In reference to this edit,[1] are you an ArbCom clerk? If not, you shouldn't be modifying other editor's posts without their permission. Even if you are, you shouldn't mark such huge changes as minor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No I am not, although there is no prohibition to other editors making such edits and Wikipedia:Be bold is a whole site guideline. (I see you have reverted, as is your prerogative.) I do not regard it as a "huge change" and I did not see it as modifying other editors' posts because I only adjusted the heading and not the content of their post. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I award you this barnstar in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service BlastMan 456 (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing those pre-emptive changes.

What do you make of this..? The most recent post leaves me wondering how best to proceed. (If there's someone or somewhere else I should ask, please advise.)

Hoping your New Year was/is sufficiently peaceful, Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

PS In case you haven't already seen it, this also adds some context.

Did you feel unable or unwilling to advise or indicate that there'd be no response..?  If I've offended you in some way, please indicate how and accept my apologies. Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I just wasn't sure how to respond and didn't have much time to look into the circumstances then. I remain concerned by the interactions between yourself and Edokter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I also remain concerned, although the Incidents thread is now archived and, for the past few days, Edokter has been less evident here. Having said that, I've just noticed this and this. (Is his rationale sufficient? If so, perhaps {{Start div col}} and {{End div col}} should, therefore, be protected..?)

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you prefer that name, then request a move. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sardanaphalus, if you want them protected, you'll need to get the community to approve the foundation's superprotect or get Edokter de-sysoped. I don't find either likely in this scenario. I remained concerned as well about the interactions. More so concerned with how you are handling it than he. If I may, I'd recommend just letting it go. This is only Wikipedia after all, and there is no need to stress yourself out over something so trivial. You can always propose a change later once you've gotten some more experience in (if you still feel it is necessary). That's all the advice I can give at this time, good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What does superprotect have to do with it? Redirects can be semi- template- or fully-protected just like any other page, by filing a request at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64, he or she suggesting that the page be protected so that Edokter, who is an admin, can't edit it further. The only way that I know of a page could be protected to prevent an administrator from editing is with superprotect. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what Sardanaphalus is asking for. They are suggesting that if the redirects Template:Start div col and Template:End div col have the same protection as the templates that they point to, Edokter wouldn't be able to use "redirect is unprotected; use protected template" as a reason for bypassing the redirect. As things stand, either or both of the redirects could be repurposed or vandalised, compromising those pages where they are used. If they were to be given full protection, any repurposing would probably be reverted as undiscussed, and the risk of vandalism would be pretty much eliminated. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I made this suggestion here (first paragraph) but, it seems, to no avail. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

PS (@Redrose64:) Did you receive a ping a few days ago from Template talk:Div col..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardanaphalus (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 January 2015

No, I didn't. I've been back through the last six months of notifications, and there are none where you mentioned me. Notification of talk page mentions can fail easily, the rules under which a notification is triggered are very sensitive to errors (see WT:Echo for some common complaints). It would help if you stated which edit you are referring to, since I have been mentioned several times on that talk page. Assuming that you mean this edit, I expect it didn't notify me because it appears that you modified an existing post. I also didn't get a notification for being mentioned in the post to which I am now replying: in this case, the notification failed because you didn't sign it. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for these reports – although, as the attempted "ping" was only a few days ago, six months seems quite extensive (or has datestamping previously gone awry..?). Edokter has again taken it upon himself to decide not only that a discussion has ended but that it should be marked as such, but, as I'm interested to know what you make of my response to your most recent comments there. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That didn't notify me either. There must be something wrong with the way that you attempt to notify people. And did it not occur to you that since I've said (several times) that I can't work out what the heck you want at Template talk:Div col, I'm simply ignoring it? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, it didn't. I am surprised, though, if you're saying that not even the numbered points there indicate what I'm addressing. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My main problem with the redirect is that they are created to circumvent proces. If Sardanaphalus wanted 'Start div col' to be the primary name, he should request a move, not create a redirect and then changing all current invocation to point to the redirect. For one, that leaves it open to vandalism (which could be fixed by protection), but my main concern is increase in maintenance. As WP:REDIRECT#Template redirects states: "Redirects for templates can cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated." That is the reason they are strongly discouraged. He should have requested a move instead, but I think he knows it would fail, so he creates the redirect instead so he can 'force' the use of his preferred name anyway. I find that sneaky and underhanded. That is why I will keep reverting, until Sardanaphalus will see the light and follow the proper procedures. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with the above, as elsewhere, is that it starts from a incorrect assumption – and one that, as elsewhere, suggests a key assumption is missing. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This whole issue is of incredible triviality and not worth the energy you two are expending. Replacing template calls en masse with redirects would be disruptive. I really don't see this happening here, as they are being used either when the template wasn't called before, or as part of other more significant changes. Therefore I don't see your reverting as beneficial Edokter. Surely there are more important things you could be worrying about? And the charge of "circumventing process" is a little rich considering your actions earlier this month for which you were roundly criticised. I suggest you both find something better to do - this bickering is unbecoming. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the "or as part of other more significant changes" part that I find extremely disturbing. But what's more, it's Sardanaphalus' unwillingness to discuss it. What other choice do I have to force him into dialogue? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If I spend time working on a template, I will quite often change the code spacing to my preferred format, bypass redirects, etc. It's analogous to an editor who, when rewriting an article, decides to change the style of the references. None of these activities would be deemed acceptable if they were made en masse or without significant other changes, but are perfectly fine on a case-by-case basis. Why does this bother you so much anyway? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Because he's doing the exact opposite. He's not bypassing redirects; he is intentionally pointing to them. He replaces instances calling a protected template with calls to unprotected, self-created redirects, and all that only because he prefers another name. I tried explaining this in the RfD, and why the redirect guidelines prohibits this. But it all seems to fall on deaf ears. It is extremenly frustrating to try and explain this to non-technical editors, but I am the one ultimately having to deal with the technical ramifications; it only takes one act of vandalism of a redirect that has slipped under the radar to do some real damage, and the tech guys are left searching for the source. That is why I am making such a big deal out of it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Martin, here's an example of adding redirects rather than bypassing them. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Where in the RfD is this explanation..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Human anatomical features/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This documentation page got left behind when the template was moved in 2010. I've moved it back to the right place. If I may make a comment LT910001, the disadvantage of replacing {{documentation}} with {{Anatomy navbox doc}} (as you did on Template:Cranium) is that you omit the various categories and interwikis that may be present on the /doc page. It would be better just to translude a bare text version of {{Anatomy navbox doc}} on the /doc page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

