:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Oh good God. Thank you for pointing this out to me, reverting myself right away.

In case you were curious, this is solely my fault. I installed this application for Google Chrome a while back - as a sysadmin, I have to talk about 'the Cloud' too much and this makes it more tolerable.

It also seems to have the unintended side-effect of making me look like a vandal. I've disabled it on Wikipedia from now on. Thanks for letting me know! m.o.p 07:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also hilarious. Admins even make vandal-looking edits that are better than thos of actual vandals. DMacks (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty excellent extension to have, I've had many a laugh from it. While I also laughed in this instance, it was more of a nervous "oh shit" laugh.

Waiting to be added to the

village stocks (again) in three, two, one... m.o.p 07:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Haha! :) Amalthea 11:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fyi [37] NE Ent 23:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you don't know that for certain - I'm pretty

rouge. ;) Thanks for catching that! m.o.p 23:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Deletion

I don't think it's permitted to restore a

]

Pardon? m.o.p 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to a page you just deleted where this was precisely the case.

talk) 12:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, OK. Yes, page creators can't remove CSD notices. Did you mean to ask this in the form of a question? m.o.p 12:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to ask whether the deletion was correct given that another user objected to the

talk) 12:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It's safe to assume the tag removal was in bad faith - generally, hoax/disruptive content is treated with a more skeptical eye. If somebody deletes a hoax tag without providing further explanation, it's probably in bad faith. m.o.p 13:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the admin mop on the 2a article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your dedication to keeping Wikipedia clean! m.o.p 14:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recent post to AIV, following a post of yours, contained an element of unintended nonsense. Somehow I misread the situation as the AIV report and the 4im warning as both having come from the same person, not seeing that the warning was part of your response to the AIV report.

]

No worries, it was not my intention to post a 4im right off the bat anyway. m.o.p 17:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't know a lot about you, I have come across you often enough to know that that is not the sort of thing you would be likely to do, and your later post at AIV made it clear that it was one of those silly accidents that happen to us all at times.

talk) 18:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed. Thanks for understanding! m.o.p 03:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noticed that. Good catch! And thanks for handling the hoax page. Best regards, Tenebrae (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks for helping us keep the project clean. Best, m.o.p 03:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of preparing an ANI report when I saw your note to the IP. I'll hold off but you should be aware of [38], calling her a "money whore" in a roundabout way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to submit it if you'd like, but I feel like that might be overkill - so far, I think the editor just doesn't understand our policies. I'll keep an eye on them for a bit, though given their recent post to your talk page they may be letting it go. Here's to hoping. m.o.p 03:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, one active incident at ANI is more than enough for me. Sarkeesian‎'s article attracts a lot of this type of stuff so thanks for keeping an eye out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'd just like to focus on explaining the rules to the editor; hopefully that puts things into context. m.o.p 03:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.O.P:

Just wondering and I am not referring to anything specific, as I am no longer interested in editing.

1. In general, is there ANY limit on systematic and repeated multiple violations in total disregard of the

policy?

2. Also, in general, is there a limit on how many times an editor, as protected as he may be by many admins who "endearingly overlook" his flagrant violations in total disregard of the

before he gets a permanent ban?

3. Finally, can an ANI (corrected), in general, be appealed and re-opened for disregarding policy, and hastily shoving it under the table?

If you don't readily have the answers, can we perhaps discuss and you can guide me? I am genuinely willing to research and discuss with you, and then prepare a policy white paper and/or explain it to other editors. Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I play?

1. Yes.

2. Not always - see

User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables

3. What is an NPI?

Thanks! --

talk) 09:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi --Demiurge1000. Are you another good admin?

1. In any case, while this was meant to be my best attempt to keep this "virtually private" as opposed to "public" on Wikipedia, I thank you for your appreciated attempt to help, and I will play along. You responded with "YES, there is a limit on systematic and repeated multiple violations in total disregard of the

Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

policy". What exactly is that limit? and what provision of policy defines it?

Before I express my opinion of

User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables

, can you please give me, preferably on your Talk page, the background, the who, what, why, when an where that triggered such "detailed account" of what may be Wikipedia's duplicity biggest embarrassment.

