Open main menu

Master of Puppets' Talk Page
Leave a message below!
Sheep in gray.svg



Hello Master of Puppets I think you are awesome! :D

woosungkim 12:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agreeEdit

Hello Master of Puppets. I agree that this edit serves no useful purpose.[1] Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


for dealing with that IP. DH85868993 (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request on holdEdit

Greetings, Master. I have placed on hold an unblock request at User talk:Owen4004. I am inclined to unblock, in view of the apology and assurance it won't happen again. Any opinion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Hey, James. While an apology is a start, and I always assume good faith whenever possible, this is not a new editor, and this isn't their first 'outburst'. They've previously demonstrated that they're not above blatant vandalism or page blanking. If they're to be unblocked, I'd like to see an explanation for those edits as well. m.o.p 04:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for pointing those out. I'll raise those edits with the editor. I am personally not keen on placing too much weight on an edit from over three years ago, though. If Wikipedia had existed when I was thirteen, I think there is a damned good chance I would have vandalised it, but by the time I was sixteen I would have been past such silliness. I have checked every one of the editor's edits for this year, and there is only one that is in any way objectionable. It seems to me that an indefinite block for an editor who has recently been perfectly constructive apart from one edit, together with some childish silliness from years ago, is dubious. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: My intent here wasn't to psychoanalyze the editor; while their age may be a factor, it's not an excuse. My only intent when blocking is to prevent any further abuse of editing privileges, be it by defacing articles or calling another editor a cunt.
That being said, I'm all for second chances as long as you're satisfied with whatever explanation the editor gives for their outbursts and if they promise that they'll behave themselves in the future. m.o.p 09:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree: I wasn't intending to "psychoanalyze" either, nor was I suggesting that age is an excuse: if a child is persistently making childish vandalism, then he or she should be blocked. All I was trying to suggest was that people change, and when an editor's recent editing is mostly OK, long since past offences should not be given too much weight. (But even then, I don't say "no weight at all", and I do think you were right to bring those old edits to my attention, so that I can take them into consideration.) Anyway, I've asked the editor to comment on the two edits you mention, and I will wait and see what response comes, if any. Thanks for your comments. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: Sounds good. I do agree that they've also shown they're capable of contributing constructively, and you're right to say that people can change. Here's to hoping their reply is satisfactory. Cheers, m.o.p 09:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Autoblock and accountsEdit

Hello, I understand why the IP was blocked - I work at a school, and unfortunately it happens. But I thought one of the benefits of having an account and of signing in to that account was to avoid such blocks. I'm pretty sure in the past I've been able to log in and post even when the IP at the school is blocked. I wasn't even able to post here and ask you the question (and when I used your email link which you provide my messages were returned). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Richardson mcphillips: An autoblock works differently than a regular block. With an autoblock, you will not be able to edit with any account that's tied to that IP. You are welcome to ask for IP block exemption. Best, m.o.p 05:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

On the Road Again Tour - protection warranted?Edit

Hi M.O.P. - would you mind semi-protecting On the Road Again Tour for a few days, given the persistent nonsense plague it seems to have attracted recently? I have made an RFP, but given the backlog I thought I'd ask you as someone who's seen it first-hand.

Thanks! Reticulated Spline (tc) 21:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Reticulated Spline: Great minds think alike! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Best, m.o.p 21:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Clearly they do! :) Reticulated Spline (tc) 21:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Personal attack and abuse of multiple accountsEdit

I was mentioned as being a sock in this discussion [2]. I don't understand, I asked to be blocked myself [3]. I didn't vandalize anything to lead to a block, I had asked to be blocked on my other account StanTheMan87 for personal reasons which are no longer necessary. I can't undo the block until January 2015. I stated clearly on this account that I do have another account, namely StanTheMan87. According to Wikipedia's own page on Sock Puppets "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception." How could I be misleading anyone when I freely admit that I am the same person as StanTheMan87, and state this on my page? Furthermore, I find it unfair that, as I did nothing wrong or didn't break any rules when asking for a block, that when I make another account to contribute in order to circumvent a block (that I can't remove) and that I asked for (I no longer require it), I get declared a 'sock'. StanMan87 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: and @Kilo-Lima: - you two would know more about this than I would. m.o.p 11:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Some words of clarification/explanation for the situation. StanTheMan87 requested a three month block in early October, which I applied. It seems that the user then wanted to edit again and created the StanMan87 account. Even though the alternate (i.e. blocked) account is disclosed on the new account's user page, within the strict letter of Wikipedia policy this counts as a sock because the other account is blocked. Prima facie it is block evasion, but only someone familiar with the history would know that's not actually true. Digging into the history, there is another account in the name of StanTheMan, which was indeffed by Kilo-Lima (who has since been desysopped for inactivity), which AFAIKS isn't connected but would explain some of the confusion. Probably the best course of action here is for StanTheMan87 to request an unblock with a suitable explanation. Sorry to take up so much of your talk page m.o.p.  Philg88 talk 08:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: rollbackEdit

