User talk:MSGJ/2016

Active discussions


In 2010 you fully-protected this page.

Please consider reducing the protection to pending-changes or semi-protection (or both) and putting an expiration date on it (I suggest 1 year - if there is no attempted abuse during that time then let it expire). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[]

I couldn't see exactly why this page was protected, although it has been deleted multiple times before. So I reduced to semi protection. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[]

Liam Payne

There have been reverts, including this month. Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[]

Renewed for 6 months, it seems to be working. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[]

Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978-present)

Hello! Under MOS:DASH, I believe Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978-present) should actually be at Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). I would move the article there myself, but... Anyway, as the admin who move-protected the article I thought I'd let you know... Thanks! --IJBall (contribstalk) 08:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[]

I see you couldn't wait for my reply and asked somewhere else. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[]

Template:US patent reference - Espacenet database problem. Can you help?

I made some recent edits to an inventor's page and tried to use the template Template:US patent reference. On doing so, it created a URL for the Espacenet database, but it appears that the patent is not in there. Specifically, it's a 1937 patent that appears in Google's database, but searches for the patent number come up blank just like the URL from the template. For now I'm using both the template with the bad URL and the Google URL as a separate reference.

In the template's talk page, there is a discussion between you and User:Cxw way back in 2010, but since she/he is on hiatus I'm hoping you can direct me towards someone who can help.

Do you know who could give me advice on this? Assuming there's no way to fix the database, what template should I use?

Thanks in advance, KNHaw (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[]

You dope!

  You dope, I sent a POTSTICKER!
Thank you for editing the page (should be marijuana dispensary) cannabis dispensary. Potguru (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[]

User:Ism schism edit warring

Hi, I see you have dealt with User:Ism schism before, who seems to have an extensive history with edit warring (and block log to match). The user is adding one-sided biased material to controversial articles (that often are under 1RR) like Bashar al-Assad and Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War, deleting huge chunks of referenced material that they apparently disagree with, making accusatory edit summaries, and making reference to non-existent talk page discussions to justify their edits. I really don't want to deal with this as I am hardly active on Wikipedia anymore, but this is becoming an issue as they are spreading their pattern of dogmatic edit warring to more and more articles. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[]

I'm not seeing any major problems. It doesn't look like 1RR has been breached. He/she has been contributing to some discussion on talk pages, but I can't see that you are engaging in any discussion - your last edit to the talk namespace was June 2015. I suggest you start posting on the article talk pages and work this out with him/her. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[]

MfD nomination of Draft:America: Imagine the World Without Her

  Draft:America: Imagine the World Without Her, 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/Draft:America: Imagine the World Without Her and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:America: Imagine the World Without Her 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[]

Template talk:Short pages monitor

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[]


Hi MSGJ. Thanks for the note. I'll happily stay away from the user's talkpage concerned (I guess a self-imposed IBAN). Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[]

How about undertaking not to call editors trolls when you disagree with them? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nsala soup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yam. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[]

Template:Cleanup section

Hi, I thought the norm was to have them as a banner, not a small container.
Such as the following:
Template:Refimprove section
Template:Advert section
Template:Weasel section
Template:Rewrite section
Template:BLP sources section
Template:Summarize section
Template:Repetition section

I found some that are similar to the current state of the cleanup template, but there's easily a smaller amount:
Template:Expand section
Template:Empty section
Template:News release section

There are more for both sections, I assume. As you can see there are a lot more with banners than small box-like designs. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[]

I agree that consistency would be good, and it might be an idea to gauge consensus on which design is preferred. For background, the small design arose after a long discussion (see Template talk:Expand section/Archive 1#More subtle style) but this was quite a long time ago and a revisit might be in order. Perhaps a first step might be some further research into how many of each type are used. I'll see what I can come up with. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[]
Would it be against the rules to be bold and just change them all? Or is consensus required; if so, where would the discussion be placed? Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[]
No, please don't be bold, there has been a lot of debate on this over the years, and you would annoy a lot of people. Check out the talk pages for each of the templates that you list above, and also those of their non-section versions; in several cases there are threads on this exact matter, sometimes two or more - one asking to make it small, another asking to make it big. Check the archives too, such as Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 12. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[]

I've created a tracking category Category:Articles using small message boxes to see how many articles are using these small boxes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[]


@MSGJ and Redrose64: I've created a discussion at the Village pump here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[]

I'll make a comment shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[]

Redirect categorization

Hi Martin! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  20:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[]

A situation

Hello. At Shooting of Samuel DuBose, I am in a 2-editor dispute where the other party refuses to leave his edit out until consensus is reached for it. The article has very low activity, and I'm not optimistic about getting more participation in the discussion, at least anytime soon. I believe the content may be a WP:BDP issue, given that the person died 7 months ago and a murder trial is pending. Regardless, I think status quo ante should be restored here, but I can't do that without continuing the edit warring. Please help. ―Mandruss  03:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[]

Thanks so much for ignoring my request for assistance. I won't call on you again.
The other editor's edits have been reverted by one of the two other editors (not admins) I called on. For over 19 hours the article contained material that, depending on which editor you ask, violated one or more of BDP, BLPPRIMARY, BLPCRIME, NOR, and WEIGHT/NPOV. It could easily have been longer, if they hadn't been so quick to respond, or if the matter had remained under discussion for awhile with the disputed edits in place.
This is why the concept of status quo ante is so important. Disputed edits should stay out until consensus is reached for them, and an admin should be willing to intervene to make that happen. If that principle can be abused in bad faith, too bad. The solution to that is not to avoid the principle but to stop showing so much tolerance for the people who abuse things in bad faith. ―Mandruss  23:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[]

Not ignoring, just too busy to look into it. I'll take a look today! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[]


I would thank you for protecting the template; however, it seems an unrequired reaction given that there's consensus on the edit and hence no further editing is needed on the template in question. So, other than a bit of power here and there, I see no need for it. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[]

Just an FYI

I altered one of your comments on AN/Talk to move my username to where my opinion positions it. I wouldnt normally do it, but just wanted it made clear since my sarcasm may have been a bit too obtuse before. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[]

Thank you. I suspected that is what you meant, but it was not quite clear enough to make the call ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[]


Please see a section I have recently created at User talk:Magioladitis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[]

I took a look. Next time someone should probably block and take it to Arbcom. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]
OK. WP:CITE and WP:COSMETIC are not the same argument. WP:CITE is not covered by AWB's rules of use right now. Moreover, I do not like Carl's tactic to isolate a few edits from the general editing pattern. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]

I fixed almost 3,000 pages with duplicated references. In how many pages I used two runs? 30? OK. Big deal. And yes Carl was wrong. He did not even check the pages he has in his own watchlist for errors. He did not even bother to see what I tried to do. His complain was invalid because my edit was not against WP:CITE. So the main argument of the complain was just wrong.