	Anatomy template editor barnstar
	Hi MSGJ. I greatly appreciate your kindness. Very complex and delicate editing at template:Infobox anatomy is very helpful. Thank you Martin. Was a bee (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, happy to help! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: the edit request –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about editing this template; it was transcluded on another page and I thought I was editing a local copy there. --PresN 21:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't actively check mine, but I sent you an email. Frietjes (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't received anything from. (And I've just checked by sending a message to myself and it works.) Try again perhaps? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Is your email address from either yahoo or gmail? If so, see phab:T66795, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Is "Email this user" on the blink? and the threads linked back from there. This often comes up at VPT, and some people are under the misapprehension that the recipient's email address is the problem - it's not, it's that of the sender. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

my email is from gmx.com, I will check to see if it bounced back. also, it may have been a problem with me initiating the email from a machine behind a firewall. I will attempt to resend the email from a different computer shortly. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, no emails have been going through lately, I believe they are actively working on the situation. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried again, it may be in your spam folder. my email is currently broken, and I am working on setting up a new email address. thank you in advance for reading it (if you get it). Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Still nothing, sorry! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I got your email, and replied to it directly, so if you still didn't get it, then something is blocking emails between gmx.com and your email provider. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I can't explain it, but I still have had nothing from you. This suggests that the problem is my end, but I've had no other reports of mail going missing. Perhaps I could ask someone else to send me an email? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done,

--Redrose64 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Received, thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

initial problem resolved, but apparently, I am still unable to send email without it either (a) being filed as spam, or (b) disappearing into the ether. I will look into getting a different email provider. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I replied to you here. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 14:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Although it's somewhat moot now, since DeltaQuad has kindly restored and moved the page to the case page structure. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 13:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You joined the discussion, so I nowiki-ed the {{edit template-protected}} and replied. Does your lack of further response mean you're now OK with the proposed edit? Regards, Bazj (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Were you aware of this DRV? Alakzi (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I did read all recent comments on the talk page, as well as the DRV. I saw no reason that this move would hinder any suggestions currently being considered. Indeed one of the original opponents of the merge was now supportive of the move. If I've got this wrong, we can always revert. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Where would we restore the Template:Infobox medical condition of old? Alakzi (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please revert your deletion of the original {{Infobox medical condition}}, which was done with no TfD, and which is contrary to the merge decision currently subject to an ongoing DR, and which was never completed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Will comment at the deletion review shortly ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Designation/infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

With the new changes, the template displays an error if attendance has no value. --Brayan Jaimes (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted. Sorry about that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've made the changes. Please take a look. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You should close a loophole regarding User:Wtshymanski's restriction.

"Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · logs) is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article"

As written this does not exclude edits made on his user-page/talk-page. I feel this should be excluded to avoid potential harassment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a good point, but let's keep it simple for now, and leave the restriction as written. His talk page is on my watchlist and I can act accordingly. Perhaps you can also watchlist it and revert if necessary. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, in theory, it would prevent Wtshymanski deleting discussions from his talk page where an IP editor has contributed. One would have to be petty minded to raise an ANI (or whatever the enforcement protocol is) based on a tidy up of his talk page. I delete stale discussion from mine from time to time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not related to the above but I have taken the liberty of adding a note of clarrification (diff). Please have a look and check that you are happy. If not: amend or delete as you feel appropriate. –LiveRail < Talk > 14:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary because I don't think they can be much doubt over what banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address means. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. It's just that most editors would ignore reversion of vandalism, but I'm sure others will be watching. –LiveRail < Talk > 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please can you make the changes on the Template_talk:Football_box page? I have provided several examples using the sandbox on the talk page to show that the changes are ok. TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It was my only joy in life and you have ripped it from my grasp. I hope you burn in eternal fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.1.169 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah second this, you suck. The original reading was at least understandable in addition to being funny, you mong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.117.103 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for working in some of the contentious areas, including protected edit request. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The draft is updated for the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Your template edit has broken the infobox on Johann Baptist Wendling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The local agreement of those who just wants to smear the subject as "pseudoscience" by hopping to unreliable sources are qualifiers of disruptive editing. There was an RFC that opposed any edits involving the "pseudoscience" term anywhere on the article. We had many other recent discussions[2][3] where about 6 editors opposed any of these edits.

You should revert back to the 31 March again, and tell them to get the consensus from those editors who always disagreed with these edits because the sources are very non-expertized and we cannot give undue weight to a small mention that is not even defining anything. And there should be another RFC and all those who were involved before should be re-notified. Nothing new has been presented, not even 1 reference, so why re-introduce same misleading edits just because 4 of those editors continue to smear same thing while more editors disagree? We are not online 24x7 and there is more life than just wikipedia, if it is said once 'no' after establishing some policy supporting basis, that would still mean 'no', even if opposing editor bludgeons the talk page. నిజానికి (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of that discussion, but while I have no opinion on the matter myself I will point out that (1) it was not unanimous by any means, and (2) consensus can change. I understand your frustration but maintaining an article is inevitably a continuous process and you are never going to be able to rely on a previous consensus to stop other editing changing the article. Having said this, there is little purpose in discussing this here as I will only be able to act on a consensus on the article's talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the Sydney entry in List of Islamic Terrorist attacks [4].

While I only ever added 1 entry to it, it was part of my fixing up the links from the Sydney siege entry that hadn't been cleaned up from 6 months ago, and it was annoying to have it sneakily reverted (3 times) and then protected in the incorrect state. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, could you take a look at Template:Request edit/answered? Answered requests are not currently being added to Category:Answered requested edits, instead [[Category:Answered requested edits|]] is displayed in the section. See here. Also, the documentation for Template:Request edit says |A parameter adds the request to Category:Implemented requested edits but in fact Category:Answered requested edits gets (or used to get) updated. - NQ (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Hopefully I fixed it yesterday? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. - NQ (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

206.188.61.25 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed that the article says that the "Arameans were" a people. We are very much still existent and fighting for our recognition against our politicized Assyrian identity. Would it be possible to change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.149.131 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Electronic cigarette, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Electronic cigarette and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Electronic cigarette during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.--TMCk (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Category interwiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Documentation pages, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I wanna thank you for removing the reference. However, it is the wrong one. The reference that I asked for is immediately after this sentence : and a growing number of Antiochians are using it as an ethnic designation due to the Levant's Hellenistic and Byzantine past. Thanx and sorry if I wasn't clear in my request.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for helping creating new properties on Wikidata. I think it would be good not to remove information from the proposal discussion as in [5] or [6]. On the property talk page it is desired to remove obsolete or redundant information from the template, but the proposal discussion page should stay in the state it was at the point of creation. --Pasleim (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, noted. From my experience with this template, a lot of the fields (description, datatype, example, etc.) are automatically filled if the relevant properties are defined. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please retarget these two redirects? Alakzi (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_6#Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests

CFD closed : )