Thanks for the message. I can definitely be more careful to use undo/edit summaries in the future, but I'm not sure it gets at the root of the problem, which is the user/s (I'm not sure exactly how many there are, since there are obviously some socks/meatpuppets operating at the article) repeatedly attempting to impose new changes without consensus. In reverting these disruptive edits in the past, I've used summaries, but I feel like I'm repeating myself and shouting into a void. They already know their edits are wrong and why they're wrong. Can you offer any advice? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese: My warning was mostly based in policy - per the function's page, rollback should only be used for uncontroversial cleanup, not content disputes.
In terms of mediation, I can step in on the talk page if you feel there's a need. m.o.p 18:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I would love more oversight from anyone. Dennis Brown stepped in a few days ago, but he has a lot of stuff going on right now. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll check in, but I can't guarantee much since I'm also pretty busy for the coming few weeks. m.o.p 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It happens :) Hopefully with interesting/fun things, or, failing that, with profitable things! Anything would be appreciated, though. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Roscelese: See here. m.o.p 19:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have left a note on Padresfan94's talkpage [4]. It is fairly obvious that they are stalking Roscelese, and also pretty obvious that they are not a new editor. Their account became active after a previous editor was indeffed for doing the same. Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Thanks for checking up on that, BK - I would not have noticed it myself. m.o.p 01:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Page deleted?Edit

Hi! You deleted a page I created, Giulio Cocchi Spumanti, stating "No explanation of the subject's significance (organization)". I'm a new user and I don't know each Wiki rule, but the reasons for this company page to exist are: - Historical company in the italian wine and spirits business, small but well known - Just awarded in Italy as "Historical Company" - The founder, Giulio Cocchi, in 1891, invented a new category of products, Barolo Chinato - Famous company in the mixology world because of its products (present in 50/50 Best Bars in the World) - In wiki there are hundreds of pages of similar or smaller italian companies in the same business etc

I'm not that good at adding references, are articles on newspaper or business magazines good? There is a lot about this company online!

Can you please reactivate the page, or send me the script so I can save it in my sandbox and improve it?

Thank you very much! =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgio.bbb (talkcontribs) 15:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Giorgio.bbb: Hello Giorgio, thanks for the message.
The article was deleted because it failed to demonstrate notability through the usage of reliable, verifiable sources.
If you have articles (preferably English-language) that can speak to why this company is notable in its field, please do provide them - if you'd like, I can put the deleted text in User:Giorgio.bbb/sandbox for you to add on to it.
Reputable business magazines are good, as are newspaper articles written about the company and what makes it special when compared to other companies of its nature.
Let me know if you'd like me to restore the text to your sandbox so you may continue to work on it, and feel free to ask any other questions you may have!
Best, m.o.p 16:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Master of Puppets: Thank you for the quick answer!
If you could put the deleted text in my sandbox you would save me a lot of work, thanks.
Do articles about different companies, talking about Giulio Cocchi Spumanti as well, count as good references? Or they have to be articles JUST about this company?
Do I have to reference each phrase, or can I simply add all the references at the end of the page?
I've restored the article to your sandbox, which you can find here.
Those would count, but they don't carry as much weight as an article specifically talking about the winery or devoting a large portion of their word count to the winery.
WP:REF has a more in-depth explanation of the guidelines, but, in a nutshell, you should refer any phrase that makes a claim (e.g. "Giulio Cocchi Spumanti was honoured with the Italian Government's 'Best Employer 2014 award'", "The winery has been recognized for their efforts in reducing their environmental footprint", etc.). When in doubt, add references - it's better to have too many than not enough.
What you've got so far is pretty good as far as new articles go! If you can pull up a few more promising references, you should be OK.
For further information, feel free to check out WP:FIRST, which talks about the basic things you should cover when making a new article. It's a lot of reading, but it covers the finer points in good detail.
And, as always, if you need any help I check my talk page every few hours.
Best of luck, m.o.p 16:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Master of Puppets: ok great! I'll work on that asap. Thank you again for your good advice!
ciao, Giorgio.bbb (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Master of Puppets: Hi m.o.p.! can I ask you another help? could you please have a look at my sandbox and tell me if now there are enough references and notability in the page i want to create? thanks! Giorgio.bbb (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Giorgio.bbb: Looking much, much better! Great job. Is there anything else that could be added in the way of information about the company? For example, a bit about its history, owners, etc. Something to balance it out so that we're not singling out their achievements, since doing so can unbalance an article.
After you're done, I can go through and tweak a few things, and that should be it! m.o.p 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Master of Puppets: Hi m.o.p.! may I ask you to have a last look at my sandbox and (hopefully!) give me the green light to publish this page? Ah, how can I move the page from the sandbox to the real world? thanks! =) Giorgio.bbb (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Salvatore J. CordileoneEdit