Here it took 7 edits to clean the page completely. (It's an extreme example) Yeah I could do better. I wonder if some people think this is a valid argument to complain/block/ban. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]

And no I am not judging Carl for not fixing the obvious duplicated reflist error. I judge the tactic to complain for me not fixing it within a specific time frame. I have some paages in my list I would like to fix from several errors. This duplicated content was there for 2 years. I completely removed it 11 hours after I first visited the page. Is this something I have to be punished for? I was not quick enough? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Well, we all know how block-button happy MSGJ is, so I wouldn't be surprised. CassiantoTalk 13:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Reference errors on 2 March

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]

User:Mr. Granger, can you help with this error please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Whoops, sorry about that. I forgot the archivedate parameter in one template. To fix it, please change {{cite news |url= |title='Pause for Cause' Picks Creative Contest Winners |publisher=MediaPost |date=5 April 2010 |accessdate=5 May 2010 |archiveurl=}} to {{cite news |url= |title='Pause for Cause' Picks Creative Contest Winners |publisher=MediaPost |date=5 April 2010 |accessdate=5 May 2010 |archiveurl= |archivedate=2010-04-07}}Granger (talk · contribs) 14:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]
  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]

College football / soccer football biography infobox

Hi. Earlier today you kindly copied over the contents of Template:Infobox_football_biography/college to Template:Infobox_football_biography. Unfortunately, there were two missing "{" characters in the code. I have updated the /college template. Please could you copy over the contents again? Sorry about that. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[]

@TheBigJagielka:   Done. Next time just raise an {{editprotected}} as it would get the fix applied more quickly than waiting for me to come back online! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Time Person of the Year

Howdy, Administrator MSGJ. I'm not certain if this personal request is out of order. But, would you be willing to monitor the goings on at that article & its talkpage? Sometimes, things can get a tad confusing there :) GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[]

I doubt I have the time to do much, but I'll add to my watchlist. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Ifexist not redirect

I noticed that you protected {{Ifexist not redirect}} under the reason of "Highly visible template: now highly used". For a template only just created, where is it being so highly used now? And does this mean that I can't edit a template that I've created myself? By the way, the documentation ought to be updated with it's modified usage. Alex|The|Whovian? 21:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[]

I have used it on Template:WikiProject banner shell (915275 transclusions) and Template:WPBannerMeta/comments (4717699 transclusions) so yes I think it probably does need that level of protection, although I understand that may be annoying to you. I'll update the documentation, thanks for the reminder! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Noinclude on templates

I won't revert your edit to Template:New unreviewed article, but please be aware that consensus notwithstanding, that local consensus goes against the broad consensus of WP:TFD, which says not to use noinclude tags. I understand, however, why this template may be an exception. By the way, your best move would have been to simply close the deletion discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[]

We should not be sticklers for rules, but feel free to use our common sense! I haven't looked at the TfD, I'm more concerned with the way that the TfD notice became substituted onto articles at the moment (see [1]) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[]
The unusual small line above the template. Not intrusive or confusing. As I said on the talkpage, should not bother anybody, as Fred Gandt agreed with me. But okay. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Yes, initially Fred Gandt seemed to agree with your position, but then in futher comments he clearly showed that he did not agree with you ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[]
I agree with Debresser that the text of the transcluded notice is clear and not reasonably confusing, but not that it should be transcluded. I personally don't think that kind of notice belongs in the article space, even though clearly the transclusion of the notice in that manner is by design; at some time there was probably a discussion that led to the functionality, so my opinion runs contrary to implied and perhaps explicit consensus (aww). In this particular case though, the TfD is preposterous (and I don't consider that a matter of opinion) and shouldn't being publicised with clutter on new articles likely by new editors which are already under scrutiny. fredgandt 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Transclusion of TfD notices to articles is not in itself a problem; it's a good thing, because it raises awareness of the ongoing TfD. What is a problem is if the template that is up for TfD is designed for WP:SUBSTitution, and in such cases, there must be a <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the {{Template for discussion/dated}}. This is covered at WP:TFD#Listing a template, about halfway down box I. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Importing the form of infoboxes in English Wikipedia to Kabyle Wikipedia

Hi, and sorry for my bad English. I would like to import the general form of infoboxes from English Wikipedia to Kabyle Wikipedia (a Kabyle language version of Wikipedia, with a very small number of active users). I tried to copy the Module:Infobox and Template:Infobox and I succeeded, but the problem is that the Infoboxes appear in the left of the page and not in the right. Could I have some help? Thanks, Issimo 15 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[]

I think you'll need to copy all the infobox definitions from MediaWiki:Common.css as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[]


Cowtown96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - They have reverted me again, and have continued to add seals and change infoboxes to various politician articles, despite my request they propose and discuss these changes first. - theWOLFchild 22:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp

I'm going to ask that you rewrite your close there. I was the nominator at AFD but I didn't do the move. Legacypac did the move but didn't nominate the page for deletion. Your close implies that this was a coordinated plan between the two of us to have it moved and deleted. I closed the MFD, Legacypac moved it to mainspace an hour later, tagged it and ten hours later, after fixing the screwed-up MFD notice (since it was moved), I then nominated the page for deletion at AFD where it's been taken back. You can argue about moving bad drafts into mainspace but I don't think those are being moved for the express purpose of starting a discussion at AFD to have it deleted there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Actually, this is exactly what has happened in the past, e.g. Graffiki was moved into mainspace by Legacypac and then three minutes later was nominated at AfD by him. I'll take another look at Chaz Knapp and look at rewording the closure. I didn't mean to imply you were actively colluding in this regard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[]
As I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Back_on_point, that was the prior case. The two other cases weren't that. I would agree that "moving an article you believe to be unsuitable into mainspace is disruptive" is appropriate, the AFD implication is not. This is all stupidly moot since the userspace page was later deleted by DGG under U5 but given the reverts to my relistings and repeated draggings to ANI over "admin deletionist gameplaying at MFD", I'd prefer to not leave any vague insinuations out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[]
I've reworded the close, basically using your suggested words above. Hope this is satisfactory. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Perfect. That's all I ask. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Talk:Blindspot (TV series)