3. Please forgive me, I meant

WP:ANI (thanks to you I corrected it). It is the notice board where a trusting, unsuspecting, well-meaning editor (who will no longer edit for personal reasons) is supposed to go "assuming good faith" and "assuming that they will find JUSTICE where policy and sanctions are applied EQUALLY, and no one is above the law". We can talk about this on your Talk page if you feel like starting a conversation about it and I will join it, but since M.O.P. is a good admin and this is their page, I'd rather respect their "private" space.Worldedixor (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Just so you know - I've read this and will type up a reply in the morning when I'm more coherent. m.o.p 11:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you M.O.P. Much appreciated. Worldedixor (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia carries a double-edged sword, and that is its community. On one hand, our community enables our very existence; this project wouldn't be here without the millions of (wo)man hours that have been put into it out of a desire for shared knowledge. On the other hand, our community is tasked with enforcing its own laws. This is where we run into problems.

After all, we do have guidelines, policies and essays that outline the basic operation of the encyclopedia. But these guidelines and policies are only as strong as the consensus backing them is, and they can only be applied by people willing to apply them. If said people go against consensus, they'll be reverted even if their actions are 100% supported by policy. Why? Because of consensus.

'Real-world' societies (mostly) figured out this problem thousands of years ago. There are police departments, justice departments, and all that jazz who solely exist to be arbitrary enforcers of the peace. While the common people more-or-less shape the laws that govern them, they do not enforce them. Of course, that system isn't perfect, but it handles most problems well enough.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, does not have arbitrary enforcement^[1]. All of our users are equal, from IP editors to bureaucrats, and nobody has 'more' of a say than someone else. Thus, we draw effectively all of our decisions from consensus.

So, with that being said, answers to your questions:

1. Theoretically, but you'd need consensus.
2. Theoretically, but you'd need consensus.
3. Theoretically, but you'd need consensus.

Herein lies my point; if the community has expressed consensus in a certain situation - even if you can point out the policies or guidelines that are being violated - there's nothing you can do.

^[1] There are avenues - namely

ARBCOM

(arbitration) - that you can pursue. Arbcom is a panel of editors who have the power to make binding decisions on the project, but the arbitration process is a very, very serious process that's not to be undertaken lightly. Also, it's practically a public event; you can safely assume that, if community members are outspoken for or against a subject on simple noticeboards like ANI, this will only be amplified when the matter is taken to ARBCOM.

Hopefully this is comprehensive enough. I don't mean to sound bleak, but, as I said - generally, if the community has repeatedly expressed a viewpoint, and even if that viewpoint is questionably in line with existing policies - there isn't much to be done. m.o.p 21:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you m.o.p. for giving me the lowdown on the "status quo"... That does not make it right nor equitable and it certainly MUST be changed... a body of 500 with muscle power and "darling unblockable editors" are ruling Wikipedia. On my Talk page, I expressed an insightful opinion that you are welcome to read... I can sense your frustration and I can see now how thousands of highly knowledgeable editors from respected families have given up on Wikipedia after they were called a slut or other names and the abuser is left to abuse more editors... In my opinion, it is an outrageous scandal. What I mean, imagine if this INJUSTICE is exposed on the front page of the New York Times on day. Sooner or later it will be... and that would be the beginning of the end of Wikipedia's credibility, therefore Wikipedia. I was a staunch Wikipedia supporter, and I never understood why many academics, law enforcement and other legitimate bodies refuse to accept Wikipedia as a legitimate source. Now, I can understand why. Worldedixor (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it isn't ideal, and I empathize with those who feel slighted. But a project of this scale will have inherent faults, and, for Wikipedia, the human element is unavoidable.

I wouldn't quite say it damages our credibility, though. When it comes to matters of academia, editors will generally reach a resolution, or someone will reach it for them. It's more of a problem when we deal with editor issues - that's when we take the policies for a wild ride. m.o.p 00:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, m.o.p. even though I partly disagree respectrfully... The status quo MUST be assessed with a fresh mentality, and changed before it is too late... "protected" super-editors are "enabled" to violate policy repeatedly in utter disregard to policy. The "in your face" cover up and subtle retaliation by the "gang" is a flagrant disregard of policy, a policy which MUST be applied to all EQUATIBLY, otherwise it is no longer a policy. This is very important to assess. It has the clear smell of Cosa Nostra antics, and/or the evil deeds of corrupt politicians, who one way or another get caught, fired and brought to justice. Laws and other measures may be used to address such widespread injustice. My story has already gotten the eager attention of someone who is outraged by such injustice.