Your mediation is requested at Talk:Salvatore J. Cordileone. We have already been to several notice boards. Elizium23 (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I'll look it over later today, if that's okay. As mentioned above, I'm embroiled in some legal work - if there's too much required of me I may ask another administrator/editor if they'd like to lend a hand. Is that acceptable? m.o.p 21:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you think is appropriate. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman CatholicismEdit

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I am sorry for bringing this matter up again, and for seeing that my scepticism about a resoltion by 4 December has proved to be well-founded. I have asked on the talk page of the article what are we to do next. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on my discussions with Rosclese and Esoglou, Rosclese refuses to speak to the other. Are there alternatives besides mediation? I don't want to head to arbitration yet. --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: I cannot force an editor to discuss with another if they do not want to do so of their own accord. It seems that the content being disputed isn't really even the main issue - rather, Esoglou and Roscelese's past seems to be what's stalling the process. I welcome any suggestions you have, though. m.o.p 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
You can request for arbitration if you want, or I can file a request myself. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@George Ho: I feel like it's a bit too soon, since we did have a period of constructive discussion after my first protection of the page. I'm going to appeal to the two named editors directly, since that's been the sticking point through all of this. If there's nothing that comes from that, then I would be open to requesting arbitration. m.o.p 02:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not been aware this: the article has been fully protected several times this year: Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --George Ho (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@George Ho: I'm aware. m.o.p 02:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have advised them mediation, but I haven't seen two of them agreeing yet per WP:requests for mediation/Guide. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Now that the storm of accusations against one of the two parties seems to have passed, perhaps you can look again at the possibility of getting discussion going on the one question remaining out of the three raised. I know it is difficult, but the party who refuses to talk with the other sometimes does discuss with a third. You seemed to be getting attention, and I am still hoping you will either personally or in some way arrange things. Esoglou (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that now, after only two days of inactivity, the question put on ANI has been archived, perhaps because it was to be continued on my talk page. I am not surprised that nobody explicitly said the action complained of was acceptable. I am surprised that none of the "administrators and experienced editors" declared it unacceptable that an editor should continue, while paying no attention to the repeated pointing out of the illogicality, to base on a reliable source that states, "The Congregation's point can perhaps be illustrated by a simple analogy ... the more compulsive the disorder, the more reduced is the moral culpability for one's actions", the claim, in Wikipedia's voice, that the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "said that, as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation". Their silence on this matter is implicit recognition that on Wikipedia one may keep reverting to a seeming illogicality, provided you do not discuss the question and thereby ensure that attempts by another editor to initiate discussion go "stale". Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Esoglou: In terms of the remaining question, I will do what I can in regards to that as soon as I have enough time to devote it sufficient attention.
As for ANI, I think taking a lack of input as a sign of the community's approval/disapproval of a certain subject is unnecessarily assuming bad faith. It's likely that people just assumed the matter was resolved or did not consider themselves well-enough informed about the case to contribute anything. m.o.p 03:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not mean to suggest there was bad faith, only insufficient interest. As I put it, "perhaps because it was to be continued on my talk page" or, as you put it, "people just assumed the matter was resolved or did not consider themselves well-enough informed about the case to contribute anything". I wouldn't want to take the absence of condemnation and so the perhaps implicit permitting as a pretext for me too to turn a deaf ear to the raising of difficulties against a text of mine and to revert to it repeatedly. Esoglou (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The more I contact Esoglou, the more I'm becoming more suspicious about him. Check Catholic Church and abortion in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, look at WP:arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion; Esoglou was banned twice on abortion-related topic. How is Arbitration too soon? --George Ho (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about those other two pages, but I can tell you that on H&RC, Esoglau has done more work than any other editor in finding and researching new sources.
Lookong at that arbitration case, Roscelse has a whole section devoted to her, and if you check her block log you will see that she has been blocked for edit-warring on abortion and Catholic topics, something that Eso never has been. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
While GH wants to discuss the past, it might be more useful to consider the present. I am warmly grateful to Roscelese for having now spoken on the third topic on which her refusal to talk of it made discussion "stale". She will of course not respond to my response, but I hope for an intervention by someone with whom Roscelese will agree to interact. Esoglou (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Master, consider credibility of everyone involved in Catholic-related topics the long-term conflict. Esoglou has been somewhat evasive and not fully honest about his actions and sources (according to Roscelese), especially with me. I pinged you at the other editor's page, so you may want to discuss this with her instead. --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does "consider credibility of everyone involved in Catholic-related topics" mean? Elizium23 (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I was including Esoglou and others involved in such articles as "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" and other articles related to Catholicism. --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that includes me, so I am interested to know what exactly you mean by "consider [Elizium23's] credibility" Elizium23 (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know you were involved. I checked your contributions and conclude you as clean. I apologize and should not have generalized. I must rescind and then modify my comments. --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether I should or shouldn't have filed a request too soon, but here's the link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality. --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism, long term abuse, and a real-world problemEdit