It seems as if another user has come along to revert the formatting I implemented a week after the discussion. When they restored the previous reversion, I reverted in good faith with a solid explanation, but they continued to revert under the impression that I have modified comments. I've ceased any further reverts and posted on their talk page with further explanation; I await a reply. However, I think that some sockpuppetry may be involved, as three different but similar IPs have contributed on this particular issue (,, Alex|The|Whovian? 12:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[]

I wanted to leave this alone, but the bullshit accusation of sockpuppetry is too much. Maybe you should ask for a checkuser? Oh right, that doesn't make sense, because only accounts can sockpuppet. Alex, step back, and don't touch other editor's comments ever again.- (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Here is the diff in question.- (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Please remain civil. This is simply an informative message to MSGJ, not a discussion in itself. An official third opinion has also been requested. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[]

No time to look into this now I'm afraid, but I suggest you both find something more productive to do ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[]

I'd love to.- (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Ditto. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Simple: Stop mucking with my talk page comments, as promised in your unblock request.- (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[]
This still isn't a discussion page. Take it elsewhere. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Now you think of that?
I looking forward to your response elsewhere then.- (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[]

March 1932 lunar eclipse Rating

I rated the page March 1932 lunar eclipse as a stub and of low importance. (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Template Multiple issues 2

Hi. However misguided Boghog is to have created {{Multiple issues 2}} for use in Acetone peroxide, it's temporarily slightly better than using the sandbox of {{Multiple issues}}. If any work is done (by anyone at any time) to the sandbox, the result will be immediately seen in Acetone peroxide, which is clearly not appropriate - Multiple issues is protected for a reason.

Multiple issues 2 was correctly tagged for speedy deletion, and should have been deleted by now for obvious reasons. Acetone peroxide should be using the consensus agreed templating of Multiple issues but trying to put that right turned into a minor edit war.

My attempts to find a solution to these problems have failed, but without question, I hope you can see that, Acetone peroxide should not be utilising a template sandbox for anything. I therefore ask that you revert or understand the reverting of your edit to redirect Multiple issues 2 to Multiple issues/sandbox - which needs to should happen as soon as possible. fredgandt 17:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Okay, it is not an ideal situation and I have already advised Boghog that they are being disruptive. But I don't think you need to stress about it. (Will all come out in the wash.) Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you! CounterTime (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Well thank you. What did I do to deserve such a cute kitten? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

In regard to Moving unsuitable drafts to mainspace

Taking a look at the broader picture:

I've worked to cleanup all the inappropriate deletions because of page moves from the userspace to the mainspace of content clearly not suitable for the mainspace above. It looks like you found some additional problematic page moves (e.g. User:Akeefe98/Joseph Summer). Where all of the above issues based on problematic moves originate can be seen at Special:log/Legacypac. Two of the pages restored have been nominated for deletion by the same user who inappropriately moved them, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Duplekita (see also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 2#User:Trekie9001/Duplekita at RfD and User:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong a speedy deletion request). My actions to clean up their "mistakes" (I'll call them that per extreme AGF and CIVILITY, though some of them can be explicitly shown not to be, and are in some of the links above) have been called into question at AN/I by said user. I noticed your most recent comment at their talk page regarding this matter was on April 4. If the inappropriate moves haven't stopped, they need to, because they are leading to out of process actions which are creating work for the community. Best Regards,Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

The inappropriate moves from the userspace to the mainspace are happening again. I reverted another move that was clearly not suitable for the mainspace. Another recent move has been nominated for deletion. Special:Log/Legacypac.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Sorry to slam you with all this information here. I'd have replied at User talk:Legacypac#Moving unsuitable drafts to mainspace, but I didn't think it would be welcome there.Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

From Miss Click

Thanks for catching that. I must have, well, yes, misclicked. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Requesting update to Antivandal tool script

Hi MSGJ, I'm requesting an update to Lupin's Anti-vandal tool script at User:Lupin/recent2.js. The field recent2.userIsSysop should include a check for whether the user is a rollbacker, because rollbackers can use admin rollback. (it's also faster than non-admin rollback javascript anyway). (recent2.userIsSysop). Also wouldn't it make sense for the tool to ignore the user's own edits as well?? (recent2.ignore_my_edits = true; /*instead of false;*/) Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 17:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

I just realized that the reason I cannot edit the script is not because I'm not an admin... right? I'm assuming there's a new policy about editing another user's js files? So perhaps I should simply duplicate the script myself and import my own version, then. Let me know if you have a different suggestion. Thanks anyway. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 18:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]
@Andy M. Wang: Not a new policy, it's always been the case that if you're not an admin the only .js and .css pages that you can edit are those that are subpages of your own user page. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]
@Redrose64: Thanks for letting me know. I've since made a personal script with the change. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

I've commented at User talk:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Template:User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

Dear User:MSGJ. Thanks for your interest for the {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} template. But, to tell the truth, this template was only edited once since 2013... and don't seems to be the target of any attack. Moreover, this template (and its master, the {{User:ClueBot III}} template) are less and less used due to a complexity wall when modifying the back-links after a move. Perhaps could you help with this problem, that appears to be the actual threat ? Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Sorry I don't understand the last two sentences. What is meant by "complexity wall when modifying the back-links"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[]
See User:ClueBot_III#How_your_page_is_archived. Pldx1 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[]



Please at least put the pages (a & b) back to status quo before he started his silly anti-comma-crusade page-move-war. Can't have every decision go against me. - theWOLFchild 15:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Have you see this? - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dicklyon and his treatment on commas before Jr/Sr. Apparently he's on a project-wide rampage against commas. Meanwhile, are you going to move the articles back to where they were until a decision is made? Since it seems now that this affects more than just this page, it make take awhile. If we follow basic BRD, he moved, I reverted, it should stay the way it was until resolved. Add to that the policy, refs and other ships I noted on the talk page, it would seem prudent to move to the pages back to where they where. - theWOLFchild 16:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Some further digging has shown that the page should be moved back to the original title (with comma) per WP:MOS; Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[b] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. There is also this RfC at the Village Pump; please note the closing comments by Drmies.
It's clear the pages should be returned, based on WP:MOS, WP:JR (& supporting RS), WP:OSE (& supporting ship articles), and the RfC at WP:VP. Of course there's also the article talk page as well. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 18:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

It would be better if the wolf would join the discussion that I've pointed him at, on implementing the consensus decision in WP:JR, and make a case there for why this article should be treated as an exception to the guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Seriously, you need to stop following me to every page I go to. It's called WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Before I go anywhere, you need to go back to the DDG-121 talk page and explain why you feel the guidelines here don't apply to you and your bizarre war on commas. - theWOLFchild 18:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Anyone home?

