Open main menu

Thank You!Edit

Dear MPS1992:

I just received notification that you awarded me a "Barnstar"! Thank you very much.

Can you tell me... Have we crossed paths - meaning that we both edited the same article or articles? I am so new at this that I don't know how to see all of the contributions that other editors have made. I can see the edits for a particular article but I don't know how to see the entire body of another editor's work.

If we did not cross paths, can you tell me the article or articles where you saw my work? It would be helpful for me to know where I have made a valuable contribution or contributions.

Again, that you for the "Barnstar." It is the first award that I have received.

Sincerely, Virgil Fairchild VFF0347 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4Edit

Kelli WardEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

No refactoringEdit

I reverted your edit at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost per WP:REFACTOR. You have absolutely no business removing other editors comments on talk pages, unless those comments were on your own talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

... or unless those comments were made ignorantly. It's one or the other. MPS1992 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The drama pages are generally pretty tedious. You end up wading deep in drivel alot of the time. Only foraying occasionally and otherwise sticking to content space and discussion is a much saner way to edit here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: thank you, that's good advice. One of the participants here seems to have been given it before at least once but isn't paying much attention. As for me, I think even foraying occasionally is a little too much :) I've bookmarked Wikipedia:Peer review and will spend some time there -- it's annoying that it's automatically generated, so watchlisting it won't serve to give me reminders. But I might end up visiting Slough later anyway, if the peanut gallery get their way. MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


"obvious canvassing going on"Edit

Could you please clarify this diff. Who canvassed whom? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Why does this fellow take such care to ping you to get credit, after posting to agree with your point of view? Even carefully including "Message text." which presumably he was supposed to remove before pasting!!? MPS1992 (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
If you have concerns, please take them to the appropriate admin noticeboard. Article Talk pages are not the right venue for this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
As you wish. MPS1992 (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Then you should at least sign the template. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I will consider it. MPS1992 (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Like the other templates with similar usage for AfD and MfD, and so on, the template documentation does not recommend signing it. Are you really suggesting that a !vote that includes "Message text." should be taken seriously by the closing administrator? MPS1992 (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sidney Lanier, etc.Edit

Hi! While I agree with you that Sidney Lanier should be mentioned as more than a confederate soldier, please consider your approach to editors with whom you have disagreed, specifically @John from Idegon:. Your comments on the talk pages could be construed as a personal attack. Throwing a template on his talk page as if he were a newbie is kind of insulting. If you want to gain consensus, it is far more productive to approach it kindly, and civilly, discussing the facts, rather than the person. Remember the old saying, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar". Or maybe I just like old sayings :). Anyway, let's work on getting the article right by discussing. Don't blow things up by adding unnecessary confrontation, the facts and the sources should speak for themselves, or they should just shut up. Thanks for your work. Jacona (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, it appears you might be following @John from Idegon: around the encyclopedia. Remember that stalking is not acceptable behavior.Jacona (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ip sock editorEdit

MPS, the IP address is a Chicago based IP used by HughD who enjoys hounding several editors here. It was tagged as likely in 2017. Admin NeilN frequently removed such edits though they haven't posted in several months. Note the ip editor previous edits. I will file a SPI when I get back to a real computer later today. Springee (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The comments did not look like "hounding" to me. I'm sure an administrator will take care of any issues as needed. MPS1992 (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Look at HughD's rap sheet. The editor was indef'ed due to failure to abide a politics topic ban. As I hope if you look you will understand. Springee (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not all that interested in politics, sorry. MPS1992 (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Answers to my cats bizarre behaviorEdit