In my case, my abuser, "darling Andy", a repeat offender, did not get more than a gentle slap on the hand. How do you think well-meaning knowledgeable editors from decent families feel when they are subjected to this chauvinist man indecent abuse?... This blatant duplicity and cover up is a violation of WP policy which asserts repeatedly that "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Thank you m.o.p. for your time and candor. My days of editing are over, and my family already said we will no longer donate to Wikipedia. Have a nice weekend. Worldedixor (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I would like confirmation that I handled the following conflict of interesting warning correctly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.64.120.8

Please do not just say I did it fine; I want to know what I could have done to make my warning better!

Thanks for helping Wikipedia and myself! Newyorkadam (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

I think that message touched on all the necessary points, great work. The one thing I'd change is placing a greater emphasis on reliable and verifiable sources; those are really the crux of all information that gets added, so it's good to drive the point home that no matter what someone thinks, they need to provide a source.

That being said, I wouldn't quite say the editor had a conflict of interest. I'd chalk that edit up to simple vandalism ({{

uw-vand1}}) or an editing test ({{uw-test1}}). m.o.p 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, thanks so much! :) Newyorkadam (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

How does this one look? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:108.29.12.113 Thanks! Newyorkadam (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

@Newyorkadam: Looks great! One minor point would be that, as an IP editor, the user doesn't have a userpage; only registered users maintain userpages. Also, they're not for testing as much as they are for information about the user, but no big deal.

Generally, the things you want to bring across in your warnings:

1. What?: what policy was broken (with a [[wikilink]] pointing to it)
2. When?: especially with IP editors, it's helpful to include a diff pointing to the revision that caused the warning. If you need help on how to find diffs, feel free to ask and I'll explain further. Including diffs in your warnings help in multiple ways; mainly, to let the IP editor which specific edit was reverted, but also to help any administrators or editors follow up if need be.
3. Kindness: always
   assume good faith
   ; unless the editor is blanking a page or making death threats, let them know that they're still welcome to contribute to Wikipedia constructively.
4. Sternness: at the same time, it's good to mention that repeated disruption will result in a
   block
   . Try to phrase this part as more of a gentle warning than a threat. Generally, you only need to warn of a block if the editor has repeatedly made disruptive edits or is clearly being malicious.

I think your warnings above covers "what" and "kindness" - you may want to expand "when" to include diffs, and add in sentence talking about the possibility of blocking.

Alternately, you can look at

here

.

Last but not least, you don't need to type 'Newyorkadam' on talk pages as long as you've used the four tildes (~~~~). Using those will create a signature for you, including the time of your edit.

Great work again! Let me know if you have any other questions. :) m.o.p 01:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question: If someone is continuously vandalizing a page, and I revert their edits, but then they just keep vandalizing it after I revert their edits, what do I do? I know I can report the user to WP:AIV, but an administrator might not take action for some time. Also, I edited my message on their page, thank you very much! Newyorkadam (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much you can do. If there are multiple editors vandalizing a page repeatedly, you can seek protection as outlined

the Incidents noticeboard

.

You could always contact an administrator directly on Wikipedia or through e-mail, but some of us are not around all the time. If you'd like to, you could set up IRC so that you can chat with other Wikipedians in real-time. m.o.p 04:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be discussing unblocking Worldedixor, and since s/he is still insisting that his/her edit to the South Sudan article was legitimate, could I ask that you at least attempt to get Worldedixor to understand what the issue was with the original edit. I didn't revert it because it stated that South Sudan has a Christian majority - the article already has a section on religion which goes into considerable detail over what proportion of the population is Christian (not all coming to the same conclusion), and we even have an article on the topic: Religion in South Sudan - I reverted because it stated that "it is estimated now the population of South Sudan is overwhelmingly Christian", without stating who did the estimation. Neither of the sources cited by Worldedixor gave any clue to where this estimation came from, and accordingly weren't reliable sources for the material added. I'll leave any further comments on the general reliability of the sources that Worldedixor chose to cite with nothing beyond a suggestion that you look at them yourself, and then ask whether they would be seen as on-topic, never mind any other issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, it might be worth pointing out to Worldedixor that using "analytical and good research capabilities" to come to a conclusion not supported by an individual source is considered as

original research. It is also considered just plain wrong when one takes a figure from a source [39] that gives a total population (by simple addition) of almost 10 million to calculate a percentage using another source that stated that the total population is only 8 million. [40] And yes, I was always well aware that many (most?) sources refer to South Sudan as predominantly Christian. Unlike Worldedixor however, I was also aware that not all sources agree over figures, and accordingly was also aware that a good Wikipedia article should indicate this to readers - which indeed the article did, prior to any of the edits discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

And one final point - I'd take comments about me being "uninformed" about South Sudan a little more seriously if they came from someone not under the misapprehension that it is an "Arab country". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man, Religion in South Sudan is in rough shape. Mental note to myself to clean it up once this is all through.

