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

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

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

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

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

I point out that the edit was not the result of a talk (let alone consensus). Minimalistically the editor did 'start a talk' [1], then the editor did not post any follow up. Actually that is more like another editsummary (one-way announcement). Earlier the editor made heavy but unsubstantiated accusations on my talkpage [2] that I can take as a personal attack. (Thanks for your replies in there). So: twice the editor did not seek consensus for a change.

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

TL;DR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. It has been over two months since I made my request to add RoosterTeeth.com to the list of social networking websites. May I ask why it hasn't been added? --Count3D (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been over three months since I submitted my request to add RoosterTeeth.com to the list of social networking websites. May I ask why it is taking so long to add it? Their 1.8 million community members were recently acknowledged at the end of this Variety article.^[1] Count3D (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm not sure why you are asking me about this? I am not involved with that article and have no opinion on your request. The correct procedure would be to post a follow-up at Talk:List of social networking websites#Request to add Rooster Teeth.com. If there is no response in a few days, then feel free to add {{edit protected}} to make the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Apparently, I don't have enough edits to qualify to edit that page yet. I saw you had edited it before. I shall make another request on the talk page. --Count3D (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

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

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you add {{R to Wikipedia namespace}} and {{R fully-protected}} (or apply {{Redirect category shell}} and add {{R to Wikipedia namespace}}) in the manner described at WP:REDCAT to WP:ANI, and perhaps unprotect WT:ANI (making this request here due to that protection)? Thanks for answering and implementing my other similar requests. Redirect category shell does have benefits, especially in the event a redirect gains of loses protection, but either way is allowed. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

All done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the threat of legal action and am now working through the process of getting the information on this page corrected and the copyrighted material removed. User: Toddmeagher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.110.128.46 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You should make the request on User talk:Toddmeagher using your Toddmeagher user account. What you are doing now is called block evasion and is not allowed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, yesterday you made a change to {{WikiProject Australia}} that I don't really understand (nor do I need to), but I have noticed that some disambiguation class pages are now showing up in the unknown importance tracking category. They used to be in the N/A importance category. See Talk:South Melbourne Football Club is still in the parent project NA cat Category:NA-importance Australia articles but is now in Category:Unknown-importance Melbourne articles and Category:Unknown-importance Australian rules football articles. Confusingly, Talk:Sydney Derby has the unknown cats listed on the talk page, but it doesn't show up on the unknown category page and is still on the NA Cat page.