My cat Boon’GaBoo, a newly adopted trailer park cat, has a strange habit. A fetish really if u ask me. She developed an attachment to me right off the bat the 1st time i let her inside my home. Now, quite often, while im laying down (on my back) she will put herself between my left arm and side and starts forcing her head into my arm pit and starts licking my shirt sleeve really fast (like she drinking water)and at same time wraps both her paws all way around my upper arm and starts kneading her paws and claws into my arm like she is a kitten nursing on her moms teat. But she is licking. Not suckling. And purring vigorously. If i let her she will do that until she finally gives up and falls asleep right where she is. Its always my left arm and it doesn’t matter what shirt as long as im wearing it. Doesnt matter if i just got off work and smell bad or if i just got out the shower n put deodorant on. Doesnt matter as long as it is me. She wont do it to my brother who lives with me or anyone else. Also fyi... i have never known any cat to be so calm and really laid back. Even when my brothers cat starts getting frisky and starts trying to play rough with Boonga, i mean claws n biting, If Boonga isnt in the mood she will just sit there and let the other cat bite n claw away until it loses interest. Then boonga just lays back down. At the same time she is very very very needy when it comes to having my full attention. And extremely jealous when my brothers female cat gets close to me or trys to go inside her mini bedroom i built for her. Ive provided all this info in the hopes of having my question answered. WHY does she do that to my shirt sleeve??? BoongaBoo (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Two trailer park cats go round the outside, round the outside, round the outside
@BoongaBoo: I am sorry that I do not know the answer to your question. My initial thoughts:
  • This is clearly a behavioral issue that you have been unable to resolve despite attempting multiple other avenues for resolution. On Wikipedia the next step in such a situation is normally to open an arbcom case.
  • An indefinite pheromone block might be an alternative.
  • Or you could ask for help at the Reference Desk by clicking this link
While on this topic, I am concerned that the Bio for this Instagram account is out of date. Would you be able to assist in updating it? MPS1992 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Emigrate vs. ImmigrateEdit

For Aayan Hirsi Ali, "emigrate" is from the point of view of the country one's leaving. "Immigrate" is from the point of view of the country being arrived in, and is correct here. See this article for elaboration. --Dtwedt (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I regard it as a horrific abomination of a neologism, not a question of point of view. But it's no big deal I suppose. MPS1992 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: sockingEdit

Please don’t advise editors who have just been blocked to evade their block in a few years. I get that some people don’t care, but the community as a whole has rejected this approach and encouraging a CIR case to sock isn’t ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the community's view, I'm not sure that's the case.
When a user is advised to take a break until they are a year or two older [and more competent], and indicates that they plan to do so, following that up by blocking them indefinitely does not seem helpful. Although admittedly I haven't checked if the user actually followed up their statement about taking a break with new disruptive edits elsewhere.
If the user comes back in two years and is still not competent enough to edit, then they'll get blocked whether on a new account or the old one. If they come back in two years and are competent enough to edit, they will not have any problems even on a new account.
But, feel free to remove or refute my suggestion on the user's talkpage. I've unwatchlisted the page, and I'm not planning to make a habit of giving advice to the indefinitely blocked. MPS1992 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If a user is indefinitely blocked, they are ineligible for a clean start under a new account per the clean start policy and the blocking policy, both of which are the documented community view on this topic. They have to appeal under their blocked account. This is important because lying about one's history on the project (which block evasion is), harms community trust. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm already aware of what those pages say. MPS1992 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 11:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

wumbolo ^^^ 11:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: student editsEdit

Hi - I didn't want to use my work account for this (Shalor (Wiki Ed)) since I wanted this to be more of an informal note. I'm responding about the content with the student's article on Túpac Amaru II. Basically, the main thing to remember here is to always assume good faith. This can definitely be hard to do sometimes, especially if you're frustrated, tired, etc, but it's easier to resolve things by approaching them calmly than by being heated as starting off with being upset only puts the other person on the defensive. They're more likely to see the response as an attack and be less likely to see any points you may want to make, so they'll respond to a heated note by also being heated, which makes it very difficult to resolve things.

Keep in mind that it takes a lot of editors a while to adapt to Wikipedia's writing style, so it's not something that is especially limited to students. It's just often easier to spot with students since they can often do larger edits and are sometimes more visible because they're typically labeled as students. I know that my first edits are kind of cringeworthy, to be honest. (I will just leave this here.)