I'm not sure when you're coming back, but I can't say the USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. page is any better from the way you left it. Through basic enabling, Dicklyon has made multiple, unconstructive changes, all geared to the "war on commas". I've had to leave the article for fear of being labeled as edit-warring. I created that stub yesterday and now I can't even work on it. As soon as you return, you need to review what has taken place there, along with his contribs in general (all geared towards removing commas) and, the closely-related issues at his talk page (1, 2 & 3) and ANI (4).

Along with all those, I'm sure you were aware of his recent standard offer? Or the disruptive page moves and subsequent ban on page moves (and socking) that led to his recent indef in the first place? I'll leave to you, as an admin, to determine how his recent behaviour should be dealt with, in light of both the surrounding issues and recent history. For my part, all I'm asking is that the page be return to status quo, as it should have been in the first place and how I've since clearly demonstrated is should be per WP-guidelines. I would like to resume working on it without any further harassment. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 21:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Apparently so...

I see you've been active since I posted these comments here, and while I still wonder if you're ever going to respond, mainly I would just like to the pages moved back to where they belong;
USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. is the article, USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. is the redirect - as per the all the supporting guidelines noted above. They are in the incorrect places due to your page moves, please correct them. - theWOLFchild 16:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[]

It's clear you are deliberately ignoring my requests here for a response (and ignoring WP:ADMINACCT, again). I'm not going to waste anymore of my time here.. Disregard my previous posts. - theWOLFchild 22:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Template:ArbComBlock Template:Ivory messagebox

Hi User:MSGJ I just noticed that your last [2] to Template:Ivory messagebox broke the Template:ArbComBlock image as you can also see in the Template:Ivory messagebox/testcases. Just thought I'd point it out so it could be fixed as I don't have the ability/permission to fix myself. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Thanks for letting me know. It was using an undocumented parameter in a strange way ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Category question

Why did you remove the suspected hoax category in the Guingon Group of Companies article? TheGGoose (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[]

(talk page stalker) @TheGGoose: I expect that it was because it was added as a bare category, instead of by using the {{hoax}} template, which is the proper way since it produces a warning message as well as categorising. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[]
I was thinking of that too; the solo category addition is a mistake. TheGGoose (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Redrose is correct. And as it was already listed as AfD, I decided that the hoax tag would be superfluous. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[]


Hi MSGJ, you recently made the above edit to Template:Casenav. I've reverted it – just temporarily – to ask you if you meant to change the appearance of the box or if you just meant to switch to the mbox. In any event, your edit created a significantly different look and feel (white instead of ivory, ~80% width instead of 100%, etc.) that should recieve ArbCom's, or at least the clerks', consent. Thanks. (This edit is in my role as an arbitration clerk, but I am not acting on behalf of the full Committee here.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Hi Kevin. I did indeed intend to switch it to standard mbox colors, although I did not envisage this would be controversial. The rationale is to use the width and colors consistent across Wikipedia for these kind of header templates, so a sort of off-white (#f9f9f9) on the project page and the yellowy (#f8eaba) on talk pages. Is there anything you don't like about it? I reject the notion that I should get permission before editing this template, but happy to discuss with you or anyone else interested on the template talk page. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the reply, Martin! I've started a discussion at Template talk:Casenav#Changing the header to an mbox; please feel free to chime in. I've also sent a mail to clerks-l about this. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Have now replied there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Milli's edits

See their talk page, as I think they might be on the right track, but ended up breaking many page histories in the process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Why does {{Kazan Metro|right}} cause all that breakage? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Because I overhauled the template to allow for it to better fit into the infobox and to make it look a bit better. As such, it should have never been on the station article to begin with, so I was in the process of removing it when you started doing the same. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[]


  Hello! Your submission of Selly Oak Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 05:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Hi MSGJ. Two months ago, you removed the background color from the edit notice at List of Islamist terrorist attacks, asking "is the yellow background needed". I believe it is. Without any color, the edit notice is hard to see, and in the two months since you changed it, new editors have added about two dozen incidents that were either not attributed to Islamists or not described as terrorist attacks by reliable sources. There's no way to know, of course, but I think there might have been fewer had the edit notice been more... well, noticeable.

I'd like you to reconsider your decision and restore the color to the edit notice. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Will respond shortly. Sorry for the delay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[]
@Malik Shabazz: I am not too worried about this particular template. My general concern is about consistency with all edit notice templates. I believe that all of them should be yellow, or else none or them should be yellow. Do you think that your rationale for making this editnotice yellow could equally apply to all edit notice templates? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[]
I created the editnotice based on Template:Editnotice for lists of people, which still has the line you deleted:
textstyle = font-size: 110%; background: #ffeebb
That template is in use on hundreds of editnotices.
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Any thoughts, MSGJ? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Sorry, I hadn't noticed your message earlier. As I said, I have no concern about this particular template. If you want to revert, then please go ahead. Personally I think the yellow is a little garish, and the way it only extends across part of the background doesn't look too professional. But please do whatever you like with it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Breach of editing restriction that you enacted.

You may recall that you enacted an editing restriction against Wtshymanski just over a year ago. Wtshymanski, has started breaching that editing restriction, including reverting an IP editor, but disguising it as a regular edit. There is an ANI on the issue at here. It is suffering from a lack of adminstrator action. Could you please take a look? (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[]

It looks like this has been resolved. I have commented on the user talk. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Please comment

Please comment on my proposal here. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[]

/Comments subpages and archives

Hello, you've probably noticed what I did to your edits from the notifications ... yes, I really have Talk:SpongeBob SquarePants/Archive 1, Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 1, and Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 1 on my watchlist. But seriously, it's probably a good idea to put the comments in an archive where they at least kinda fit in chronologically ... unlike the Harry Potter one, where the last message was from 2003. After dealing with the second page, I realised that there's no need to put them in chronological order with the other comments, as that hadn't been done before on non-archived talk pages, but I guess they're OK where they are. Graham87 11:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Hi Graham. No I hadn't noticed because I made those with my alternate account and haven't logged in to that account today! I have some code which places the notice on the first archive page whose last revision is dated later than the last revision of the comment page. Obviously it's not a perfect system as we can see from Harry Potter because it has has edits (by yourself) in 2010, but it did save me considerable time and I didn't think it mattered too much. Anyway thanks for sorting those ones. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[]
No worries ... ah I see now, your main account's name is all in uppercase whereas the other one is in lowercase ... so they were indistinguishable to me with my screen reader (and I didn't notice the "redirected from ..." text at the top of your talk page). Graham87 11:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Template editing