I'll pass what you've said along. As an aside, I don't think it was quite fair of you to revert Worldedixor's edit after their block and given recent history. Next time it'd be better if you mention it to someone uninvolved to deal with as they see fit; I know you meant well, though.

Thanks for the input otherwise. Let me know if there's anything else I'm missing. m.o.p 07:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - maybe it would have been better to get someone else to look at it - it certainly needed dealing with, not least because one of the sources started off (from what I can gather via Google translate) with a tirade against the "religious racist state called Israel", and only mentioned Sudan in passing. A dubious source to be citing, especially when the article had multiple better (if contradictory) sources anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those are shaky sources to be using. Thanks for taking caring of it, either way. m.o.p 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick go at sorting out the relevant articles concerning religion in South Sudan, though it needs a lot more work, and frankly I doubt that the sources we'd need to get any degree of consistency even exist. When one considers the chaos caused by the Sudanese civil wars, the incentive the 'North' Sudanese had to provide misleading data, and the tendency for almost everyone outside the area to present the Civil wars as between an 'Islamic' north and a 'Christian' south, it is unsurprising that the actual belief systems of the South Sudanese are far from clear. Putting on my anthropology graduate hat on, and engaging in pure

WP:OR, I'd guess that the situation on the ground is most likely that a proportion of the population identify clearly as Christian, a proportion identify as followers of indigenous beliefs, and a fairly large proportion (quite possibly even the majority) follow both in a syncretic form where identification with one or the other depends very much on context. This is certainly a pattern that has been observed often enough elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, awkward as it is for outsiders who wish to 'count' the uncountable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

@AndyTheGrump: I'd agree with your earlier statement that we're better off going with 'sources disagree'. The waters are too muddied for us to say anything else. Unless somebody dives into that situation and manages to survey thousands of Sudanese civilians, which probably won't be happening any time soon... m.o.p 22:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mop. I certainly agreed with your block of User:Brightside106, but I've unblocked, with some hesitation, after a reasonable unblock request, purely as a second chance to a new user. I'll be watching to see if my AGF is flung back in my face. Bishonen | talk 14:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

@

quacky figure editing that same article only hours after I blocked Brightside. The user that Brightside was edit warring with is named Bladesboy1889. You can see why I'd be concerned. m.o.p 15:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, wow. You know, in a way I'm far from surprised, because I was a little troubled by the point made in the unblock request, that nobody would be able to edit it from their office if they remained blocked. I didn't respond to that, to avoid teaching them to stuff beans up their nose, but I guess they already knew how. :-( OK, I'm not sure whether to reblock them right away for abuse of multiple accounts. I think I'll wait till they quack something more harmful (because, you know, who cares whether the people live in London or not?) Do you agree? Also I'm just about to reproach them for theseedits. Sigh. Bishonen | talk 16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I don't think there's any huge rush, but yeah, given the massive amounts of bad faith wafting off of that user (blanking their talk, the ANI notice, etc.) I don't quite see anything rosy in their future. I've warned them for unsourced additions, so I'd be fine with waiting to see what they do next.

And I do respect that you showed good faith in the unblock - I just think that it might have been wasted on this user. :P m.o.p 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what AGF is for, 80 % of the time — wasting. You've got mail. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

My browser hung on me, so i didnt think i had succeeded, so i MFD'd it again, and then i thought i had cleaned it up. i didnt realize it happened 4 times! I actually sort of like the author now that i feel sorry for him. I used an image he posted at Experimental literature.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, figured it was a glitch. Thanks for reporting the page! m.o.p 03:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... for the sheep :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mandatory talk-page mascot. Thanks! :) m.o.p 02:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently unblocked that local host user. This is weird..... --///EuroCarGT 00:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know - I'm not sure why so many edits are being routed through it all of a sudden, but, last I heard, we don't block it because it can have unintended consequences. m.o.p 00:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hosts file hijacking?? Not sure but quite strange! ///EuroCarGT 00:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is something else. I'm working on figuring it out. m.o.p 00:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well hope you figure it out quickly! Here is another one. ///EuroCarGT 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an