Part of this is because many of the guidelines on here are fairly different than they are in other areas. I didn't get a really good idea of how differently other aspects of academia and professional scholarship tended to think until I took on a volunteer gig with the Library of Virginia and had to explain some of the basic guidelines to historians that worked there. Terms and guidelines that sounded reasonable to myself were actually pretty foreign and in some cases almost in opposition to some of their guidelines. Writing styles and notability were two of the biggest examples of this. For them notability was judged on things like what the person did (not only very major things, but things that could mark someone as notable to them, such as being a major plantation owner or leader of several local organizations) and if the LVA or other institutions archived their papers. Independent, secondary coverage was actually not one of the most major determinants, although they didn't discount it, which is in fairly direct opposition to how things are done on here since it pretty much comes down to coverage for almost everything. With writing styles, they would use words that would seem innocuous to them were fine to use despite them not being OK on here or include details that wouldn't really be seen as very pertinent for Wikipedia's purposes. The average editor is actually more likely to approach things from the perspective of a student, since they're more likely to assume that it's going to be similar to writing an academic or scholarly paper, which means that they're going to have even more of a culture shock than the historians did. I've found that just pointing out guidelines doesn't really help things unless you personalize it somewhat to the individual's edits, especially as the pages on Wikipedia can be pretty hard to understand on their own. We've tried to simplify this for the students, but there's still some confusion her and there.

I'm not really trying to excuse poor edits, I more wanted to give you my general perspective on things as a general editor rather than solely from the viewpoint of someone working with students. This is all a bit long so I suppose that my main takeaway will be that it takes people a while to get used to editing Wikipedia, even with supervision and guidelines, because the writing styles can be so foreign to them. In some cases they may just need a bit of further explanation to help make something really seem clear. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 19:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: thank you for these notes, that is very useful. I see the student has taken some of the feedback on board and ultimately added some (mostly) unproblematic material to the article. I've not contributed further to the discussion on the instructor's talk page because I think they're right that my approach there was far too confrontational. I remain a little concerned and a little surprised that there are so many issues with student edits, but I can see that a great deal of effort is being put in to try and guide them in the right direction. MPS1992 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer grantedEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

– Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Editor's Barnstar
A compassionate human being who knows that Desmond Napoles is only a child. scope_creepTalk 12:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hawker Hurricane page correctionsEdit

I see I will need to add some sources.

First, the image I corrected the title from Yugoslavian Mk.I to Mk.IV (mark 1 to mark 4, the RAF used Roman style numerals until 1946 or 47) here [[1]]

is actually listed in the photo caption as a Mk.IV RP, and a colour image of the same aircraft is shown on the same page further down,


as on display in Belgrade. the aircraft in question is has the serial LD975 in the first photo As the Mk.IV was built to carry various of equipment, Mk.IV RP (RP = rocket projectile) is a an inaccurate description too. the markings are of the Yugoslav partisan airforce as well. (modified RAF markings, which supplied the aircraft) there are images of Yugoslavian Royal Air Force Hurricanes here if you wish to compare with the image above]

Regarding the Sea Hurricane IC comments, please note the standard references are wrong, and I linked to a Britmodeller discussion on this, where sources are mentioned.

Nearly all Hurricane references are based upon the work of Francis K Mason, and this is where this error originates. I can see this will be a problem, as the sources that refute this are not published, apart from the works of Ray Sturtivant which lists Fleet Air Arm serials, where no Hawker Hurricane IC aircraft are listed.