Since you approached me, I figured you'd be a good reverse-approach. You might want to see if BU_Rob13 might be a good candidate for the user right, given his extensive TFD work. --Izno (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[]

Sure. Maybe we should ask him first though ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[]
That's how my suggestion should have been interpreted. :P --Izno (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[]
  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[]


Hello, MSGJ. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ RobTalk 09:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]

DYK nomination of Selly Oak Park

  Hello! Your submission of Selly Oak Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Martin, it has been over a month since you last posted to this nomination, and nothing has been done either to the (woefully undersourced) article or to supply a new hook. It will be marked for closure unless you take action right away. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Template editor

Hi, MSGJ. I've been thinking about reapplying for the template editor flag - is the guideline for six months since one's last block a necessity (per WP:TPEGRANT), or would it be alright to reapply now? Since you lifted my block early three months ago, I've made a solid effort to cease any edit warring, I haven't had a single warning, and I've always taken it to discussion. What do you think? Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Hi. Have just returned from travelling, and will reply shortly ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[]
All those rules are just guidelines and discretion can be employed. I'm happy that the edit warring has stopped. Suppose you were granted TE on condition that it could be immediately revoked on any future breach of 3RR? I could support something like that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[]
I would definitely support such a condition. Alex|The|Whovian? 09:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Template editor 2

Cheers for that Martin, don't know how often I'll need to use it but it should make things a little easier. :) PC78 (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[]


You're so crazy; adding that badger file while moving the discussions :D :D Thanks for shifting the discussions though. See you around. Lourdes 02:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Template:Wikipedia Help Project/class

Hi Martin, can you please check your edits to this template? The project is using a rather specialised assessment scale which applies to non-mainspace content, it looks like their banner was set up so that pages in the Help talk namespace default to unassessed rather than NA-Class, and your edits appear to have broken this behaviour. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[]

I can't remember why I made this change and I can't see any relevant discussion around that time. It seems your analysis is correct, so feel free to revert if it's important. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal

Hello Martin. You indicated that you would be prepared to close this RfC. You have since gone silent on it. I realise that the sudden burst of edits may have dissuaded you, although it seems clear that they were posited on a mis-reading of the whole proposal, including the vital words "No other changes to the section at Wikipedia:In the news#Recent deaths section are proposed. " which never featured in the repeated copy-and-paste of the RfC wording. It would be helpful, at the very least, if you would indicate if you are no longer interested in doing this as we will need to seek closure from another admin, and your pause is no doubt preventing someone else from stepping in. Thanks for your initial interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[]

I'm still willing to close it, and have not been dissuaded by any recent edits. I just haven't had much time recently. Anyone is welcome to close it, but I'll get to it when time allows. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[]
Ok, thanks for letting me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[]
Never mind, job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[]

RfD close RfC requiring admin

Hi MSGJ. Could you explain your rationale that this discussion has consensus that an admin must close the discussion in question? I see clear consensus to overturn, but I don't see consensus that the new close must be by an administrator. If that had been a serious issue brought up by many in the discussion (rather than just Nakon, which is the only user that appears to have taken issue with the non-admin status rather than the close itself), I would have argued strongly against it because it contradicts the much wider community consensus at this RfC which states RfCs should not be overturned merely because the closer is a non-admin. ~ Rob13Talk 18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[]

It seems you are correct - there wasn't anyone else calling for an admin closure. I'll amend my wording shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[]
Thanks for taking another look. ~ Rob13Talk 20:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[]

WT:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request

See this recent trouble report by User:Felsic2. Is this MediaWiki:Gadget-DRN-wizard.js? I notice you made a change to the DRN wizard on 18 July. Any chance it could be related to the recent complaint that the person can't save the form? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[]

User:Enterprisey, please comment on the above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the ping! Commenting there. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 22:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Delete when empty

 Template:Delete when empty has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[]

Nomination for merging of Template:No documentation

 Template:No documentation has been nominated for merging with Template:Improve documentation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[]

Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/redirect

Just looking for some feedback on a thought I had last night. :) The idea is to have the banner shell do an initial check to see if the subject page is a redirect; if it is then the {{blp}} and {{activepol}} templates are disabled and instead it displays {{talk page of redirect}}. Does this seem like a good idea, or do you forsee any problems? Cheers. PC78 (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[]

@PC78: can't think of any reason not to do this! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[]
Ha-ha, I'd forgotten all about this! I suppose the only down side would be having to pass the two parameters though the banner shell, though maybe that's not really a problem? PC78 (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[]
Not sure what you mean by the above. Which two parameters and in what sense are you "passing them through"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[]
{{Talk page of redirect}} uses a couple of optional parameters, they would need to be added to the banner shell. PC78 (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[]

Reference errors on 31 August

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[]

A "help me" template for template talk pages

Do you know of a template which a user can place on a template talk page, which when placed, would request aid from a set of skilled users able to translate a non-technical edit request into an implementable edit request? I've had to reject a few template edit requests because the requester didn't provide a straight line by line/sandbox replacement, but they do have a request which could be implemented by someone who really wanted to translate the request. I'd rather replace the TER with a "help me" of some sort. --Izno (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[]

There is no such template as far as I know. I usually advise people to post at VPT for help, otherwise I will try and code it myself if I have the time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Extended confirmed protection

 Hello, MSGJ. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know

The block was a bad one. No sensible person would have blocked me and not the other editor. I just thought that you should know that I know that you done fucked up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Shared Universe

I just wanted to thank you. :)

My Sword May Drink Blood Yet | N. Gasieta 03:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[]


Hi, after this edit, my watchlist has disappeared. Please fix it. Thanks. Fuortu (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Seems to have been fixed. Sorry about that! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Template:Ifexist not redirect