XFF bug - checking out our options now. m.o.p 00:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

May sound strange it could be an IP from Australia or New Zealand after "investigating", many IP's near the same time period as the 127.0.0.1 are from Australia or New Zealand. ///EuroCarGT 00:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment here too. The main reason why I blocked the address is because it is getting blocked due to autoblocks. By at least blocking it, we can prevent the autoblock. At least some editors can edit instead of having all editors be blocked. Elockid^(Boo!) 00:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey m.o.p. Thanks for getting on this and keeping everyone informed. Definitely one for the "Weird" basket. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66: No problem! If you're interested, Roan posted a full explanation of what happened. m.o.p 02:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that's enlightening. Think I'll be adding a few, more-colourful adjectives to that basket title! Best, JG66 (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! I actually got that right! I figure 127.0.0.1 was from Oceania! ///EuroCarGT 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More at

WP:VPT#Edits from 127.0.0.1 --Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Your block of 86.154.165.236

Hi, re your block of

]

@Redrose64:I'll reblock for a week if that's your recommendation.

This looked like a fairly easy thing to defend against - please see this and tell me what you think. m.o.p 23:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen if such an edit filter detected a match? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on whether or not I can get it working accurately, we could have it warn or outright disallow any edits that trip it. m.o.p 21:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:AN/I#Long term vandalism from a user with a dynamic IP address. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Cringing

[41] --Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of God... *sigh* m.o.p 22:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you need to walk on eggshells around this Editor but it might also not be the greatest idea for him/her to copy and paste comments from other forums or talk pages, place them on his/her talk page and identify them as their opinion. It makes it look like I posted the remarks on his/her talk page when I actually intend to stay away since it looks like an adversarial environment. It also takes comments that were made out of their original context. I have a quote from another user on my own talk page but I asked permission from them before I used it, to make sure they were okay with it being used at the top of my talk page.

I'm not seeking any action, this is just FYI. By the way, I admire you for your patience, m.o.p. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks for the kind words. I know it's made a few people raise their eyebrows, but copying comments isn't against policy. I believe Worldedixor's doing it in good faith; they haven't modified anyone's words or tried to paint the situation in a different light. I think it's an attempt to archive a conversation they found important, nothing malicious. m.o.p 18:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, m.o.p., you have more experience than I. I just saw one Editor get a lot of flack for posting an archived conversation, it its entirety, from AN/I on their Talk Page. That's where I got the idea that it was not okay to take comments from noticeboards and post them on ones Talk Page. Thanks for setting me straight. 19:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@

this section, as long as you're not modifying other people's words or changing context, there's no harm done. Thanks for raising the concern though! Best, m.o.p 19:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

And....

...you're going to mail it to me, right?--v/r - TP 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello m.o.p. I'm here to ask for your advice about Castlevania timeline in the Castlevania series article. Earlier the timeline was divided into 3 parts as seen here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castlevania&diff=580584366&oldid=580573036 ). The 3 different parts were Canonical timeline, Alternate timeline and Lords of Shadow timeline.

An unregistered user however keeps deleting the alternate timeline again and again. This alternate timeline consists of

. According to him there is no source that Pachislot games exist in an alternate timeline. However there is an [www.kpenet.jp/kpe_ad/dracula_Blog.html#blog120228 official source] of Konami which is in Japanese. The blog related to Pachislot games is of date 28/02/2012. The translation of sone important words is :

｢悪魔城ドラキュラ 闇の呪印｣が元となっています (Pachislot Akumajo Dracula is based on Curse of Darkness).

ラルフ側から見たもうひとつの物語が､ パチスロ版の悪魔城ドラキュラI･Ⅱのストーリーとなっています (Pachislot Akumajo Dracula I&II story is "another story" from Ralph's perspective). Also please note that Ralph here is the name of Trevor Belmont, in the Japanese versions of Castlevania games. Trevor Belmont or Ralph C. Belmondo in Japanese versions of Castlevania games is the protagonist of Castlevania: Curse of Darkness.