The multiple levels of subtemplates within the WikiProject Banner code makes it near impossible to work out where the N/A or Unknown category allocation is done, but was there a change done hidden in there, or did your change do something unintended? Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's possible this was me.  Checking... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was due to an unintended consequence of a change I made to the meta-template. Should hopefully be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know! There is normally a few days lag while the categories catch up when a template is modified; that's why Sydney Derby wasn't showing up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In late January you removed two parameters from the above template, but you didn't change the documentation. It's fairly confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@McGeddon: would you be able to look at this please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, here you go. --McGeddon (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings! On Template:Infobox_ethnic_group#Example, Darji and Tajik are parenthesized as Persian linguistic varieties. Since Egyptian Arabic and Sa'idi Arabic are Arabic varieties, should these languages likewise be parenthesized after Arabic in this infobox field? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea. Suggest you bring this up on the template talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Did my edit request not go through? I noticed that the request itself did not appear on the talk page, but I thought it might've been hidden from public view. I did attempt to use the "Submit an edit request" link while viewing the page source, and I did submit a request. Levdr1lp / talk 09:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there was no request. What exactly did you want to do? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a typo, and I wanted to add the {{user page}} template. I've hidden the markup below. Levdr1lp / talk 09:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay  Done, although I'm not sure I understand the reason it needs to be protected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MSGJ. I did try to follow the instructions provided by the "Submit an edit request" link. Is it possible there's an error with those instructions/markup? As for the page protection, I would prefer that most editors not have the ability to edit that user page, however unlikely that may be to occur. I submitted a request at WP:RFP: Full protection - Userpage per WP:UPROT. (Old account blocked per "Compromised accounts" at WP:VALIDALT). If there's a problem and/or you need more info, Coffee was the admin who performed the request. Levdr1lp / talk 10:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Documentation/links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your response to my proposal for Template:Infobox Christian leader. I think my proposal would be a good addition to Wikipedia and I appreciate your suggestion that I use the sandbox. However, I have little experience with coding so I don't want to mess anything up. I was wondering, do you have any suggestions for getting started? Are there anyone or any resources I should look to. Thanks Jgefd (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ambox/small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please reduce the protection back to where I set it, I did not give my consent for you to change the protection level. You ought to have discussed it with me first. El_C 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, we are discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. In the future, I appreciate you not undoing my admin actions. Even if you think they are in error, please wait for my response. El_C 18:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The dispute appears to be over, so I would like to go ahead and unprotect the article. What do you say? El_C 21:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there was nothing to be gained from waiting for your response in this case because that protection level needed fixing whatever. (Personally I am happy for other admins to correct mistakes I make without waiting for me, which may be many hours later.) In this case I assumed good faith that you had made a misclick because the policy on this matter is quite clear that it should only be used on high-risk templates, modules or other highly transcluded pages. Anyway, moving forward, I have no problem in you changing the protection level to whatever you think best. I have no interest or knowledge of the article at all, just patrolling CAT:EP. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ran into it on RFPP, I've no connection to it either. I've been away for ten years, so I'm still figuring things. But I shy away from even a hint of Wheel Warring. El_C 18:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of interest, what do you see as the point of {{Redirect category shell}} when there is only one Rcat? (As added to the redirect Platycarcinus pagurus.) I find the box it creates obtrusive and unnecessary, so I'm interested in why other editors think it's useful in such cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that Plantdrew has now removed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi; thanks for closing the move request from York Potash Ltd to Woodsmith Mine. I have altered the lead and amended the articles that link to the page. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:User-multi/l has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:User-multi/bl has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, MSGJ! I thought you might be interested in this discussion:

Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Icon for cascading protection.

I meant to notify you when I first posted the discussion (through mentioning you with {{u}}), but I wasn't sure if you got the notification, so I just wanted to make sure you knew about this.

Noah Kastin (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

feel free to move this to your awards --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! And sorry for stealing your job. Still plenty to go around though :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that this template will be created so that by transcluding this template five randomly selected articles will be included in a page, as I use this unused template in Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask to remind other Wikipedians that there are some notable topics lacking independent articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Bill Potts (Doctor Who). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. -- Alex^TW 08:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the history merges that you describe in this edit of page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests; but please log those history-merges in page Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you revert the repeated move of Alcohol laws of Maine? It happened again. Ibadibam (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I was able to do it. I thought I didn't have permissions, but I did. Ibadibam (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ, please block my account for 6 month. That would be great, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, you clearly misread the "policy change". The discussion confirmed that 1 through 10 should be numbers, 11 through 100 should be disambiguation pages, and that 101 through (at least) 999 should remain years, with no exceptions. As one of the arguments in the discussion was consistency, you are overriding that consensus, rather than extending it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I did not revert your erroneous close is that I was an advocate for all digit-sequences remaining years. At the very least, the move should be reverted until the templates are fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The instructions for move review state I should contact you first before opening a review. I'm willing to wait a day or so, as few of the erroneous links will be clicked, and the year is near the top of the disambiguation page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll certainly take another look at this, and will try to find time today if possible. I believe my close reflected the discussion on that talk page but there may be some broader issues to consider. Consistency is an important factor. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made some comments at Talk:AD 911 and will wait for any responses there before taking action. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You wrote about consensus. Where should it be reached? among whom? On my home wiki, this topic is the top priority and I wouldn't even assume that anyone could oppose. Maybe since enwiki has the biggest critical mass, you discuss about issues like that, but unfortunately, I don't know what's the best place to do it effectively. I'd prefer to avoid a situation when a discussion takes long (a week or two), has few participants, and one can't take that as a consensus or a lack of such. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Everyone thinks their own pet project is important ;) I suggest you continue the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details and see what other people think. I would have no problem running it for a further week, just don't want to force it upon people. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I know, I've been a very engaged Wikipedian for several years now, but it's the #strategy of the #movement after all, not a regular local initiative :) (For the record, please ping me, generally I don't watch user talkpages, because I expect answers to appear on mine - you know, the old school). SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

