The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thank you for your kind words on ANI, I know that I'm not perfect but I try to do my best and also the right thing. In future, I will stand by my new found belief as stated on my talk because its not worth my time and energy to take on their load. Duds in here are duds in real life too, why try to sing to a cow, right? In any case, I really appreciate your kindness and wish you a great day ahead. Best. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received the email and have already used the Credo account once. Thank you so very much for the account! There is NO ACCESS where I live so I am especially appreciative! Mugginsx (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! So glad you're finding it useful :) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the vandalism. I rechecked my entry and it looks OK. Also thanks for sorting out the introduction it's looking good!!

Rgds. Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I may have missed a message or two of yours during my extended wikibreak. Also, thank you for the barnstar. Hope all is well with you and yours this holiday season. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind words. Wishing you a successful and happy new year. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for all your hard work on the Mayflower passenger articles, you have earned this award several times over for your fine editing. And maybe I can think of a few other Barnstars you really deserve also.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usnguy (talk • contribs) 20:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Mugginsx (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I don't really understand what you were trying to say, could you provide me with some diffs? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)�[reply]

Sure. I will do it by email again. Mugginsx (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I can assure you that I didn't do that deliberately; I think I must have hit the rollback button on my watchlist accidentally. I figured this out just before you emailed me and left him a message on his talk page; he can fix it if he wants to. Thanks for letting me know. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Have hit the rollback key by mistake myself. It happens. Thanks for fixing. Mugginsx (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that the protocol on discussions, and what people actually prefer can be confusing. So I post this here as well as on my talk page. Perhaps it should be reverted. It looks like the type of insidious vandalism that the essays warn against as the worst kind. That is, it looks like it may be credible so editors are reluctant to revert it, as I was, even though it is suspicious to someone with some familiarity with the subject. It might take a good amount of research to come to a firm conclusion that it is wrong. The names sound perhaps right, one or two perhaps a bit off for the time. At least I tagged it for a citation needed; but perhaps with a closer look, it should be reverted with a note that it should only be added if there is a reliable, verifiable source. Donner60 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I reverted it. It is in none of the usual sources. Mugginsx (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Stephen Hopkins (Mayflower passenger), I think you've already done what I would have suggested - seek out the other talk page participant's opinion regarding the use of the source under discussion. I think now everyone is agreed that it's ok to use, so you can feel justified in reinstating statements based on that source. - Nunh-huh 01:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and guidance. Mugginsx (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would check back with this talk page. The objections you had regarding author Caleb Johnson have been answered and several examples have been given. Would like to hear if your opinion has changed so we know how to proceed. Thankyou. Mugginsx (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not thrilled with using self-published sources, but it seems everyone else is content with recognizing Johnson as an expert, so I'm not going argue about it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think this is the only author I have ever used that is both self-published and published by other sources and I do agree with you on authors that are only self-published. Mugginsx (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Christopher Jones (''Mayflower Captain). Since you had some involvement with the Christopher Jones (Mayflower Captain) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Senator2029 “Talk” 17:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit and this comment, it would help other editors if you use edit summaries to, for example, note vandalism. Its better than leaving other editors guessing. I have never seen information in Wikipedia formatted as "________". If there is a difference amongst sources its better to note it in text, I usually do it this way. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the names entered into same section. They are not in the reference material that I cited nor were any NEW references mentioned. If you have another reference - and only then - you may enter it. Otherwise, please leave it alone. Thank you. The vandalism is mentioned on the Talk page, Mugginsx (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the edits and exchange with this editor please note, calling that editor a "vandal" because you disagree with him/her and referring to my edits as pseudointellectual interference goes way outside "Wikiquette" and actually could lead to your account being blocked, but if you are a "Senior Editor" you should know that, linking WP:EQ just in case. Some of what you are blanking out seems to be easily varified[1]. If you are saying there is a difference in sources you should avoid stating your opinions as facts ---> see WP:YESPOV, bullet #1. I have already given you at least one alternative way to do this. You also seem to be trying to WP:OWN the article, but I could have all this wrong, feel free to elucidate, or not. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary I reverted because whomever entered those names used MY sources which did NOT, in fact, contain the new information the editor claimed. It seems to be a common form of vandalism and is used frequently. If they add new information that is specific as names, they must verify. I am not trying to own the article -- just to keep it accurate which is sometimes like a full-time job with people adding false names, etc., without references to verify. For some reason, it seems to happen alot on Mayflower-related articles and I think many admiistrators will tell you these particular articles seem to attract vandalism, possibly because the article names are well-known to younger people. Administrators have sometimes asked me to verify suspicious sounding edits on these articles because they know I have created many of the Mayflower-related articles and use verifiable sources. My references are "automatically accepted" on the latter articles. I worked very hard to earn that and I don't mind helping them "shovel the trash-vandalism" that often goes into the articles.

If any editor has new information and a reference to back it up, it is ALWAYS welcomed - but, in this case the information was highly suspect because, as I have said, no new references were given. It was not a difference in sources as you seem to have suggested. The editor added NO new sources, he just left mine which did NOT contain the new information he added. If you search the edit history and talk pages of these articles in particular, I think you will see the kind of vandalism to which I refer. Further, I have not seen any guidelines that preclude using lines to indicate name unknown. Lastly, information should not be reverted solely because of a lack of an edit summary, although I will agree with you that I should have entered an edit summary and have now done so.Mugginsx (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't forget to log in. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mugginsx. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]