I appreciate that sources are needed, I started this thread on Britmodeller on an area of Hurricane detailing of common confusion to modellers,

Which I hope will show a level of knowledge on the subject, which is why I wished to correct long standing inaccuracies being repeated.

links to correct sourcing, and methods of verification are appreciated. Troy G Smith (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Troy G Smith: thank you for explaining this in such detail. I am sorry to be a nuisance, but could you raise these points on the article talk page Talk:Hawker Hurricane please? It won't get resolved on my talk page one way or the other. Situations where otherwise reliable sources all contain inaccuracies because of mistakes in earlier work are particularly difficult to deal with, so I appreciate your efforts to sort it out.
WP:Citing sources is a useful guide to citing sources. Using links to web forum threads is almost never acceptable, whether the forum thread itself contains details of further sources or not.
WT:AVIATION or WT:MILHIST might be good places to ask for further help. MPS1992 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992 Thank you for pointing me to the correct place to discuss this, I just joined as I wished to add to the information on Hawker Hurricanes. Apologies if this is not the correct protocol for saying thank you, there is a lot to digest in guidelines, but wished to acknowledge your help in the meantime. Troy G Smith (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

KD and WP:BLPEdit

Hi, just noticed your removal of my link to the Reply All (podcast) episode regarding Kevin Durant and sockpuppetry of Twitter accounts from the Top 25 Report. I am curious as to why you consider this to be a BLP issue, given that it was reported upon by the aforementioned podcast, which I would feel constitutes a reliable source. I have no problem with the removal, as it doesn't detract from the commentary, so this is more a question out of curiosity than anything else. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC).

Thank you for reaching out. TBH I wouldn't consider that to be a reliable source for a contentious claim about a living person. But who knows, maybe I am out of touch with celebrity and podcast things, and saying that someone has been involved in "anonymously hyping" themselves is not a contentious claim?
I am a little puzzled that we have a regular editor at that page -- with 70,000 edits and 14 years' service, no less -- who thinks that WP:BLP does not apply outside mainspace. The very first sentence of that policy says otherwise. Probably worth keeping an eye on. MPS1992 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@MPS1992: - Here is the New York Times article on Durant's Twitter kerfuffle, though it states that Durant denies claims of sockpuppetry, so your removal was probably justified. I personally don't consider it too egregious a claim to make, but it is also of minimal importance to the report. Better safe than sorry, I guess. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Reliable source reports that there has been speculation that a living person had "perhaps" done X. Wikipedia page then states, in Wikipedia's voice, that doing X is the living person's "other hobby" apart from his professional career.
Not OK. Even under a "humor" banner. MPS1992 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the justified removal. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: regarding my puzzlement above about a regular editor on that page, unfortunately they now seem to be trying to jump the shark. There's already a little controversy and an attempted arbcom case over the current issue of the Signpost, so dragging in nude BLP edit-warring as well is not ideal. Perhaps you have more influence than I, and you could have a chat off-line with them in some manner? It would be much appreciated, I am much too lazy for arbcom proceedings, or even ANI ones if they can be avoided. MPS1992 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting other user's commentsEdit

Hi, I just wanted to leave a friendly reminder to be careful about reverting changes, as you recently reverted my comments on AN3 [2], as well as edits by administrator ST47. You may want to at least reinsert ST47's edit [3]. Hope this helps. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thank you for the heads up. MPS1992 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I reinserted the admin's content for you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy! It's appreciated. MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
No worries. All the best! Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dude what is with you?Edit

You asked me to source it. I sourced it. Or were you just being smugly rhetorical? Serendipodous 20:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Was that a smugly rhetorical question? MPS1992 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Why did you accuse me of edit warring when I did what you asked me to do? Serendipodous 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Because you were edit-warring. While we're at it, do you still believe that WP:BLP does not apply outside of article space, as you said here? MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, how informative. And yes, I've reviewed the policy, but people are still allowed to voice opinions in editorial articles, which is what the Top 25 Report is. Serendipodous 21:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be confused. Smallbones is not as confused as you are. In time, this will be fixed. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

it isEdit

making English How would you like your trout, sir or madam, cold or warm? I'm afraid cook is away, so it will be raw. cygnis insignis 23:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

A year ago ...
better wording welcome
... you were recipient
no. 1984 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

thank you Gerda Arendt! that long already MPS1992 (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Wetterling PageEdit