The official source says that Pachislot games arw based on Curse of darkness games that is somewhat similar plot, similar enemies and same era. Also it says they are another story. The problem here is that the user says that the term used for another story is ambiguous. Since the Japanese word for another story is "gaiden" howevwr the term has an ambigious meaning since both terms "gaiden" and "another story" mean that the story is either a canon or non-canon side story. The user thinks the alternate timeline should not be added because of this ambiguity. I too agree the term is somewhat ambiguous. However, the official source states it is based upon Curse of Darkness which means it is inspired ftom it but is not a continuity of the story or set in the same universe. If the Pachislot games were canon Konami would have confirmed till now they were canon. However they have not, not in the KPE blog nor anywhere else which means it is non-canon. Even it was not non-canon then it would be canon since a story can either be canon or non-canon in a continuity. This means either way the Pachislot games belong in the timeline. Also this third-party English source states that the Pachislot games are set in an alternate universe but the user says just a single third party source doesn't confirm it as true. He is wrong. A single reliable source is enough to verify a statement.

I would like to have a consensus upon this issue but I don't think the issue will get much attention on Talk:Castlevania. I would like you to advice me whether there is a better place to seek a consensus on this issue. Also I would like you to advice me upon the timeline and whether I should reinsert the alternate timeline as "Gaiden timeline" which will help in ignoring this problem of ambiguity. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@KahnJohn27: The other editor does have a point - if we can't reliably confirm something, it's better to leave it out than include it.

However - and this might be completely wrong, I have no experience with Castlevania - the video that Joystiq linked to, which I assume is of the game in question, shows a logo in the beginning that looks like the Japanese variant of the Castlevania logo.

Again, I might be wrong, but that seems to imply that the game is in the Castlevania universe, right? If so, I'd see no problem listing it as an alternate timeline. While there might be ambiguity, it's not incorrect to call it an alternate timeline if the Konami trailer says it's Castlevania. If that's the case, I think the Joystiq source would work.

Note that I can't read Japanese, though. If the trailer's just saying "from the makers of Castlevania", that changes things.

Also, try not to revert the other editor until we've figured out whether or not this can be sourced. m.o.p 01:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I was never going to revert his edits since it will be edit warring. But the main point I was asking whether there is a better place than Castlevania talk page to seek a consensus for this issue. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try the talk page. Alternately, if you'd like to discuss the adequacy of the source, there's always

RSN. m.o.p 06:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I remember someone said only one source is needed to verify an edit. You may remember I mentioned a third party source earlier KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean to say that isn't this third party source enough to verify the Pachislot games exist in an alternate timeline. Do I need more third party sources? KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey will you respond to my query or not? If you don't want to then simply say it. Atleast I won't keep wasting my time waiting for your answer. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite busy, so don't expect replies right away. I get to my talk page when I can.

I replied above already - you're welcome to read it again if you'd like to. Since the other editor disagrees with you, you're welcome to go to one of the aforementioned areas to see if anybody else has an opinion. m.o.p 00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier you only talked about the Castlevania trailer in the third party source. You didn't actually discuss about the written content of the source. I'll just simplify my question. Do I need more than one third party source to verify that Pachislot games exist in an alternate timeline. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The written content is a bit shakier, given that the source Joystiq cites has since stopped existing. It's a viable source, but barely so. I'd recommend finding something else to back it up. m.o.p 20:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to seek a consensus since I too believe that there are not sources to back up my statement and I am too against inclusion of Pachislot timeline until of course there is indeed a really reliable source. You have been of immense help. Thamk you for your help and your time. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can official forums of a developer that has posts by the developer used as a source? I want to use the official Dust 514 forums as a reference for Dust 514 update. The post is by the devs of the game themselves. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, forum postings are considered self-published and therefore unreliable. However, in this case the usage would be acceptable, since they're coming from the developers. m.o.p 18:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know that after complaining about a user at ANI you have to give them an ANI notice. What to do in case of an unregistered user? An unregistered user's IP address is always changing so I post a notice at his previous IP address he won't notice it. What should be done in this case? KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, will you please respond? KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) KahnJohn27, posting the notice on the IP that took the action is sufficient to cover yourself via policy. If they shift IPs, that is their own issue to deal with. However, if they are rapidly shifting IPs, it makes any action at ANI unlikely unless it is something worthy of a range-block. Perhaps asking for page protection or something would be a better option to deal with the disruption. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering User:Gaijin42. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering, Gaijin42.