With regards to this discussion at ANI, what is your opinion on these actions (1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8) to circumvent any pending discussion at Module talk:Webarchive and make the same disputed changes to 7 other templates without soliciting any input from other editors? Note: I originally tried to ask the question at ANI, but Codename Lisa reverted me several times. 2601:5C2:280:8043:F126:B333:2DF4:1FEA (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so you two have met. This IP address belongs to a person Codename Lisa and I call "flyboy". He has been hounding Codename Lisa for three years now, chasing her around Wikipedia, reverting her actions, digging dirt on her, bad-mouthing her, like this that he is doing. He tried posting this very same edit in WP:ANI but Codename Lisa reverted him. He didn't dare stage an edit war there, because if admins investigate him, things are revealed that are not to his advantage, especially since Codename Lisa and I are keeping a list of all his IPs with which he has operated so far. (Wanna see it?)

Of course, the reason he has chosen you as the recipient of this message is obvious: You have recently been involved with Codename Lisa and have a readier mind to accept her as a "repeat offender". So, playing mind tricks with you is advantageous to his war efforts. (Perhaps I should remind you that CL was not the offender that time either.) FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ

Please could you clarify some points for me, and also consider amending your decision in the move request at Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)#Requested move 24 March 2017? Your close implies that the primary topic case was not a good one, yet several editors mentioned both page views and long-term significance, which are key criteria usually considered per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The topic was also shown to have a clear lead over other topics when doing a book search. You say that this argument was "successfully refuted by others", but you don't really explain how or why. In my opinion, given the split in votes, and the valid arguments made by both sides, this was at best a fairly clear no-consensus close, and the move should not have been made. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you protected Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission fully instead of using template protection? It would do just as well to deter the junk edits and moves, while making edits like the one currently requested easier. The front page of the wizard is currently template protected. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: sorry for the late reply. Although it is kind of a template in nature, it is not in the template namespace so I wasn't sure whether I was allowed to use template-protection. I'll have to double-check what the policy says on this ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see the recent User:2600:8802:4200:d2d:99fd:ecdc:d4d:a75f reported by User:GoneIn60, and then look at this edit. The IP is changing, but the edits are the same. Is this something you can help prevent through a block, or should I seek long-term protection on the page? Obviously short-term protection is not going to do much. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: that looks like too diverse a range of addresses to block, but I have semi-protected the article for three months. Do you think that will help or are there other articles suffering from disruption? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That is the only article I'm aware of being edited by this user. Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanking you for accepting my submission. But I am unable to find it in any search engine. Please, can you help me in this regard? Here is the detailed activity after my article has been accepted. I am explaining it screen by screen. Is there any problem with my submission?

After logging into my account, I clicked on sandbox I get the screen saying:

User: Jayanagas/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect page

• Draft: Karunakara Mardi Reddy

• From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

When I click on ‘Draft: Karunakara Mardi Reddy’, I get the screen saying:

Draft: Karunakara Mardi Reddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect page

• Karunakara Mardi Reddy

• From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

When I click on the link ‘Karunakara Mardi Reddy’, I get the actual article.

But the article is not available in any search engine. Thanking you once again. Jayanagas (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes the article was moved twice hence the redirects. The article is currently at Karunakara Mardi Reddy. Sorry I have no idea how long Google takes to recognise the page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion closed by involved admin. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently blocked PapiDimmi [[3]]. The editor's recent changes to the Corvette article seem to be questionable and possibly not in good faith.[[4]] I only mention this due to the recent discussion on his talk page. Thanks Springee (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for dealing with it so promptly - given the circumstances, a warning seemed like a very good way to resolve things.