Feel free to enact the change. I'm not sure if it needs doing before or after anomiebot is modified, so I'll leave that to you two : ) - jc37 20:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Can you give me rollbacker right? Last time I requested on "Permission for Rollbacker right" page month ago see here. I was denied last time because of my old block, but block on new users who don't know 3RR rule deeply are quite common, that time I thought that "My version is right so I will not get blocked". But over the time with experience on Wikipedia now I know policies very well. I usually revert vandalism also warn/welcome the user/IP. Rollbacker right will boost my confidence to continue my work. There is no question of abusing tool. (admin on that page suggested me to wait for 3 months since last block, currently its two months since last block, but you can see my edits in last two months.) --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 18:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw an IP continually replacing a warning notice on Wtshymanski's talk page and reading the "editing restrictions" notice, it is unclear to me if this trumps Wtshymanski's right to remove anything he likes from his talkpage. I looked for further detail at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions but couldn't see Wtshymanski's name anywhere. It seems to me that this is open to misinterpretation and allows for Wtshymanski to be endlessly trolled by IPs without being able to do anything about it. Would you be able to clarify this for me please? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I missed it. But does this prevent Wtshymanski from overseeing his own talk page and remove IP posts from there? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, I've removed the notice from his/her talk page. If the "trolling" continues we can think about semi-protecting his talk page or perhaps allowing an exception to the editing restriction on their user talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I would have thought it imperative that they at least are entitled to remove anything they like from their talk page, I'm not sure how that could ever be subject for concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably should make that exception. I don't think anyone even considered this in the ANI discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Easily done. I would just be bold and add the exception, it will immediately solve the problem and I can't believe any reasonable argument stands up against it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Per your comment, Alakzi and others involved in the current dispute are requested not to edit the template, but to raise a request and allow another template editor or admin to gauge consensus.[7] Alakzi has modified the sandbox, but made no request and yet Pigsonthewing has just implemented the edits regardless.[8] I don't see any actual consensus for the changes yet, so this doesn't seem right, especially given the support for Alakzi that Pigsonthewing has given on Alakzi's talk page.[9] I can't see him not implementing one of Alakzi's changes. In any case, Pigsonthewing is close enough to the issue to be classed as involved. As implemented, the changes are going to cause more problems than they resolve because editors won't have a clue what's going on. For example, NCIS (season 1) looks OK but NCIS (season 2) doesn't and editors are given no indication why. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted. But please make an effort to see the issues here and work towards a compromise. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

People with privileges are edit warring against concensus and causing more problems than they purport to solve. Request a return of the article to before this edit war began and a protect to stop edits by non-admins until consensus in the current discussion is reached. People are well-aware of the issues, the question is how to resolve the issues without creating others. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's in hand. Bear with me please — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm a bit pissed off as I've effectively been the primary maintainer of this template for some time, and I can't edit it anymore as I don't have templateeditor permission, but I'd rather see it fully protected until this is all resolved. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I fully understand the issues, but I'm trying to look at all of them, not just our requirements regarding MOS:ACCESS. Ever since we did some work to {{Episode list}} in 2012 as the result of MOS:ACCESS issues raised at a featured list discussion, I've been working towards making our episode lists more MOS:ACCESS compliant but there is resistance from editors who simply don't understand the need. There has to be a balance between writing code so it's fully compliant, and writing code so that it's nearly fully compliant and the end users are still happy, as I've discovered during the past 40 years that I've been coding. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the wholly inappropriate threat you have left on my talk page, I have reverted my edit at {{Infobox television season}}. I did so under duress.

Had you wanted no-one to edit the template, you should have fully-, not partially-, protected it. Your reason for partially protecting it was "edit warring". Not only was I not involved in that edit war, but I had not edited the template since December 2010‎. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for the threat, and it probably would have been an overreaction. However I was shocked at your abuse of editing privileges. I should not have to fully protect because I trust template editors to act with decorum and at least to follow WP:BRD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello MSGJ. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Missing evaluation. You enacted the original ban in February 2015. A block review from February 2015 is also relevant. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the problem with the article on the UK Independence Party is that it has obviously been hijacked not only by pro-UKIP Internet activists, but also very recently by activists, volunteers and supporters (at least one or two, but nevertheless very active) of "Hope Not Hate" (HNH) (which receives funding from the trade unions which are officially affiliated with and which fund the Labour Party, but HNH are otherwise not directly affiliated with or controlled by the Labour Party), Unite Against Fascism (UAF) (Trotskyist) and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) (Trotskyist), which are all far-left organisations (although the foremost organisation would like to call themselves an "anti-fascist" organisation instead; but which is basically a subset of the far-left), all of which have an avowed, sworn objective of disrupting specifically UKIP and their political activities and objectives. I don't e.g. think that User:Snowded can possibly claim in good faith that he has no links either with Labour, with HNH or with "anti-far-right", "anti-fascist" causes and activities (as he would see it), given his wider editing history. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ, It seems likely that you are an administrator of the UKIP article, and viewing the history, there seems to be a lot of biased information constantly added and deleted. One thing I did notice however, was the fact that under 'Ideology' on the right-hand side column it claims that UKIP policy is quote "Anti-Immigrationism". Whether Immigrationism is even a word is a different topic, but it does highlight that whoever had added it must have some bias, or even put it by accident through misinterpretation. Neither sources cited (I looked through the history to find the NY times one) use the term 'Anti-Immigrationism', on top of the Guardian article is part of the opinion section rather than news. After further research, not once in the UKIP 2015 manifesto does it claim to be so. What's more, a quick Google search 'anti-immigrationism ukip' clearly shows defence for UKIP in accusations of being 'Anti-immigration' by Daily Mail and Telegraph both anti-UKIP publications. Additionally I believe confusion my arise through the stance of 'Mass Uncontrolled Immigration' which is argued to be different than immigration itself. Thus I would kindly request this removed from the article as it is poorly sourced and misinterpreted.

Cheers, HughTubex (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

All discussion related to this article should take place on the article's talk page. I can take no action based on comments here. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ, I've been a registered Wikipedia editor since 2009, and I have over 81,000 editors with several hundred edits to template space, including the creation of several dozen templates. I would like the TE permission to be able to perform maintenance tasks on the protected sports-related templates with which I work on a regular basis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I would not oppose it, but am limited to a mobile device currently so cannot carry out all the usual checks. So please post on the relevant permissions request page. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and understood, MSGJ. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ, I just noticed your post on Alakzi's talk and wanted to follow up, since I'd intended to do so once the block was up anyway. Having followed the progress of this situation, it appears that the justification for revocation of the TE right - no longer holding the necessary trust for it - is inextricably caught up in the sockpuppet accusations. Floq's ANI post was a good-faith effort at sharing concerns with the community, but such a high-visibility accusation that subsequently proves entirely inaccurate is so destabilizing to the overall situation that the only fair thing to do in my view is restore the prior status quo and work from there. The issue from which all of this escalated - the RM for WP:ROPE - has nothing to do with template editing and what would likely have occurred absent Beeblebrox's SPI and subsequent events is a block for a few days; recent past history hadn't reached the point where revoking TE was under consideration. Especially considering that Alakzi is currently doing productive template-related work from his talk page, IMO the best way to unwind this whole situation is to let him go back to productive work elsewhere after the block is over. If nothing else, all the drama certainly means there will be plenty of eyes on the matter. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. The removal was not connected to the sockpuppet accusations but how this editor conducted him/herself. I have made my requirements for restoration clear but he/she may take this for review if they choose. Sorry I am unable to reply more fully at present. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"This" editor does happen to have a username. Alakzi (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ. I've stopped following the APerson RfA, but it's been pointed out to me that you moved part of the text in the RfA to the talkpage. I understand you doing this, indeed, I had thought of doing so myself when the content of the subsequent discussion was going away from the question and answer format, but felt that as some of the subsequent discussion was critical of me, it might be inappropriate for me to do so. So I am pleased that you did move some of that content - however, probably inadvertently, you also moved some legitimate question and answer material which is pertinent to the RfA, including the comment that APerson was advised by ArbCom to make. The following section is legitimate, appropriate, and essential to a full understanding of the context:

I don't wish to restore it myself because I am involved, and it also may look like something of an edit war. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You're asking me to restore more than half of what was moved ... Bear in mind that what is "legitimate, appropriate, and essential" is a subjective opinion and may not be shared by others. I still think that restoring that quantity of discussion would give undue weight to this issue, and the questions section does not work well when it turns into a threaded discussion. Can we get the opinion of Worm That Turned with his bureaucrat hat on, as he probably has a better idea of RfA processes and usual precedent. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Precedent is a difficult one on RfA, as we're doing our best to improve the process at the moment. I did consider moving the text to the talk page when I stepped in to stop the conversation, but decided against it as I didn't think it was necessary. At the same time, I'm certainly not opposed to it being there and would probably recommend it staying there due to the nature of the discussion. One thing I will say is that if anyone besides APerson were to move the text, it should be wholesale. APerson, on the other hand, could put his quoted statement where he feels fit. Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Worm, with your 'crat hat on, if this RfA came to a 'crat chat, how would you respond if someone felt that support votes after the text was removed might be based on incomplete and therefore inaccurate information? Though there is a link to the talkpage, the assumption would be that the content moved would be the typical bickering that occurs in a RfA rather than a comment made by the candidate on which others based their oppose vote. Is there precedent for moving statements made by candidates? Is there precedent for candidates removing or moving (rather than striking) comments they have made themselves? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that there are a number of oppose votes referring to the discussion, I would say that it's not a strong argument. For comparison, if an oppose vote raised copyright violations and subsequent support votes came in without addressing the copyvio, I would still count them. I personally work under the assumption that voters read at least the "leading" votes on each side (i.e. the ones that people say "per User X") and make their decision based on that. In this case, some of those votes refer to the discussion and it's reasonable to assume voters looked at it.
There is precedent for moving discussion to the talk page, it's been happening more regularly in the past few RfAs. I'm not sure whether the candidate's responses have been included. There's certainly precedent for people (including candidates) removing their comments rather than striking, it's generally considered poor form, but not against policy. Worm^TT(talk) 13:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps enough time has been spent on this trivial issue now. Shall we get back to work ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that this is something than should be dismissed as trivial, though if Worm feels it's not having a significant impact on the RfA then I'm OK with that. Thanks to both of you for talking this through. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: can you help with the above please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I see the problem. This content was inadvertently deleted and just needs to be restored:

• To avoid self-incrimination, the defendants plan to plead the Fifth Amendment.

Just flet that in where it was. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I've done that correctly. The "Wilson" ref comes after "The restraining order has since been lifted, allowing release of more videos." and that is still undefined. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

In this edit you introduced two refs (Scott and Wilson), but didn't provide the full refs, leaving us with two redlinks in the refs' section. Please fix this. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see above. You asked me to perform an edit but were not specific enough! If you can tell me how to fix this, I will do it. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done [10] I've copied over the full citations from this edit. Cheers. 185.108.128.12 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

IP185, thanks for doing that. MSGJ, I had forgotten I had contacted you before. -- BullRangifer (talk)

Thank you IP. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please delete the template now, can you also delete the TFD as the person mention has no baring on the discussion and shouldnt have her name dragged thru the mud like its being when she has no direct involvement in the discussion, we have a policy called WP:BLP that says do no harm well its doing harm, we also allow for courtesy deletion in such cases. While the current discussion exists I'm unable to resolve the licensing wording even though the people involved want to make the text available are/were willing to discuss and reword the permission requirements. 01:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)

Hi Gnangarra, I'll delete the template via G7 now, as consensus is clear. I'm wary of closing the discussion as it was my nomination but it should be procedurally closed shortly. I can't see any "dragging through the mud" - the discussion seems civil and constructive to me - so I'm not sure that blanking is needed or appropriate. But I don't oppose if it is genuinely causing some distress. Sorry you don't like the way this turned out - I was sincerely trying to find the best solution for Wikipedia. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

the problem is not in how it turned out but how OTRS was handled in that it would have been no issue to make an adjustment to the email if I had been given the opportunity to discuss rather than the way the OTRS agent reacted, as for the discussion yes it is a problem and needs her name to be removed, hopefully then I can rebuild the situation and get the permission adjusted, I'll be in need of sanitising my talk page as well. (sorry for not signing the first post, my preference should have prevented that) Gnangarra 12:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes - I was busy working out what to do while you were making the edit, unfortunately. I've added some thoughts on the talk page, so if you need to discuss further we can do it there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted for now and I'll check back later. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to share with you what I left at 90.222.127.214's talk page, since I believe they will remove it like they had all my other messages to their talk page. This derogatory edit summary was 90.222.127.214's first interaction with me, and they've continued making personal attacks at me, only genuinely engaging the content being disputed and "willing to compromise" after being the report for edit warring had been filed. ([11]). Before that, all that was said by them were hostile edit summaries aimed at me and dismissing the policies I cited, which were valid and relevant ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). I hope the next admin who will review their block will be aware of this and not believe what 90.222.127.214 last wrote at their talk page. Dan56 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw that User:Kwamikagami had been blocked for edit-warring, so I read the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I know about the 3RR rule, and I don't have any vested interest in either side of the dispute, but I'd really like to understand it. If no one can come up with a source that gives an estimate of the number of speakers of a language, is a source needed to support saying just that? That seems somehow illogical to me. I'd really like to understand this. I'd appreciate any insight you can provide. Corinne (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: I don't know and I don't intend to get into that content dispute. But exceeding 3RR is not acceptable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A while back I note I created {{Un-confirmpermission1}} as an alternative to the F11 user warning.

I'd like an opinion on whether it could be reworded.

I have no objections to you asking other contributors for a view. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The message looks fine to me, but I'm really not the right person to ask about files, copyright, etc. as my knowledge is extremely limited. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

My disgust for others now apparently has to extend to you as well. I issued the full statement only in the last post. Did it ever occur to you that there is no really reasonable way to determine whether something has or has not received support when no one has even directly responded to it yet? I am I regret to say coming more and more to the opinion that those who seek to preemptively judge everything may well be worse than Kumioko himself, and, if this sort of conduct is becoming more the rule around here, he may be closer to being right than I would like to admit. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Just before full protection expires, I'm going to switch it over to a semi as, judging from the talk page, we'll have a free-for-all if the article is unprotected. Any thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. The issue is definitely not resolved on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Here is a Video Interwiev on YouTube. He says he is turkish! Please correct the article. He is not kurdish. Or leave the ethnicity away. Now everyone knows which ethnicity he has! The Video-Link: http://youtube.de/FPWBOU0z0aM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergün.Y. (talk • contribs) 14:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The article's talk page is that way ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ, the request is to remove the ethnicity claims in the "Early life and career" heading. His Turkish nationality is not being debated; rather, the "debate" is about whether he is an Arab/Kurd/Turk, ethnically. 86.171.92.242 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

As per your suggestion I had resubmitted the Liam Payne draft, and unfortunately it was once again denied. At this point I am at a bit of a loss as to what would qualify him as notable. I have continued to improve upon the sources and yet to no avail. I'm not sure how to proceed or if this is a lost cause. Please, let me know. It's definitely quite frustrating that a member of a world famous boyband who has worked with and for countless other artists and organizations as an individual, not just a member of the band and who has more followers on social media platforms than some countries have people is considered not notable enough for a wikipedia page.