As I reminded you above, KahnJohn27 - there are periods of time where I don't have time to edit Wikipedia or check my talk page. You're welcome to email me if the matter you need help with is urgent. m.o.p 21:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. The issue was urgent since I had complainied about an unregistered user. I will not try to say anything to you about answering my posts. It's your choice and I understand you're busy. I'm sorry. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unregistered user whom with I got into a dispute earlier over the chronological timeline of

]

If there was prior consensus, then that should be sufficient. I don't have that much time to follow up or investigate - I'll try to look into this in a few days if possible. m.o.p 00:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Template Talk:Castlevania series#Separate section for Lords of Shadow series.3F only 4 users have voted (including me). But the unregistered user that earlier opposed separate section for Lords of Shadow series has still not come to vote or discuss about the issue? I would like to ask whether if only 4 users vote in favor and only 1 opposes is it still a valid consensus? I am asking this to ascertain as to how many users are required for an agreement to be a consensus. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello m.o.p. I'd like to wish you Happy Hanukkah since the holy festival begins today and also I'd like to wish you happy holidays. Also I apologize for not wishing you for Christmas earlier since I do not believe in the festival (hope you don't mind) but still I'd like to wish you now. Merry Xmas and Happy holidays. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings to you as well, thanks! m.o.p 16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Greyhound-Syfa due to expired PROD. After deleting it, I realized it would make a useful redirect to Linux then recreated it. You then deleted it as an expire PROD even though it wasn't that article anymore :-) DP 23:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda: My mistake! It appears I did so right after you recreated it. Didn't mean nothing by it! m.o.p 16:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello colleague. Can I ask for a favor of yours? It's about

]

@

Вик Ретлхед: Done. m.o.p 16:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take you up on your invitation to explain why you felt that

]

While we're here, I might as well get @The Bushranger: in on this as well.

AIV is for obvious vandalism that is in danger of disrupting the project. This seems to be a content dispute, and the editor is using the talk page. The ties to said IP-hopping vandal are shaky at best. Also, if it is an IP-hopping vandal, blocking is next to useless, as all it does is disadvantage the next editor to use that address. m.o.p 05:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this looks similar to the behavior of the editor(s) in that discussion to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bushranger. I don't see it as a content dispute. It seems to fit in with the vandal's normal modus operandi, being a blind revert to a randomly chosen version at some time prior to any recent edits from Antiochus the Great who is the vandal's target. In this case the diff shows a revert to the version from 18:22 on 30 January 2014. That particular old version only lasted one minute before having a syntax error corrected. No justification was given for going back to that version, and (as is typical for that vandal) a deceptive edit summary was used, in this case the entirely bogus "Recent Defense Reviews section was missing the SDSR 2010 personnel updates and citations added". I appreciate that a block of that particular IP would be pointless now, particularly hours after the event, but I did want it to be recognised that the IP's edits were indeed vandalism as I had reverted it 3 times. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That edit from Jan. 30th changes this completely - I was unaware that the IP was just reverting to a previous revision. You're correct in terming it vandalism, though - I just didn't have that information when it was presented to AIV. m.o.p 14:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His newest incarnation is 88.150.163.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --David Biddulph (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to decline this request, but would you be able to round up the last ten or so address that they've used? I'd like to figure out where these are coming from. m.o.p 22:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably a number that I've missed, and I've tripped over the problem only recently, but on articles on my watchlist they've included (subject to checking) 88.150.163.6, 50.60.135.101, 195.211.155.107, 198.134.106.99, 198.134.106.76, & 198.74.228.112. The earlier info from Antiochus had many more, of course. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and probably 198.134.105.218, 198.23.76.193, 162.213.158.157, 62.73.8.201 too. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed, but someone seems to be getting around 1RR there through meat or sock puppetry, take a look at the recent edits.

]

I'm on it. I'll ping you when I've got something. m.o.p 22:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind taking a

]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Botstar.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert Lopez may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Song]], making Lopez the 12th person to win all four major annual American entertainment awards (the [[Emmy]], [[Grammy]], [[Academy Award|Oscar]], and [[Tony Award|Tony]].<ref name=TIME>{{cite

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

]

User block

I'm not sure that Lieutenant of Melkor is abiding by the restrictions of their indefinite unblocking last month. You were in discussion with them at the time but I thought 1R was the terms of the return and he/she has exceeded that and more. I'm not involved in the areas they edit in, I just happen to come across their recent 24 hour block, what prompted it, and the discussion that led to their return to editing on WP and I thought I'd give you a head's up in case you wanted to follow up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:Followup done. Thank you very much for notifying me, I wouldn't have seen it for a while otherwise due to my workload. Best, m.o.p 22:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw you weren't very active on WP these days (ah, real life!). I'm glad you saw my message. All the best, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please include my ad for:

in {{Wikipedia-adnavbox}}.

