Open main menu


MfD nomination of MediaWiki:Articlefeedback-pitch-join-messageEdit

  MediaWiki:Articlefeedback-pitch-join-message, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Article feedback tool messages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Articlefeedback-pitch-join-message 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. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 ThunderEdit

Hi, there's some changes being done again, would it be ok to request a revert to the mutually agreed paragraph under 'Talk' and enable Protection on the page again? Thanks in advance ChopperHarley (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I see the article has been protected now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


You approved this user's unblock request, writing "You've got another chance. But it's not just slavery articles you need to be careful with - last time you were edit warring on Saudi Arabia. Stop after the first or second revert and go to the talk page" here.

As such you might find [1] instructive - straight back with four reverts, the first three of which repeat reverts done just before their block.

[2] - two reverts, removing material they were also reverting to remove before their block.

[3] - two reverts on Slavery, repeating a revert from before their block, and particularly curious in view of their unblock request stating "I am not going to make any edit in there(articles that are related to slavery) at least for the next 6 months". (Also [4] is in violation of that promise, albeit not a bad edit in and of itself...)

Plainly their unblock request was mendacious and I'd be grateful if you would take action. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: You have reverted my edit saying per another editor(you didnt give a reason) . In the slavery article I made 2 reverts because the other editor made edits that were against consensus that I thought we had made and now there is a RfC about it. you are obviously trying to get me blocked. BTW the Senhaja article there was a removal of sourced information without any explanation. For my promise "I am not going to make any edit in there(articles that are related to slavery) at least for the next 6 months" as I said I didnt make any edit except in when there was an edit against consesus and I am sorry for that because I thought we had reached consensus and there is a RfC disscucsion there.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that this is an explicit admission that they broke that promise. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
We have solved that problem and I am not going to edit in any slavery article again. I have raised a report against the other editor who reverted against the consensus and firstly I reported the other editor here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and BTW I tagged MSGJ before making any edit and I said I am going to edit there and two days after I did revert and we have a RfC discussion now. You are assuming bad faith and obviously trying to get me blocked--SharabSalam (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinkbeast Also for the sexual slavery article I really didnt notice that it is about slavery I just noticed now I have been deleting Gatestone Institute sources from many articles per a disscussion we had in here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--SharabSalam (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I will look into this later when I have time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hovering over a "D" in Watchlist produces text with embedded markupEdit

In the en Wikipedia Watchlist, when hovering the cursor over a "D" symbol on the left of a history item, a small pop-up box appears with an explanation of the symbol. However the explanatory text shown in the box reads:

Edit made at Wiki<span style="text_decoration: underline;">d</span>ata

Obviously the intent is to display the word "Wikidata" with an underlined "d", but the hover box isn't rendering the underline and the text actually displayed would be very confusing to a non-techie. I reported this to Phabricator T218936 and they tracked it down to this edit you made on November 7, 2017: [5]

I think the simplest solution would be for you to undo that edit. It was a nice idea, but my guess is that almost all users of the watchlist seeing the message will be able to figure out that D stands for data without the underling hint. --agr (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have undone that edit. I imagine that it used to display properly, because I'm sure I would have tested it after deploying. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a "List of abbreviations" box in the upper right that has the same text and, I noticed, did display the underline properly. I suspect you were aiming to add the underline there and it tested ok, but you didn't realize that the same text string would be used in the hover box. Maybe that should be documented somewhere. Anyway, thanks for the quick fix.--agr (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ìõl all La Palicki invincible GfKEdit

Pit stop by FC Barcelona vs Chelsea and Liverpool FC Barcelona and Liverpool Street and Liverpool Street station is major railway stations on my friend is major and minor or ngabantu year and Liverpool Street my war on terror attacks on this device is not send anything from Mthatha is myself from Mthatha and minor or uqhubeke uqhase be talking with me know if there Situation power — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)



Just enquiring how you saw that discussion as a no consensus? With roughly 8 supports and 4 opposes, and also the weight of a guideline established by recent RFC behind it as well, I would have thought that was a fairly clear consensus to move. Any chance you could reevaluate, or provide some more context around the close? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I will take another look. It didn't help that there were three parallel discussions going on. See also my note at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I've undone my close; you were right to question me about it. I'll keep thinking about it and may reclose, or perhaps someone else will close it. Unfortunately the RfC was not that well attended and produced a rather vague outcome, otherwise it would have trumped all these discussions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has reverted me and reclosed the discussion. This is not really acceptable as I do not stand by that close anymore. There is a new discussion ongoing at KCLA (defunct). I'm not sure what to do anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The new discussion at KCLA is a combination of the two discussions, radio and television. We actually had competing RMs going on due to a goof by Raymie and the TV RM would have been a Support, while the Radio RM would have been an Oppose (same discussion, two totally different decisions). So the decision was made to close both discussions, notify all who had taken place and restart the entire thing all over again with all pages listed (radio and television) in one place. The close was not made to shut down a discussion, but to move that discussion to a place where it would make more logical sense. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:12 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
You should not be taking such actions, as you are not neutral on the issue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I asked to help. You had already closed the discussion, then reopened it, making it difficult for us to combine the two discussions. I just reverted your revert of your closure. There is a new discussion, a combined discussion, on the exact same topic, so what are we talking about here? - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:25 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
I realized that a measure I had taken — splitting the requested move of 96 titles across four pages to make it more manageable — had the opposite effect. (I left Talk:WLQR (AM) in place as that case is a little more complicated.) The RMs of 70, 11 and 13 pages have been combined into one 94-article RM (one of the original articles was instead merged and I found a new article that would qualify for a move), on which I pinged all participants in any of the RMs and also notified the Manual of Style, Radio Stations and Television Stations projects. Raymie (tc) 20:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


I was wondering if you might consider running for RfB anytime soon. From what I've seen you have a 10+ years solid adminship stint, and people know you have a WP:CLUE. I'm sure you won't have dearth of co-noms either (count me in!). Given that the community has looked favourably to RfBs this past while, I was thinking if you might be interested. --qedk (t c) 20:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Zak Smith is having problems againEdit

Two edits today removing the allegations against established consensus, both by redlinked accounts that have edited no other articles, both with similar writing patterns to their edit summaries (and they feel similar to our good friend FixerFixerFixer; possible sockpuppetry?). It would be greatly appreciated if you were able to swing by and have a look. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And now there's an enormous comment on the talkpage that seems to be skirting awfully close to a legal threat. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Accusing everyone who agrees with me or of being me is bad faith. The page is left with the vandalism up because of a supposed "consensus" and whenever any use disagrees with it their vote doesn't count. How many people have to point out these edits are harassment before it stops being a "consensus"?FixerFixerFixer (User talk:FixerFixerFixer) 24:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User: againEdit

Hi MSGJ. Back on 8 April, you kindly intervened with User: in response to my report at WP:AIV. This user has a nasty habit of reformatting references to remove all spaces from them, which makes editing very hard. They have been repeatedly asked to stop this and engage in a discussion, by multiple editors over the last 3 months. You left them a message on their talk page asking them to engage in discussion. Unfortunately the have continued with their disruptive editing - for example in this edit - and they have not engaged in a discussion of their behavior. Could you to take another look at this IP's editing? Many thanks for your help, Railfan23 (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-par/itemEdit

 Template:S-par/item has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cabayi (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MSGJ".