Thank you for your help.

Beecee14 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that can be denied on notability, with a list of sources as long as my arm. I've listed the article at WP:DRV to get input from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you I really appreciate your help. I guess I should keep adding to the sources just in case, considering he gets an article written about him at least once a week. Beecee14 (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Just wondering, do we wait now and see what other say in the WP:DRV. Beecee14 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the edit war in the above mentioned page. It's been started by the same user that forced you to protect the page "Mafia". --87.6.116.237 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll explain immediately:
Renato Vallanzasca: his edit is uncorrect, you can watch the result here, as you can see the IPA is corrupted.
Zucchero: first, we both undid each others revision twice, not 3 times, and I'm not going beyond before an administrator intervenes; second, his edit on the talk page is totally useless both because the problem on the article page was solved before and because in the article his "source" has already been inserted by another user.
In the first case, he keeps making a disruptive edit, while in the second case he keeps adding pointless information which has already been provided in the article.
I'll not edit anything till you or another administrator decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.81.64 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello MSGJ. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Two IPs reported by User:151.20.75.83 (Result: ) which is apparently a report of the same dispute. Perhaps you know something about this? Both sides of the dispute are hopping IPs. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't had time to look at this today. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. When copying content from one page to another without moving the edit history along with it, it is required of the license of our content that attribution be given to the source. This can be done in an edit summary. I have added it for you here.

Thanks for your help on the Causal loop article. HighInBC 14:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I must be blind. I see you did link to the article in your summary. Well, at least I added the revision number. Just ignore me, I have not yet had my coffee. HighInBC 14:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• TPS: And Template:Copied may also be added to the article talk page, which often provides a much more public and obvious attribution and recognition of the contributions of previous editors for the copy-pasted text. The template probably should be used more often, especially where the copy-paste forms a significant portion of an article. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks Guys. I treat draft articles much like template sandboxes, as they are working areas not facing the reader. Are you telling me that I shouldn't copy a template to its sandbox without attribution? Is it not obvious that a draft article would contain edits from its mainspace article? Do we really need to worry about this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• The template notice, Template:Copied, applies to article text and other creative content. Some tables and templates may qualify as creative content. In your example, if you are copying a template to the linked sandbox of the same template in order to make suggested changes to the same template, attribution is not necessary IMO, because if the changes to the template are adopted the changes will be shown in the template's edit history together with all edits that came before. (Am I understanding your question correctly?) The problem arises when someone copy-pastes, or cut-and-pastes, text or other creative content from one page to another, thus breaking the chain of attribution present in the edit history of the original page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This has more to do with the CC BY-SA 3.0 License that all the text of Wikipedia is licensed under than any Wikipedia practice. Technically all the content of Wikipedia still belongs to the contributors, we just use it through an open license that requires attributions. Any publication that publishes the content must give attribution. The software automatically maintains this through the revision history, but cannot automatically track copy/paste moves.

The bare minimum needed is a link to the page which you did, though a link to the history is better as it contains all of the revisions. Dirtlawyer points out a handy template just for that. I was not paying attention when I left that message to you, I think you met the minimum requirements with your link in the edit summary. HighInBC 18:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

With respect to this revert, I knew the user was blocked when I sent that notice (as I explained in it), but the block was enacted on the rationale of their edit warring on Natalie Portman, while I was concentrating on their disrespect of (two) other users' talk pages, which I personally find particularly heinous behavior. In my opinion, they need to know that that behavior will also be reported if it continues. LjL (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no problem! There is also another message about that above my block message. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I had missed that one, maybe it will be enough to get the message across. LjL (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel right now. I just want to let you know that MediaWiki:Antispoof-conflict-bottom has been deleted. I tried to figure out the problem myself but coudlnt quite understand. I figured you mustve had a reason for creating that page so I wanted to let you know it had to be deleted. —Soap— 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It has been deleted by MusikAnimal for reasons explained in the deletion log. I suggest you discuss this at MediaWiki talk:Antispoof-conflict-bottom. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ, do you mind explaining how you concluded that egregious, disruptive edit warring, evidenced by multiple diffs and the linked talk discussion, is "no violation"? Especially when two other editors at the article had also fixed his inappropriate edits? Lapadite (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The diffs you provided were spread over 3 days (17-19 October). If you can show me more than 3 reverts within 24 hours I will look again. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

One can see in the edit history he reverted or partially reverted edits more than twice in one day. It's not a 3RR report, regardless (I clarified that), it's disruptive edit warring. 3RR doesn't need to be violated (and I would presume you'd know editors can circumvent it to avoid block) in order to report edit warring; WP:EW says: "Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable...The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." And I see in EWN that you've recently blocked an IP that, according to diffs, didn't violate 3RR; another IP that didn't violate 3RR; and "warned" another IP that "Hasn't violated 3RR yet". Here, you didn't even "warn", it was just "no violation". So I'm baffled by your passive decision here. Lapadite (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of a 3RR violation I'd want to see a pattern of disruptive actions, and I'm just not seeing that here. I've just looked again - he/she makes relatively few reverts and is willing to discuss. Far from being an edit warrior, they seem to be conducting themself rather well. I suggest you drop this now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You're saying 10 reverts across three days, 6 in one day - while discussion is open and most against talk points per WP policies and guidelines - is not disruptive edit warring? And another editor on the report and here stated he has done this before. Commenting on talk page does not equal collaboration, listening to others' points. He only edited per his pov, ignoring concerns of things like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:CLOP. And now you've even strike the "reminder". This is beyond baffling. Moreover, he has since made another rv, again ignoring talk points, restoring close paraphrase, extraneous quote (which was also removed by another editor), and previously-removed overlink, [17]. That's not disruptive? That's what happens when someone disruptively editing warring is essentially told 'you're not doing anything wrong'. @Huon, Bbb23, Cyphoidbomb, and Heimstern: Pinging other admins on EWN for "second opinions". Lapadite (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why I was pinged here, but at a glance it seems Lapadite would do better to try and establish a consensus than to try and get other editors blocked. Huon (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Huon, I think that's not a very good faith accusation, and it says why you were one of the ones pinged ("other admins on EWN for "second opinions"). Establish consensus? Please do see talk and edit history. I reasoned several times per WP:PAG on talk, another editor there agreed with several of my points, my edits pertaining to that dispute also adjusted to discussion, and a couple of tother editors that did not comment on talk also reverted some of Gothicfilm's edits. Gothicfilm reverted or partially reverted constructive edits from 3 different editors now, myself included, moreover, he began the reverting in the first place and continued the reverting multiple times despite talk discussion, without establishing consensus; ignoring WP:BRD. I don't see commentary on his obvious wrongdoing here, which is still continuing as I linked. "No violation", not even a warning, is frankly absurd and gives the wrong message. And I don't know what MSGJ was trying to convey by striking their "reminder" to Gothicfilm in the report, but I don't see it as beneficial. Lapadite (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Further to the strong warning you gave them a couple of days ago, User:82.41.251.96 is still slow-reverting against consensus on the same article, and emptily honking the arbitration horn in edit summaries, without actually trying to resolve the dispute anywhere. --McGeddon (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to discuss the recent block you placed on my account. You'll note that I didn't appeal the block, but there is reason for that. I wanted to ask why you felt it was necessary to block at that point? I had already stated that I had "disengaged" from the dispute and was making no further edits to the page in question. I had even posted to ANI about the multiple edits. So obviously there was no further "disruption" to project on my part necessitating the block for protection of the project, so... was it punitive? Further, I'd like to know why you would not permit me to participate in either the ANI or the AN:EW that I was currently a part of? They have since been closed and I never had an opportunity to contribute. Lastly, I would like you to show me exactly what diffs you relied on to initiate the block. Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 20:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll make the following comments:

• Just because you have temporarily (or permanently) disengaged from an edit war on a particular page does not mean that the block is necessarily punitive.
• This was not your first block for edit warring, so it does not follow that a warning (rather than a block) would have a positive effect on your long term conduct as an editor.
• I counted five or six reverts on Talk:Skyfall. As WP:3RR is supposed to be a "bright-line rule", some might argue that it would be remiss not to block you.
• I attempted to treat both sides of the edit war equally. It would not be fair or defensible to block one side and not the other. So it was all or none.
• I didn't see any request by you to participate in the discussion on ANI or AN/EW.
• The diffs are all in the history of the Skyfall talk page. I see no benefit to reproducing them here.

I don't have much more to add. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, in this in case it certainly appears punitive. You yourself confirmed I had disengaged, therefore there was no further disruption to protect the project from with your block.
• It is my first block for edit warring, as a matter of fact.
• Again, show me the specific edits you relied on to initiate the block. Just saying there were "five or six" is not enough.
• Attempting to "treat both sides equally" is admirable in other pursuits, but silly here. Not all sides are equally culpable.
• I was blocked... what about that don't you get? It was MY ANI. What about that don't you get. The AN:EW named ME. What about that don't you get?
• Of course you don't. Because if you made a illegitimate block, then it certainly would not suit you to go over the details, would it? Well, just the same, I would like to go over them.
• You do have more to add, starting with the diffs I requested. Regards. - ^theWOLFchild 07:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you're angry, but being aggressive with me is not going to resolve anything. You are welcome to review of my actions at an appropriate place, but I recommend you move on. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Angry? Aggressive? Not in the least. What is obvious is that these questions are making you very uncomfortable, but that's not my problem. But nothing in my comments indicates that I'm "angry". If you want anger, just look at the other editors you blocked, and the ongoing onslaught of insults, profanity and other obnoxious comments. I however, patiently waited until the block was done, and now I just want some answers. You blocked me from editing and I would like you to explain why. I'm not sure what "appropriate place" you're referring to, but I will not "move on". Though that would clearly suit you, it does not me. You are the blocking admin... WHY is it now so difficult for you to clarify exactly why you blocked me? - ^theWOLFchild 15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my previous comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is that? Why do you refuse to explain your block? - ^theWOLFchild 17:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, Martin was wrong for blocking people when no actual breach had occurred, we know that, although never in a month of Sundays is he going to admit it, especially to you or I. Cassianto^Talk 13:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  Per WP:TPO, do not remove my comments. Cassianto^Talk 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  Per WP:OWNTALK, I'll remove any that I choose to ;) Especially inflammatory comments intended to increase drama rather than decrease it. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  Per WP:TPO, do not remove my comments. - Cassianto - BAH-HA!! Now that's hilarious! - ^theWOLFchild 14:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Per Admin Accountability; Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

So, can we please just get on with this and get it over with? - ^theWOLFchild 10:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you shut up then? Cassianto^Talk 17:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You lost. Get over it already. - ^theWOLFchild 17:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey thank you for your support of the page List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan. I'm really thankful to you.

Mohsin17 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Marmiras (talk · contribs) returned to vandalizing Warsaw. He hasn't learned a thing in spite of your 24 hour block for the same edit war, and the new template warnings from others. Thanks in advance,[18] Poeticbent talk 17:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Martin. I wanted to ask you to review a block you recently placed on Roscelese (talk · contribs) for violating WP:3RR. It seems evident to me that she was reverting a glaring WP:BLP violation: the other editor was repeatedly inserting contentious and potentially defamatory claims about a living person into her biography, using only an extremely poor-quality partisan source which exists principally to promulgate political smears. Actually, I'll go further: Johnpacklambert was adding blatant and defamatory falsehoods to the article, which Roscelese was removing. As such, I think it would appropriate to unblock Roscelese with a note that she was properly removing a BLP violation, rather than engaging in a forbidden form of edit-warring. (Frankly, people who remove egregious BLP violations like that one deserve a pat on the back and a barnstar, rather than a block, in my view). I am minded to unblock her on these grounds, since removing BLP violations is a specific exception to WP:3RR, unless you object in which case I would be happy to discuss further. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on your comments at WP:ANEW, which I just noticed, I went ahead and unblocked since it sounded like you were OK with this if another admin looked at the situation in more detail. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks again. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just found that with this edit to Template:WP1.0, you have set it so that |class= is recognised by the taskforces, but not by the main template. See for example Talk:International Court of Justice where all the project banners have |class=c, and all of them show "(Rated C-class ..." except for Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Was that intentional? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I remember much about that edit five years ago ;) Based on this diff I'd say it was intentional but I can't say why now at this stage. When converting these banners the aim was generally to replicate the banner's previous behaviour. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I've been working on a tool to search for revisions that contain hashtag, for editathons and other tags. What would you think about adding hashtags to Gadget-defaultsummaries.js? It would make it much easier to count (or find) revisions later, as an added bonus. I'm curious what you think. Stephen (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to ask: Do pings work in "Wikipedia:" namespace? i.e. is it of any use if I used pings in WP:ANEW or WP:ANI? Fleet Command (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I got your ping on ANEW. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. We often use them at WP:VPT. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Very sorry that I look like such an unscrupulous editor to you. I am trying to get better, you know, not to perceive angry mastodons. Fleet Command (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

hi MSGJ, there's a note about your original 151.x range ip block expiring in an hour but extended by another admin (ohnoitsjamie) on his own initiative because there's no rule on wikipedia about blocking users who made more than 1 unblock request after not being answered. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=689164654&oldid=689162959 i've started that disussion on admins' page because my ip range, very common in northern italy, is the same you blocked and the other admin extended, so please read our conclusions about cancelling the block extension, thank you in advance.Centocinquantuno (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's clear to me that Centocinquantuno is the same user that was originally targeted with the range block, and I'm not the only editor who suspects that. He made a big fuss on three different IPs about getting unblocked quickly so he could edit something. I extended the block for misuse of the unblock template, so he created an account, made a fuss on ANI, and has yet to do what original edit he was so excited about making. I don't see any activity from that IP range other than the now-protected Mafia article or the recent unblocks. I don't care much either way; the protection on Mafia can easily be extended as necessary to prevent further disruption from anons, and a named account can easily be blocked if necessary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

i'm answering each one of your objections against me, don't worry:

• abour being the original troll: i feel offended, and i've already written in the admins' discussion page, to be likened to the cause of my problems! but you start from me being a liar and guilty, to respect the famous "assume good faith", don't you? let's try reasoning together: if i was that troll, why would i wait till 2 days from the end of the week block to make an unblock request? and why would i care about what you're saying here right now, trying to restore my dignity, instead of getting back trolling somewhere? unlike you, i've respected the famous "assume good faith", as you can read on the other page, but according to your today's behaviour maybe i'd be wrong to continue believing that... and also, i've replied to Samir, i've written on his talk page inviting him to join back the discussion too, he didn't do that, instead i've clarified his doubts about my supposed double identity answering his demurs about our similar writing styles, you're free to read by yourself if you've got time. oh, i've almost forgot about this: can i insert a similar link too? here
• about the fuss i made: let's suppose you receive a fine at home. the name is yours, but the identity was mistaken. you go to the police to complain about the mistake, and they fine you again because you annoyed them. obviously, you'll make absolutely no fuss at all, right? if i'd still been following the "assume good faith", i'd bet you won't make. but let's go to the core of the problem: it was no longer the first block which i complained about at the beginning and which i and most users and admins considered a bad solution to the problem, it was your misuse (now i'm actually starting to think it was an abuse), your extending the block because i made 3 identical unblock requests since i didn't receive an answer in almost 6 hours. maybe you were really in a hurry, maybe you really were already stressed, we're both humans, but your today's reactions make me think differently. i woke up a morning and i found my full range blocked and nobody answering my unblock requests: did i have to shut up, or even to avoid making any request?
• about Mafia: i'm not going to edit that page since i've got no interest at all, if i'd had any i could have created another account the same day of the block in order to edit it 4 days later since now it's being protected. obviously, i can't guarantee for the troll, but on your opinion it's me, according to "assume good fate"... well, i'm happy you're scrolling recent changes hoping to see my edits, looking for a 151.20.x user, maybe someone's already editing wikipedia. actually i had no urgency to edit anything, i still don't have any, i just tried correcting an error on an article about italian switzerland and realised i couldn't, and since i thought that block was useless and exceeding i made the requests. now, no wikipedia tonight, just friends, i'll come back whenever i'll like to.

for me, this ends here. have a good day! Centocinquantuno (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you closed this EW report as "no violation". Could you please explain your reasoning? The Temple Mount article falls under ARBPIA and is therefore under a 1RR restriction. The same goes for the other article I reported there and the two from a couple of week ago I warned him about. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just coming here to ask the same questin . You seem to be under the impression that an edit that removes some longstanding content is not a revert. Well, for your education, since you did ask for examples and precedence, I was blocked for doing just that: [19] Here come the Suns (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The ZUDE page has been incorporated on Wikipedia for at least 7 years without any trouble. Now it is under attack because it demonstrates relevant information about Zude the Scott Dresden and Jeff Brown, dissident shareholders, would like to see removed. I cannot currently edit the page to remove the deletion notice or make any changes since the page is frozen to all until the 16th. All help here is greatly appreciated.Srepetti (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the proposed deletion notice as you have contested it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Zude for deletion but that article is locked and I can't add the subst:afd1 tag. Let the debate happen and a decision be made. At best we get a stronger, relevant article, at worst an irrelevant marketing article gets removed. I would argue that zude has relevance, but not for the reason the article owner wishes. However looking at the article 1/3 of the current citations are self attributions or to sources that are social media outlets controlled by the article owner. The article itself reads largely like marketing and contains no citations until the pre-launch section. The boston.com citation doesn't even reference Zude. Additionally it doesn't meet Audience, the remaining citations are media of limited interest and circulation (trade). Citation 5 (eweek)refers to Social Mix, an article that was already deleted as not notable, even then it was in a list and a passing mention, Also it conveniently misrepresents itself, Zude wasn't called the "Coolest Technology". The article has a certain Truthiness that really doesn't stand to even cursory scrutiny.

If that's not acceptable then I'd say that the article creator needs to remain hands off and allow the community of editors to improve the article under the guidelines. If the article createor is unwilling to do that then I again suggest that the article is marketing and/or notable only to the author creator and be deleted. Tomtasget (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see the response on User talk:NeilN — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, since it was you who blocked User:Kurzon for edit-warring on Mafia 3 weeks ago, I thought I could inform you directly: he has just violated again the 3RR in the same page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mafia&action=history). I hope he will be blocked for the 4th time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.70.92 (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked both of you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I am here for precaution: tomorrow at 11:55 Kurzon's block will end and I bet my head that he will restart the edit war on Mafia. As he did just after his last block had ended. I will not take part in any edit war, do not worry. I would just like you to explain to me what to do in that case. Shall I report him here? Elsewhere? Am I allowed to undo his reverts once/twice or not at all? Can I make a "compromise" and let him remove the Brithsh and American English IPAs leaving on the article just the Italian one (this solution is the most used in all Wiki articles about Italian words used in English)? Let me know how to act correctly, please, I do not want to suffer the second block (actually I do not understand why I was blocked if I did not break the 3RR and came here expressly to signal him who did, but I do not care any more by now). Please answer by tomorrow morgning, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.68.142 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, as I told you yesterday, the 1st thing User:Kurzon has done after the end of his 2 weeks block was restarting the edit war which he had been blocked twice for, reverting the last edits and removing again the IPAs. What shall we do now? What can I do? And can you do anything about that? I hope you may answer soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.31.205 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, perhaps you may also answer when I ask you a question about the edit-warrior I report instead of answering only to tell me I am blocked after reporting him, that would be kind MSGJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.71.40 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Southland Intertitle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

personal life last paragraph the should be they thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.25.106.233 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be done? But use the talk page for these requests in future please. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You responded to the edit warring report I submitted yesterday, and you asked if I was willing to learn from @Popcornduff:, and I am. In fact, I already have learned a lot from PCD. Since encountering PCD on WP my edits have vastly improved, as they often used to be overdone and sometimes a little off. For each successive edit I've tried to do on the Under the Skin page, I've made it cleaner and more relevant, and in each one I have tried to modify to make more in line with PCD's critiques of my edits. We disagree on our interpretation of the policy on interpreting plots, but I've almost totally stopped trying to put in the kind of content PCD objects to.