Necctaylor
285		Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands	Realmartcraft
286		Wikipedia:HotCat	Mr. Vinyl Raccon
287		Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles	CactiStaccingCrane
288		Wikipedia:WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda	CROIX
289		Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville	StefenTower
290		Wikipedia:WikiProject Yemen	Abo Yemen

Details are:

[[File: Qxz-ad247.gif]]

Complete syntax (as per instructions):

| File:Qxz-ad247.gif | Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan | [[User:Syed Jamal Ahsan|Syed Jamal Ahsan]]

Syed Jamal Ahsan (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MoP, you'll probably remember that you blocked this user for personal attacks in their edit summaries (block log) - and unblocked them when they promised to stop using edit summaries for PA's. Unfortunately, they've continued.. here and when the editor confronted them about it, IPadPerson's reply was "either be civil or shut up". These aren't necessarily offensive in any way, but it shows me that they did not understand the point of their first block and played the "I'm sorry, I'll never do it again" card only to be unblocked.. not because they actually planned on putting a stop to the uncivil edit summaries.

]

Thanks for bringing this by. I may be seeing this incorrectly, but the latter edit you mentioned doesn't seem to be related to the first one. m.o.p 15:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at Valyrian/Dothraki. That's going to be a bitch for anyone else to do. It's also independent of whether the article should be merged: Regardless, the histories should not be. — kwami (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at ANI, but frankly this is a huge pain in the ass. You should take responsibility for you own screw-ups. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I'm currently on the road for business, so I'll keep this short. I need two favours:

1. Turn off caps lock
2. Give me time to look over the talk page and catch up on the last few days

Thank you in advance for understanding. m.o.p 02:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either don't do a "bold" histmerge or undo it when it's proven to be contentious if you're gonna be away for 6 days. — lfdder 03:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No problem. The caps lock were just because you hadn't responded. There's no rush, since the articles aren't like to be edited much, but if they are, it might make separating the history more work. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Histmerge needs undoing. Thank you. — lfdder 02:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HM#Parallel_versions has more; we generally don't merge two articles' overlapping histories together. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's been sorted out, so we're good to go. — kwami (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned in a discussion about vandalism from IPs. See Rangeblock request, again, for Santiago, Chile, IPs. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a scale of 1 to 10 do you like playing CS:GO ? Qattis1055 (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments

]

Award 4 U

• 
  25,000 Edit Star

awarded to Master of Puppets for recently joining the 25,000 Edit Club
Vjmlhds (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an incident report against Lieutenant of Melkor. I invite you to come and review the complaint - comment completely at your option. Diffs have been provided by another user and additional diffs will be provided by me in the next hour. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Paisan1 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You blocked

]

RE : WickedAngry

I made this new account because somebody has ruined one of my edits. i made unblock requests to get a different block time but people immediately declined them so i had to make a new account again. WickedAngry2 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and misses admins like you... Hope all is well... My admiration and best wishes always. Worldedixor (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you unblocked Worldelix in Oct. 2013 with the comment "[I'm] a big believer in second chances. Hopefully we can turn things around." Unf. Worldelix has taking a dump on the ISIL article and poisoned the talk page and has personally harassed or threatened many contributors. Everybody can see the problem but nobody has the skills or the willpower to do something about it. Thoughts? ~Technophant (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA Are you being respectful? There is no reason to call me Worldelix, and write "taking a dump" about me. The record shows that you, not me, have repeatedly violated policy (and I blanked your violations out). I invite admin Master_of_Puppets to thoroughly verify my contributions on that article, and see for themselves the opposition, sometimes unwarranted, I had to face on almost every edit, and how I often avoided edit wars. Not one violation of policy. Worldedixor (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

RFC/U for user Worldedixor problems

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor to help address problems with this user. Please feel free to add your own issues in the appropriate sections, endorse, or add comments on the talk page.~Technophant (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]