I'm a bit confused by your lowering of the protection level at {{Ifexist not redirect}}. According to this database report, it has 4,442,234 transclusions, making it one of the highest risk templates out there. The WMF Labs tool for transclusion count gives a similar count. Mind clarifying why you said it was no longer high risk? ~ Rob13Talk 04:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Hi Rob. I increased the protection when I used this template on {{WPBannerMeta}} and lowered the protection when I removed it from there. I suspect that those statistics are out of date. (Refer to our emails exchanged in May 2016 for a similar situation.) However it seems that in the meantime, someone used it on {{WikiProject United States}} so perhaps a higher protection is needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Snowballing page titles

Just pinging you on this proposal to change all Wikipedia page titles, which you enacted as unanimously supported, a few days ago - it fixes the problem it sets out to address, but has the major side-effect of changing how Wikipedia is represented in search engine results and social media shares across the web, and the discussion fails to realise or address this at all. This seems like a big deal. What do you reckon? --McGeddon (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Please keep discussing it there and I will monitor. If consensus changes I will revert promptly. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[]
Thanks for removing the discussion-closed hat, but it still looks a lot like a finished discussion with that "Change implemented" tick at the top. (The most recent new comment has an edit summary saying that the editor "would have voted against this", but they're parsing the discussion as over.) Are we not at WP:SNOW's "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." point here - both for reopening the discussion and for (possibly just temporarily) rolling back the implemented change? --McGeddon (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[]
It's nothing to do with SNOW, which is mainly about closing failed proposals. I just saw a clear consensus and acted on it. If you are still concerned about the change, then I suggest you provide some examples to explain what you mean, because I myself I am not fully grasping your point. You are also welcome to ping the 13+ editors who expressed an opinion earlier to see if they agree with your points. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[]
The issue is that we've changed how Wikipedia links appear in every search engine and social network, to the possible detriment of naive readers seeking information and wondering whether to click Goldfish - Wikipedia or r/Goldfish - Reddit, when neither site name means anything to them. I have no idea how big a deal this really is (sure, we can rely on the Wikipedia link being top in most cases, and it quoting a reassuring snippet), I'm just concerned that we've implemented a change that has a huge side effect, before anyone even mentioned that side-effect. --McGeddon (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[]
When I google goldfish I still see the "Goldfish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" as usual. When I google monkey I see the shorter version "Monkey - Wikipedia". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[]
I assume that's just a spidering issue - every search engine result will switch to "Title - Wikipedia" eventually. --McGeddon (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[]

New York metropolitan area

Hi MSGJ. Am I free to revert the last edit as of this time ([3]) on the New York metropolitan area page, which User:ControlCorV, whom you blocked for edit-warring, put up there without consensus and which same edit was reverted by User:Oknazevad on the New York page for the same lack of consensus? All I ask is for him to establish consensus before his proposed bold addition. I'm asking you because I don't want to be accused of edit-warring. Best, Castncoot (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[]

@Castncoot: the basic idea is that when you are reverted you take it to the talk page to discuss, only reapplying your change if/when there is demonstrable consensus for it. If there is no response in a few days then it is generally okay to assume there is no opposition and go ahead. In any case I recommend never exceeding 2 reverts per 24 hours on any particular article. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[]
OK, thanks for your response. Just to clarify, I'm the one who reverted his bold edit in the first place. I asked him to take it to Talk, but he refused, and he kept undoing my revert. At one point, I did not want to take the risk of being blocked (and he ended up being blocked, for edit-warring about the same edit on the New York article), and so I stopped in the name of caution, and his reversion-of-my-reversion edit ended up staying there. However, now I will revert that, being that it's well past any 24-hour interval. If I'm understanding correctly, it is indeed his burden to get consensus for his bold edit in the first place. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[]


I saw you just blocked this user for socking, Koolaide187 seems to be another sock of Echocalls as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Already blocked that one — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[]
Sorry, didn't see it! RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[]


Hello. You blocked him for 31h yesterday for disruptive editing, including blanking an AfD-discussion about an article he created. And so far today he has been blocked twice for obvious block evasion as two IPs (Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ belonging to the same ISP (Talk Talk), geolocating to the same town (Ipswich, Suffolk), and doing the same kind of edits (including one of the IPs blanking the same AfD-discussion as the master did). The first of the IPs was blocked 48h for block evasion and the second one for 31h, while the master account will go off his block a few hours from now, so would you mind extending the block on the master account? Take your pick when it comes to block length, from 48h to indefinite, but I feel he deserves a longer block than he currently has, at least matching the length of the blocks his socks got. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[]

  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[]

They went straight back to evading the block again, as soon as the block on one of their IPs expired. See Special:Contributions/, and especially their two attempts to make the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günsel) look as if it had been closed as "keep", and also removed the AfD-tag on the article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Oshwah has already blocked, but I have extended it to a month. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[]
Sorry for butting in here, but I am wondering why the block of the IP was extended, but not the block of the master account, which will expire tomorrow. I am interested because I have mentioned Mikethebeast228 as a probable sock in another SPI here (so they may be indeffed eventually anyway). Regards! --T*U (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Sorry about that

[4] I thought when EdJohnston said "here" he meant "this section". If I had interpreted it as "this page" I would have created a new section at the bottom of the page -- the agreement to the edit actually took place on my user talk page, not in "the relevant section" on the article talk page (don't ask...). Anyway, thanks for the correction! Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Tracey Curtis Taylor

Thank you for your comment "To avoid a further block, please avoid edit warring and use the article's talk page to discuss any controversial actions". With respect, I have never intended to "war", neither are my edits controversial. I am no Wiki expert - I am a total novice - however I am a commercial airline pilot, flying instructor and CAA appointed examiner with over 30 years aviation experience, so I am an expert in my field. I have tried to tone down the wild and completely untrue claims made on behalf of the subject, as the CAA would prosecute her for some of the actions that have been claimed on her behalf as a career. She cannot possibly have earned a living from display flying without a CAA granted Display Authorisation. Not only are the claims totally untrue, they mislead any Wiki readers and they risk causing the subject being investigated and prosecuted. But if the wisdom of the few Wiki experts is apparently greater than mine, and they wish to perpetuate false information, let them. I can't waste any more of my time on trying to educate the ignorant. None of my edits have been controversial to anyone remotely knowledgeable about aviation and particularly Air Law as contained in the Air Navigation Order. If they appear controversial to Wiki "professionals" who don't have any such specialist knowledge, that is beyond my control, unfortunately.