I see you removed all my edits regarding the Wetterling murder and reverted back to a milquetoast watered down version of the truth. If you have questions or problems with my extensive edits, I'm surprised you didn't make an effort to communicate with me rather than delete everything. The previous version didn't come close to establishing the truth, especially the extent to which law enforcement utterly failed to do its job and the way in which those blunders adversely impacted so many people, so I'm curious to know your stake in the Wetterling case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randleb (talkcontribs)

Hey, thanks for reaching out. I have no stake in the Wetterling case -- I have never been to Minnesota, and I don't know anyone from Minnesota, that I'm aware of. Actually I've only visited the USA twice, quite briefly on both occasions. Anyway the place to discuss proposed additions to the article, or problems with the existing article is on the article talk page. MPS1992 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I Appreciate the HelpEdit

Hey @PlanespotterA320: Thank you for helping me a lot with the insight I sure do need it it dose help!Jack90s15 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not him, but you are very welcome anyway. The next thing I might do to help, is to steal the Shift key off of your keyboard, so that you write like ee cummings. Instead of like This. :)MPS1992 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


Special:Diff/908474286 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, and now the opportunity to remove it silently is gone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you please kindly consider taking the opportunity this time to avoid this completely unnecessary escalation? All I see is something that may look embarrassing in hindsight. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Lots of poeple seem invested in lots of foolish behaviour. Which of them are looking to offer apologies? MPS1992 (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


Hey @MPS1992: I am done adding stuff to the 2 page I made, if you can could you look over it to see if I made any accidental mistakes thanks.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: I have made a few changes, but you need to go over your sources more carefully. They are discussing at least three separate missions on at least three separate dates -- remember to mention the year at least once -- not two. None of the sources state that he shot down nine floatplanes in one mission. MPS1992 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
OK I will add the date to it for the missions and and you are right typo my bad MARINE CORPS AIR DEPOT, MIRAMAR, Calif., Dec. 17 [1943],
 "On June 30," his citation states, "Lieutenant Shaw was a member of a flight of fighter planes which attacked a formation of nine enemy float planes and in the action which followed he ::personally sent two of them crashing into the sea. On July 15 his flight intercepted a force of eight enemy twin-engined bombers and in determined attacks he sent two of them down in flames.
@MPS1992: OK I put the year and the two dates down when they happened they were in 1943 June then July how does it look now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talkcontribs)
Looking better, but the sources say that the mission where he was protecting the dive bombers and engaged Zero fighters was on July 16, not in June. The newspaper sources are confusing, but it also appears that his Distinguished Flying Cross was for combat on June 30th, July 15th, July 17th and July 18th -- not for the combat on July 16th that the same source talks about further up, the one where he was escorting dive bombers. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes. MPS1992 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@MPS1992: I Changed it to say 1943 and thanks I will post it nowJack90s15 (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
For your comments assisting J-Man11 regarding his Inkerman Barracks draft. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: thank you, that is much appreciated -- I was not sure how well received my input would be, given the status of things on that talkpage. So it is reassuring that it was helpful. How things turn out ultimately, I guess the jury is still out. The editor does seem to need reminding of things quite frequently :) On a tentatively positive note, the editing in general does not seem to be appallingly bad, just moderately bad ... I have seen editors with equivalent skills who are unblocked and still editing. That's no great recommendation, admittedly. I am myself an editor who was recently blocked and merely happens not to be blocked right now this moment ...
I can't face going through the talk page history to see how problems started, but can I assume that it involved creation of large numbers of articles all of which had serious problems, continuing after warnings? MPS1992 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, you will see by the time of the top of his current talkpage, I had lost my temper and was SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS. And he kept deleting his talkpage history!! Please keep an eye on his talkpagedraftspace edits as much as possible. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Note on talk pageEdit