Secondly, unfortunately after getting the warning and saying they understood, they have now come back with two more reverts - granted one was on a different (but closely related article) but one was on the article that the initial five reverts were made on. This user either doesn't get it, or doesn't want to get it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has really gone down the tube if this is considered a revert. I was condensing the sentence to make it easier to read. I did not negate his contribution; I was trying to collaborate with him. Seems like he has a battleground mentality and is just searching for problems. Ohio girl (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I won't debate this issue on someone's talk page, I just wanted to inform the admin involved with the initial report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not a clear-cut revert. It's not about removing content, it's about undoing other editor's actions. I am not confident enough to block on this, but will continue to monitor events. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all good, I would settle for this user just leaving those articles alone.

This is what I found on reverts: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

So, if editor A adds content, and editor B removes that content it is a revert. Removing "dog" and replacing it with "canine" obviously retains the meaning. Removing a long sentence that explains who won a fight and replacing it with "rescoring" does not retain the meaning and is an attempt to reverse the action of an editor who added content. Well, that's how I interprit it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Since he's removing my ping to you from his talk page, just want to make sure it's seen:

@MSGJ: I was trying to be as nice as possible, but I think this might as well go to an indef. The above statement from PapiDimmi about "It's not a reversion if its different", even with 3RR quoted directly to him and stating it is and myself telling him so, is the pattern behind every block he has received before this. There's always some sort of invalid arguing that a policy doesn't actually state what it says, and a refusal to read or comprehend it. No complaint if you stand by the 1 month, but I just don't see the user changing this attitude. -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Regrettably I can't see his/her changing their behavior either — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

If I decide to indef, do you have any issue? Just see the silliness on his talk page. -- ferret (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an issue, but not sure it makes much difference either way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Okay a few comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coupla points:

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

EEng 22:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So am I being blocked or what? You asked me a question and I answered, then I never heard from you again. Holbach Girl (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No you are not being blocked, I gave you a warning and left it there. I did read your response but decided not to reply further, because I'm not going to express an opinion on the dispute — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ, in the message reactions you can see a lot of people said the contributions were useful and common, but better quality tables had to be used. So I changed the tables, the new ones I added were according the standards as asked. All Wikipedia's major sports leagues pages have attendance figures included. But what I don't understand, why is it allowed for all other sports leagues, but not for the Bundesliga? Just some random examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_attendance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Hockey_League_attendance_figures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Thai_League_T1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80%9317_Ekstraklasa

Kind regards, Houndground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houndground (talk • contribs) 09:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking 175.103.25.17 before. User went on another disruptive streak. Could you perma-block him this time? gidonb (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Causal loop, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Causal loop".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 16:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you object if Draft:Causal loop is deleted as a G13? My attention was drawn since the G13 notice showed up on my watchlist. The content looks good, and I was thinking of moving it to mainspace, but we already have Causal loop. My guess is that a history merge is not possible due to parallel histories. So maybe the simplest is to let the G13 deletion of the draft go through? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ. I was wondering if you please look into a matter as I believe you are an admin (or maybe know one). An editor called Polticalswimmer1 seems to be making a lot of edits on political pages using either poor, unreliable, biased or sometimes no sources. Recently they have made edits on the page Liberal Democratic Party of Russia using sources quite a few sources which don't look reliable and some unsourced claims. I think perhaps this may be a good place to use rollback, but as I'm not an admin I'm not able to. I have tried to talk to them about edits they made on another page via their own talk page but haven't received any response. If you could please look into this it would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time. Helper201 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I've proposed a few changes to Portal:Current events that will make the layout work well on narrow-width displays.

Portal talk:Current events#Mobile-Friendly Current Events project (Final step)

As you have previously had involvement with the Current events page, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion, if it is convenient for you. Thank you for your time. — RossO (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Gian Francesco di San Giorgio Biandrate Aldobrandini".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WITFstub. Since you had some involvement with the Template:WITFstub redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Magioladitis (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Would you take a look at my process for fixing the archives that I've been using. Does it seem like this is an appropriate method of working with these pages or would you recommend some other method? Thanks! — RossO (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Msgj! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

On Template:Designation, I see this at the top when I pull up the page:

| colspan=2 align=center style="border:4px solid #A8EDEF;"|Invalid designation

I think this might have happened with this 2011 edit of yours. Is it supposed to look like that? — Maile (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I believe this is correct. Of course it won't appear like that in articles because there it sits inside some other code. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 keeps deleting relevant data for Pakistan Navy Ships and updates , I have picked up data from news sources, national news paper and Defence journals, not sure what is his problem ?