As for John's ban, and your threat to do similar, just because you dislike the truth being told, then please go ahead, do so. At least I have publicly stated my case. Others can judge who is wishing to use Wiki for its correct purpose of informing and educating readers of facts and the truth, and who is the censor of same. I say again, with respect, we all have areas of expertise and knowledge, and we all have areas of ignorance. I freely admit I am no expert on Wiki and its apparently odd editing and voting system that votes out the truth, yet votes in harmful untruths which could lead to prosecution of one of its subjects, however I assure you I am an aviation expert, I have granted many pilots their licences, and I have similarly helped the CAA to remove some on occasion. With my kind regards. (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Reopen edit request at United States presidential election, 2016

The talk page at the subject article may have been staged when an edit request [5] was requested there, which may have misled you into granting the request. I have reopeded the edit request and added an explanation (with links) to show why the addition of write-in candidates is a challenged edit that should be removed until a compromise is worked out at an active RfC there. Sparkie82 (tc) 02:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I have responded there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I did not leave a "Defaming" message or comment, I left an observation backed by facts and Covered by the local newspapers! Living,dead,those are irrelevant, Mrs. Williams is on record Making those statements... You are asking me to not speak the truth. I will thank you to please refrain from hasty actions and jumping to conclusions In the future.

-One Who Knows — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONE WHO KNOWS (talkcontribs) 07:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[]

A beer for you!

  Thanks for reverting the vandlaim to my userpage. Incidentally (demonstrating the futility of such carrying-on) I think that all bar one of such interventions there have been reverted by others before I got to see it. TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Human rights in Rojava

Hello, first of all thanks for your patient and dilligent work on edit requests in the Human rights in Rojava article. I do not think that there is anything like a consensus to be reached with that ultranationalist colleague on the one request you disabled now (add para on FSA war crimes in Al Bab and broader northern Aleppo), but there are three other requests still active, two of them not challenged by anyone, and with the third request (add para on ISIL war crimes in the Tell Abyad area) his objection there rests on so incredibly weak arguments, just look at it if this can be considered a valid objection, any decision of yours is fine with me. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[]


Hello Sir, as the title suggest, this article lists the human rights situation in a newly created region (that has no historic presence nor international recognition). This entity control large areas in northern Syria and have internationally and locally unrecognized territorial claims. The main problem in that article is an editor (who called me an ultra-nationalist, though im not even a nationalist and I dont edit any ethnic articles nor do I write ones about how "glorious" my country is) who treat the territorial claims as actual control on land and hence, he tries to list the violation that happened on those lands as if they happened in Rojava even though the said entity never controlled those lands, or those violations happened before the involved lands came under the control of the entity. It is like if China claimed a land in Vietnam and an editor came to list any human rights violation in the Vietnamese land in an article about human rights in China.

Now, the article has seen many edit wars (mainly because the other user insistent that anything Rojava claims become automatically a Rojava) and we need a consensus on the scope of the article to avoid such wars. Until then, the article will be a reason of disturbance and constant edit-wars.

The reason why I came here is because the protection will end in 1 November, and none of the problems were solved and thats why its a better idea to extend the protection. Once the protection is lifted without any solution, the edit wars will comeback cause the very enthusiastic user (who is a one purpose account btw, who only edit articles connected to Rojava) have no intention to at least support his edits with sources that mention that a certain human rights violation happened in an area named Rojava even though I asked him over and over to do this.

I hope you would take this into consideration cause its very hard to deal with edit wars and pushed edits that has no sources connecting them to the subject. Thanks--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I suspect you want the protection extended to protect your preferred version. A better solution might be to unprotect and then block any editors who edit war. I will investigate whether any discretionary sanctions can be used to enforce a 1RR restriction on the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]
I see it already has a 1RR restriction. So I plan to let the protection expire (probably replace with semi-protection) and then enforce that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]

I will stop arguing, but I have a new question, in light of what I showed, is blocking edit warriors the right solution when a party can bring 10 people to get his edits passed ? This will only drive me to just step back and the article will be taken by a group of activists and become a POV page. Im losing any faith in the way things are dealt with here cause whoever have more friends and patience, gets his way sadly.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[]


Hello, 2A1ZA inserted a paragraph implying that it was you who gave him the authority in his edit summary. This paragraph was controversial, it was discussed, no consensus was reached, and it is out of the scope of the article which had a consensus after a long discussion. You placed the article under the one revert rule and that editor is taking advantage of it now by inserting whatever he want and he know he cant be reverted. Is his behavior accepted.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[]

I am monitoring the article and will strictly enforce 1RR. Please take this discussion to Talk:Human rights in Rojava — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[]
Thank you for monitoring but now he is using you to force his edit by implying that you gave him the call. How will the one revert rule stop this kind of behavior ? It only benefit him. He is inserting controversial edits with no consensus and no discussion and hiding behind the one revert rule. I understand perfectly the damage of edit warring, but is this the only criteria here? He can do whatever he likes as long as edit warring is stopped ? Please help me understanding how wikipedia is going now. Cause all I can see is that a motivated activist can hide himself and take advantage of the rules. From now on, he will insert whatever he like, with no consensus and no talk page and hide behind the one edit rule. This is getting so bad; his edit is against the consensus and the scope of the article, yet he is allowed to keep it and others are the ones who should take it to the talk page !!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[]
I went to the noticeboard here. An admin wrote that if the paragraph didnt get a consensus before, then undoing it is the way to go until a consensus is reached. Hence, I undid the edit and I am not violating the one revert rule. You wont be disturbed again. I came to you cause the other editor used your words as a justification, so it concerned you, otherwise I wouldnt have posted to your page. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Politics of the United States/sandbox


A tag has been placed on Template:Politics of the United States/sandbox 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. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Moving RfA discussions to the Talk section

Hi MSGJ. I agree with moving long discussions on a particular RfA position to the talk page. Do you think that one reply-level should stay on the main page to indicate the substance of the discussion or disagreement? AlexEng(TALK) 10:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Why should the first reply be given special treatment? There is no reason why it should be any more or less important than the other replies. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[]
Hmmm. I didn't think of it as special treatment, just the start of the discussion. I can see what you mean, though. If you don't agree, then I won't challenge it further. Thanks for the reply. AlexEng(TALK) 10:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[]
I don't really care either way ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[]