You also let me know about PCD's WP experience, and I do respect that. In my first warring report I said that, "personally I think most of his reverts and excisions that I've seen are good, and that he does protect many sites from illegitimate and unproductive additions. My first edit of Under the Skin was ill advised, and my first points on the talk page were overbearing, and I’m sure this did not help the situation ... Popcornduff is a much, much more dedicated, prolific, and decorated editor than me, but the two of us are enmeshed in a long term power struggle." Capuchinpilates (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Capuchinpilates has now posted a sort of call to arms on the Ex Machina talk page, pinging dozens of editors to the page. This strikes me as excessive and disruptive, but I'm not sure how to respond to it. Maybe it's harmless. Or is it WP:CANVAS? I'm not sure. Popcornduff (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Although it was created in 2008, it's only had 50 or so edits in that time, including bots, so no big deal, obviously attracted little traffic. The original creation by you had no in-line citations or wikilinks, and gave no facts such as staff or patient numbers or financials to establish notability (although a group of hospitals probably is notable) and the "references" at the bottom were two links to the hospital (clearly not RS) and one link now dead and therefore uncheckable. The text was promotional too —for a unique experience of continuity and the feel of real private practice.

As far as I can see it's gone downhill since, becoming increasingly spammy (including first-person additions, presumably from the hospital group), and I can't see any clean revision.

The article was nominated for a speedy by an editor in good standing, and, as an uninvolved admin, I concurred. I didn't consider AFD because in my opinion it met the criteria for SD.

You are an admin, and you can restore any revision you wish, although I recommend that if you do so you clean up the spam since it is likely that the active GF editor who nominated for SD last time will do so again in if it's in its present form. Alternatively you could restore and take it to AFD yourself.

I don't wheel, so I won't delete again if you do restore, although I obviously reserve the right to tag as I think appropriate

Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Excela Health 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/Excela Health 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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you don't/didn't get the ping - I have addressed you here — Ched :  ?  23:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DERM.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It means "Floreat" and is a standard thing when one has no idea of birth date. Fiddle Faddle

No it doesn't. It means floruit. Fiddle Faddle 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Either way, WP:APPROXDATE, fourth bullet. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting. What would you suggest I do in this situation? What does "don't let yourself get riled up" mean, exactly? I was careful to stop short of 3RR this time; is that what you mean?
There has been no sanction here, and, based on the non-result of my similar ANI complaint in August, I'm not optimistic about action in this matter. This is what I meant when I said ANI is a waste of time.
What mental adjustment is required for me to continue at Wikipedia? That WP:CONSENSUS isn't really as important as its policy status implies?
There is nothing ambiguous or subjective about a situation like this one. It is not a matter of perspective. One editor is committed to an orderly process, the other is clearly not. Full stop. That should be the main criterion, and it currently is not.
The community currently bends over backwards to avoid driving off chronic disrupters in the name of editor retention, with no regard for the more mild-mannered editors being driven off (or never starting in the first place) by those disrupters and the toxic environment they create. Unless this changes, Wikipedia is doomed in my opinion. The active editor count will continue to decline until this star burns out. Or, there will be no one left but the disrupters, the ones who have a stomach for a fight, perhaps even thrive on fights. Either outcome will be very sad, and so avoidable. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Time after time after time, as outlined in my report, the user demonstrated cluelessness about editing process. All one has to do is read with an open mind. My claims are easy to verify; it's all there in the record. A consensus is void because he wasn't involved in the discussion? Seriously? Being open to a new consensus, per policy, requires actively seeking an acceptable compromise solution with the other editor? And the fact that I find no compromise acceptable means I'm not really open to a new consensus? Really?? Since arguments should be policy-based, I can simply declare that my proposed edit is per policy X, and there is no need to seek consensus about that? I don't think so.
Now, I don't fault anyone for a lack of editing competence. We're all newborn babies when we start editing, and it takes years to learn and comprehend all this stuff. I avoid areas including BLP and copyright because I know I lack competence there, and I sometimes violate something in those areas and need to be corrected. I do fault someone for consistently responding to constructive criticism/correction with knee-jerk anger and aggressiveness, making disputed edits without consensus, causing ongoing disruption. I fault someone for viewing WP:CONSENSUS as nothing but a weapon some editors use to prevent them from doing their righteous work in an article. I fault someone for consistently bobbing and weaving in a discussion, repeatedly missing points and twisting others' words. This kind of behavior is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, but it routinely is tolerated. Most of us are adults and we should be required to behave like adults, not like petulant six-year-olds (actually, most of us have seen better behavior in six-year-olds than much of what is currently tolerated at Wikipedia). Few of these people behave this way in real life; they do it here because they know they can get away with it here. It's past time that changed.
There are a few very experienced editors who tend to frequent the same kind of articles as I do, and who I respect and try to learn from and emulate. They are among the survivors, and I want to learn how they have survived. I've made an attempt to observe how they respond to editors like this one. Invariably, their response is to leave the article, temporarily or permanently, so they don't have to deal with it, just letting the editor do whatever they want. That's why I was left to deal with it alone, resulting in a 3RR+1 violation. I am not able to walk away like that, and I will have no choice but to leave the project if that is in fact the only solution.
Thank you for reading, if in fact you have done so. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have read it, and reflecting on an appropriate response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Almost three weeks is a lot of reflection. I'm in a very similar situation now and I am leaving the article lest some disruptive user take me to ANEW on a 3RR+1 violation, which would no doubt result in the second block of my career. It's a Wonderful Life. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - three weeks goes very fast! And that was one long rambling post. If you're having problems on article let me know and I'll try and take a look. Please don't feel that you are on your own. I suggest that if you have reverted once then it's time to stop and attempt discussion. If that doesn't work and you've reverted twice, then it's time to seek assistance from other editors. Just be careful not to leave yourself open to accusations of edit warring, because in the perspective of an admin patrolling WP:AN3 you are then just as culpable as the other party. Don't know if that helps at all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment is being removed from this AFD, could you please restore it:

• Comment The Working Definition of Antisemitism gives as one example of antisemitism “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”. The definition was created in 2004 by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now known as the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union. It has received widespread international use, for example in its adopted by the US Government for the State Department Report on antisemitism, and in its adoption by the British Police as part of their Hate Crimes Operations Guide . The London Declaration of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, signed by members of Parliament from around the world also adopts the Working Definition and encourages its widespread use. Comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, calling Israel a Nazi state, or saying Jews should know better and not behave like Nazis are all forms of the racist attack that uses Jewish identity as grounds for attacking. This needs to be called out.

Thank you, 184.164.147.2 (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ, please have a look here.
Have you read? If you have not, please do it before continuing the reading. As you can see, there is one more user and also a user since 2005 who agree to add the pronunciation of the Italian word "Mafia". Is this enough for you? I would like to hear your answer to be sure, I have learnt to be careful with trigger (block) happy admins. If you have no objection about that matter, I will write in the talk page that a consensus has been reached, then one of the two users shall add the pronunciation. Is this ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.112.193 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 4 December 2015