• I updated the pages with recent purchases
• I updated the pages with recent MPV boats purchased
• I upated information from most current sources as I am a avid follower for Pakistan Navy

The Adamerber80 fella is not going to let anyone update the pages with relevant information !!!! Need action please !!!! This is so discouraging to fans of Pakistan Navy who want to keep the pages current that is the whole point of wiki ... the page is disghustingly outdated the guy keeps deleting stuff!!! I am still getting used to the talk function etc

Like if I spend 40 hours on defence purchases and news , and I am updating the wiki page with latest info what is the problem here ? This is my faourite hobby Sky1two (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ, I have replied to the user multiple times on the talk page but the editor does not wish to engage in a discussion or build consensus. The editor was also involved in copy-right violation of media on Wikimedia Commons which earned them a block there. The same behavior has been repeated here. It would be great if you could take a look into this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sky1two: thanks for your efforts to improve the page, but they must conform to Wikipedia's policies and norms. Please can you respond to the comments at Talk:List of active Pakistan Navy ships? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added comments on the Navy List Page , talk to indicate the user adamgerber80 is removing correct data with sources I have provided 1-2 links with newspapers and sources to support statements Sky1two (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi MSGJ / Martin. I just wanted to send you a message (I think this is the proper way to do that) to thank you for your advocacy with regards to my recent account ban.

Although what this situation has shown me again, as if I needed any reminding of the fact, is that Wikipedia is a very insular culture overly concerned with its own rules, to the detriment of actually properly covering information. C'est la vie.

But, anyway, thank you again, I appreciate it. terrisus / Eric.

P.S. If I sent this message in an improper/incorrect way, feel free to delete and I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrisus (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Terrisus: no problem. There did seem to be a gap in common sense going on there. (But I trust you have learned from this incident, and will not attempt to link to "unreliable" websites, particularly your own!) Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: The issue is that the source was not "my website," the source was an email sent from AOL to its users. And, as I stated in my 2nd edit, I'm not sure how exactly Wikipedia would prefer to have citations for emails, or if email communication is somehow "unreliable" (despite it being a static artifact).

Also worth noting, although not related to this - there are other people on this website who have chosen to use my website as a "source." I had nothing at all to do with it, and only know about it from website access logs. But, it might be worthwhile having someone look into that matter, since information I actually wrote on my website would certainly - I would think - be of more question than a screenshot of an email that AOL sent.

Nonetheless, I am still curious as to what the proper method to cite an email communication is. Or if it's just been decided that email as a whole is "unreliable."

Hi Martin, and thanks again for your help. On MediaWiki:Wikibase-rc-wikibase-edit-title, for the sake of consistency, do you think we should add the underline to the "d" in Wikidata? ( Edit made at Wiki{{underline|d}}ata ) Eric ^talk 14:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I just copy pasted, and for some reason it doesn't underline on my browser. Done now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and found the last one with help from gang at VPT: MediaWiki:Ores-damaging-legend. Eric ^talk 15:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The terms of Darkness Shines' ban being lifted was that DS remain civil. [5] More input would be welcome. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Lift the Block and DS will go back at it, only at a 'slower' pace to avoid another block; you will have less headaches if you and this topic to those DS is already banned, IMO. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Note -From DS' Talk page, quote:

• • "Patriot prayer Just wanted to point out that CW Gilmore was topic banned from PP, and that your refusal to reach consensus there seems more disruptive than anything Gilmore was doing, please be civil and discuss things rather that just threatening to edit war. (to any admins reading this I am opposed to any sanctions on Darkness Shines at this time) Tornado chaser (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)" [6]

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

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

Sure, that's why Tornado chaser again came on your TP about that article asking: "Jorm What about his contribs looks bad? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)"[7] Because you are working so hard for consensus and understanding others points of view which you then include into all your work. Sure. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