Please note that there is a sockpuppet block log at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Reguyla-Kumioko_community_ban which should be updated following your block of his latest sockpuppet. This log keeps track of when this user is eligible to appeal his ban, and this timer is to be reset upon the detection of any sockpuppet accounts. (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Thank you. Although I'm sure the editor I blocked was a sockpuppet I'm not totally convinced it was the editor you mention above. Indeed it could be someone else pretending to be him. So I'm not going to update that log at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Re: Village pump (proposals)

Just for the record, had that other user not undone the close, I was more than ready to undo it myself after seeing your message. :) However, I will accept your trout with honor. How are you? Do you remember me? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Yes I think I remember you, although did you have a different username back then? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[]
I did. Zhang He. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[]


Hi, as the editor that filed the initial report on this editor, I have been following the discussion closely. I just posted a message on his talk page (see this diff [6]), but he removed it. I just wanted to make you aware of this, because I think he needs to understand that other find his behavior to be in need of improvement, especially now that his status as an admin is known. I'm not going to revert his deletion of my comment, as I think his edit summary when he removed my comment says everything. Thank you. KirksKeyKard (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[]

I think he knows how others have perceived his behaviour now, and I don't think your interventions there are particularly helpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[]
If he does he doesn't care. You should be aware that he has rejected the admonishment: [7]. Make of that what you will. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[]
He can reject all he likes. The warning was received and knows the consequences of edit warring next time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Quick question from FriyMan

I was working on an article about Kubinka Tank Museum and while making the info board, stumbled upon the coordinates of the museum. However, I did not understand how to input them. Can you please help? FriyMan (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[]

@FriyMan: the best method is probably to use |coordinates= followed by the {{coord}} template. If you follow that link you can read about the correct syntax. Let me know if you need more help! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[]
Thank you for the advice, but the conflict was already resolved.FriyMan (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[]

I tried adding a portrait of William Chester Jordan to wikipedia, but I failed. I do not really understand, why I am not allowed to upload this portrait. Can you please help? FriyMan (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Give me some more details please - do you have an image that you tried to upload? Where did you try to upload it? Did you get some kind of error message? What kind of licence does the image have? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[]

A barnstar for you!

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
==Thanks for the heads up==

My mistake. Thanks for just pointing it out. I have reset the article. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Actually not precisely

Regarding this edit. The consensus was to replace {{Too many photos}} by {{Cleanup images}}. There was absolutely no discussion to indicate which picture is a likely candidate to be removed. As a matter of fact, other pictures are also under discussion, so please remove that parameter from the template. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Please check again. The only parameter on that template is the date. (The spacing change was done automatically by visual editor and does not affect the rendered output.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[]

edit request

hello - could you answer request - Govindaharihari (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[]

I have deleted my request, it is over two hours on a current event article since I requested a change - If you full protect an article of current event you shout action requests currently - Govindaharihari (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[]
I do my best. Two hours would generally be pretty quick for an edit request to be attended to. As your request was not supported by clear consensus, it took a lower priority. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[]


Jubileeclipman here, with a new account. Hope you are well? Wikipedia has certainly changed in the years I've been away. For the better? Judgement reserved, for now. Best — Iadmctalk  18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Sciences Po changes

Hi Martin,

Can you explain why you made the changes to the Sciences Po page that Launebee requested on 21 October? If you read the discussion that preceded your response to making those changes on 21 October, there was a long discussion and a consensus against all of them, and no one supported any of them in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[]

I will take another look — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[]
The three changes made on 21 October were:
  • the shortening or the deletion of the gallery
  • the deletion of the paragraph between history and 1872–1945 sections
  • changes to lead
These changes were made because they were first proposed by Launebee on 7 October and received no comment or opposition until the request was made on 21 October. If you wish to see these changes reverted, you should start a new discussion on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Thanks for your work, but I think you may have missed the discussion regarding the changes to the lead. In fact the four changes to the lead: (1) Remove "Collège universitaire", (2) Remove the mention of "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain", (3) Remove "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe," and (4) Remove "Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France," were all discussed by several editors and were all opposed by everyone except Launebee.

More Sciences Po changes

Regarding the discussion above about your making Launebee's changes to the Sciences Po article: In fact the four changes to the lead: (1) Remove "Collège universitaire", (2) Remove the mention of "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain", (3) Remove "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe," and (4) Remove "Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France," were all discussed by several editors and were all opposed by everyone except Launebee. These changes were proposed 18 September 2016 by Launebee, were all voted down, then Launebee asked why they had not been made on 21 October 2016, at which point you accepted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Trouble at Sciences Po

Another anon editor expressing frustration, in inappropriate ways, at Talk:Sciences Po. (warned here). SashiRolls (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[]



I just submitted my sandbox for review and have a few questions.

How long does this process usually take? Can I make edits while the sandbox is being reviewed? How might I do that? (continue editing the sandbox?)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgsmithmusic (talkcontribs) 23:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[]

@Davidgsmithmusic: I see your article has already received a review. By the way it is strongly discouraged to write an article about yourself. It might be better if you could find something else to edit. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Empty request

You recently removed an empty edit request from Talk:List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships. I was tempted to mark it "not done" and "answered" but wasn't sure it was ok to mess with it, as the article is protected. Could/should I have done that, or even removed the request myself? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Hi. There's no hard and fast rule - just whatever you think is most appropriate. If you think it was a genuine mistake then by all means let them know. In this case I judged the editor did not intend to open a request so just removed it. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[]

Hello Martin, Is there a way to "flag" a user who tends to Undo edits on Wiki pages for no good reason? I incorporated a link to another Wiki page on the Chris Rice page, and I referred to a documented controversy (documented on the "Cartoons [Song]" page which I linked), and Walter Görlitz keeps reverting my change -- even though the issue is specifically mentioned on the "Cartoons (Song)" Wiki page, and he's not disputing it there. He also has had similar issues with other users in the past, from his History. Thanks for your input! (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Grattan33[]

Re: My comment

Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I put my question there! Thanks again Grattan33 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Grattan33[]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)  []

Entry for Peter Hofschroer is NOT vandalizing this page. The culprit is Tirailleur. If you see his talk page, you will see he has a personal grudge against Hofschroer.

The situation is that Hofschroer's mother is the victim of abuse and serious crime. Lord Maginnis has raised her case in Parliament several times, to no avail. Her son, Peter Hofschroer, exposed serious oficial corruption in his mother's case and was framed by the police.

Simply google "Maginnis" and "Barbara Hofschroer" and you will see the record of the statement in the House of Lords.

And do see this TV interview with Barbara and Peter:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Return to the user page of "MSGJ/2016".