Hi, I saw you left me a templated level 2 warning on my talk page regarding personal attacks on editors in response to my efforts to revert vandalism from a certain editor and warn said editor for repeatedly tripping the edit filter, which blocked further vandalism from the user. I would encourage you to review the editor's attempts to vandalize; to wit, 1 2. Issuing templated warnings to users who repeatedly trip the edit filter and vandalize is not a personal attack. Thank you. Next256 (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, "Next256". Please tell us how in your first few edits, you learned so much about the edit filter. Most of your edits seem to be related to it. MPS1992 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I have been around on the site for a few years and saw various instances of vandalism so I spent time looking into ways to combat it. I monitored recent changes but then discovered the edit filter to monitor as well. It stops vandalism before it is successfully added to the site and is an effective mechanism. Next256 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I see. Please do a better job of explaining to new or unregistered editors, what they have done wrong. Otherwise, your edits are likely to be reverted without further consideration. MPS1992 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Gregory J. WeissenbergerEdit

Howdy, gave a quick polish of Gregory J. Weissenberger while curating. If you think it is now more readable could you remove the copyedit tag? Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The template seems to be gone now, I will follow up on the article talk page. Thanks, MPS1992 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The article creator took it down, I saw your message and just gave it a second polish. I think it is now free of the worst grammatical errors. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


Could you, please, stop sending pre-made warning templates and come forward to discuss your problems. I see you are Bangladeshi editor, better edit in your area of expertise. Störm (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you are Bangladeshi editor, better edit in your area of expertise -- what a very strange demand to make of a fellow editor. MPS1992 (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, that would be helpful if someone edit the topics he knows about. Otherwise, they would create mess. Störm (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
No, that's totally inappropriate. Please don't use an editor's nationality as a qualification. El_C 22:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

  Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


Why would I be inclined to withdraw my complaint? Am I wrong in thinking that Cullen328 was being overly aggressive? I mean, the guy just posted on my talk page - while his AN complaint is occurring - the following: "Now we are seeing what other editors and administrators think about your behavior. That is good." ( 1)
Tell me that is not the mark of someone being way, way too aggressive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: That is not the mark of someone being way, way too aggressive. You have been quite aggressive yourself in certain messages, don't you think? @Cullen328: was perhaps being rather harsh, and perhaps they were in an ill temper and perhaps they would benefit from a nice walk in a meadow surrounded by birds tweeting and summer sunshine and such. But your behavior has been problematic. You need to acknowledge that, before someone starts placing sanctions on you. MPS1992 (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the input; I am acting on it as per my last few posts in AN. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I was not in an ill temper at all, and as for the walk you suggest, I had walked all around the historic Sonoma Plaza with my wife a few hours earlier, where we visited an art museum and had dinner at an excellent restaurant. I am firm about BLP violations but that is my job as an administrator. Perhaps I was a bit more firm than I might otherwise have been when I noticed directly above the comment "Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining." That was directed at the editor who reported the BLP violation at WP:BLPN, which I had just read moments before. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for David Morgan (pilot)Edit

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you for Writing me . I’ve received notification that you have opened a discussion on my profile, but unfortunately I can’t open it with the notification link. I will appreciate if you can copy it here, or help me learn how to access my talk page. Regards Shahabimilad1387 (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Jo CoxEdit

I have had a post removed due to being unneutral..... on the Jo Cox murder there is no evidence of Tommy Mair was the murderer. Infact video evidence proves he wasn't the man even questioned and a lookalike was used. The original article is biased. Mulder's mate (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
For being so helpful and knowledgeable ! Jack90s15 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Who, me?!? :) Thanks Jack! MPS1992 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Simply for making my day!Niggle1892 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Brock Blomberg requestEdit

Hello! I want to thank you for helping with this request to remove misinterpreted content from the Brock Blomberg article. You had asked if there was other problematic content, and I've since submitted a second request to remove (what I believe to be) misinterpreted content about journalist Juan Williams. Seems User:Pelagic agrees the content should be removed. Are you willing to consider removing that text from the page? Actually, the last 2 paragraphs of the "Career" section are problematic and subjective (as outlined here), but I'm willing to focus on the Juan Williams content specifically if that's your preference. Thanks again for your help and your willingness (again!) to give this your attention. I also appreciate your feedback and guidance. TY Ursinus (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MPS1992".