You just got unblocked and already you started a RFC[8] to change Antisemitism in UK; you need to slow down on pushing your agenda and pushing everyone around, please. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• "@MSGJ: I will not revert the content on the article again, can you unblock me please Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)" This is not helpful.[9] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• This conversation is currently being discussed [10] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

you previously blocked 186.219.113.17. it looks like this IP is back as 186.219.116.99. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think 186.219.11* would have too much collateral? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 186.219.112.0/21 for two weeks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add these sources to the article "Ummah":

1. https://books.google.com.kw/books?id=3f3mT8GnPjAC&pg=PA3&dq=ummah+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXqPDmqcrXAhVIKsAKHS8NAUAQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=ummah%20nation&f=false

2. https://books.google.com.kw/books?id=2qIkDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT196&dq=ummah+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXqPDmqcrXAhVIKsAKHS8NAUAQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=ummah%20nation&f=false

3. https://books.google.com.kw/books?id=dIuuyj9lpXoC&pg=PA234&dq=ummah+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6KLxqcrXAhVILsAKHXgJCEk4ChDoAQgjMAA#v=onepage&q=ummah%20nation&f=false

4. https://books.google.com.kw/books?id=focLrox-frUC&pg=PA464&dq=ummah+nation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6KLxqcrXAhVILsAKHXgJCEk4ChDoAQg5MAQ#v=onepage&q=ummah%20nation&f=false

Ummah means "nation" in Arabic. Shaab doesn't meant nation; Shaab means people or public.

Please add these sources to the article. 46.186.244.93 (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please can you make this request at Talk:Ummah? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

When you get a chance, if you would please, I'd like you to have take a look at the The Deer Hunter article. In particular, the section on Filming and the subsection Hunting the deer (the info he originally tried to put in was both misleading and redundant -- because in the latter case it was already mentioned in detail where the film was shot in the subsection Filming locations), has called me a vandal in the edit notes and threatened me with disciplinary action for engaging in an edit war that he is also party to. Point is, I've been watching this article for several years maintaining it and whatnot so I'm clearly not doing anything to vandalize it. More to the point though, if you'd have a look at the section he's adding to and then look at the subsection I mentioned regarding filming locations and let me know what you think regarding redundancy. What was there previously appeared efficient to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Whatever the case, I'd like another editor's opinion. And I don't appreciate the way this editor is calling me a vandal. Vandals don't typically stayed registered and active for 10+years, ya know? Anyhow, thank you for your time. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I have left a note for DigbyDalton on his/her talk page. But it takes two to edit war and when you constantly revert to the same version, it gives the impression that you are not willing to compromise. I see no recent activity on the article's talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the name from the lead and later section. There's still an instance in the infobox. The source does draw a connection between the two names (Jennell and Paul), and if we're confident it's a reliable source (via it being something she maintains, perhaps?) then perhaps it's usable. But it doesn't establish that this is the name she was "born" with -- so at a minimum I think it's the wrong infobox field to use. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,
You blocked an editor here for persistently adding unsourced material. Once the block expired they resumed with the same edits on 1 November, which were then reverted and a final warning issued. However, the same edits have been made again today here and here. The editor's only contributions have been to the Stocklin page and he has not heeded warnings or advice or changed behaviour as a result of the block. Has also not responded to any messages left at his TP. Would seem to be both SPA and 'nothere'. Should the page be protected again &/or the ed. blocked? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: before I block indefinitely, is there any possibility that the date of birth they are changing is correct? I.e. is the current statement solidly supported by reliable sources? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Both dates are supported by references. The date of graduation is supported by an article on the University's site here. I wouldn't like to comment on how reliable that might be... could go either way possibly. The DoB is supported by a voter registration here. I would agree if it were stated that better (or more) sources would be an advantage, but it seems to be all we have. I did find this article which has him aged 27 (which is what keeps being added) but I really don't know if this a celeb. gossip type of magazine or a more reputable publication. Persistently adding info. without sources and ignoring or overriding advice is the problem really. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:AfC editintro has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)