You recently blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Good. However, just in case you're interested in the background, these edits are part of a longer term problem. Wikipedia has got off lightly - we have a slow trickle of edits like this - but there have been serious long-term problems on other parts of the internet. [5] [6]. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Squad_(Game_Studio)Edit

I saw that in November you deleted the page on the company Squad. They are the designers of the game Kerbal Space program. There is a significance there, I suggest it be re-created. Barwick (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality openedEdit

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February.. If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee. If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extendedEdit

Dear Master of Puppets, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Precious anniversaryEdit

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality contributions to articles, for fighting vandalism, for inviting to talk and dance, "helping users with whatever they may need done", "always open to helping with conflict resolution if it is needed", and for your amazing trust in the future of this "amazing project". - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 December 2008)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 403rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 403 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks so much for this! I somehow missed it before - probably during my long periods of Wikislumber. Warms my heart, thank you again! :) Best, m.o.p 08:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Ten years!
Ten years awesome today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
... and six years precious today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closedEdit

An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:

  1. User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned. Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
  2. User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
  3. User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring. In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC).



You are now a featured article. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: My only regret is not being around for the day Wikipedia truly became great, haha. m.o.p 08:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing listEdit

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


I have received a notification about a long process of something to do with my wiki, and I tried to view your email, however it was only to view for users, could you please email me at ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiplication IPEdit

Hi, for your information, regarding your blocks of IPs and on page Multiplication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Here's a list of the relevant IPs:

Clearly the shifting 14-ip range and the fixed 123-ip belong to the same person: same edits, same location [8] and [9].

@Dmcq: @ScrapIronIV: if this continues, I'll go for semiprotection of the page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added 3 instances. Meanwhile the page is protected till 17-Apr-2016 by Materialscientist. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@DVdm: thanks very much for your hard work. Unfortunately, the size of that IP block means we're nowhere near being able to justify blocking it. Let me know if it keeps up when the page comes off of protection. Best, m.o.p 17:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Engineering, Procurement and Construction article deleted 01:24, 18 January 2016Edit

I had change the wording, as following:
Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) is a contracting agreement used in the construction industry. The EPC contractor tasks are the thorough engineering design of the project, procurement of all the equipment and materials necessary, and the construction to deliver the completed project.
I feel it is not a copy of:

EPC stands for Engineering, Procurement, Construction and is a prominent form of contracting agreement in the construction industry. The engineering and construction contractor will carry out the detailed engineering design of the project, procure all the equipment and materials necessary, and then construct to deliver a functioning facility or asset to their clients.

EPC stands for Engineering, Procurement, Construction and is a prominent form of contracting agreement in the construction industry. The engineering and construction contractor will carry out the detailed engineering design of the project, procure all the equipment and materials necessary, and then construct to deliver a functioning facility or asset to their clients.

EPC stands for Engineering, Procurement, Construction and is a prominent form of contracting agreement in the construction industry. The engineering and construction contractor will carry out the detailed engineering design of the project, procure all the equipment and materials necessary, and then construct to deliver a functioning facility or asset to their clients.
I would stress that in the power plant sector it is a typical type of contract, i.e. a definition in Wikipedia is needed. If more change is necessary, please explain. --Robertiki (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot, if it is OK, i will recreate the article under the name Engineering, procurement and construction, as per consensus, and merger with Engineering, procurement, and construction management. Sorry for all the confusion (I made some errors creating the article names). --Robertiki (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Alternative wording for the second part: "The EPC contractor executes all design, procurement and construction work until the whole project is completed as required and in time. ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Robertiki: Hello, sorry about the delay in getting back to you. The main concern is that we can't copy another source. If you've taken care of that issue, that's fine. One thing I'd suggest is putting in some in-line citations per WP:CITE; you already have references, so linking them to the article body is an excellent idea. Best, m.o.p 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Cop CarEdit

hello....I've made a couple attempts to add accurate soundtrack information to the cop car film page...not having much luck. Unsure what I'm doing wrong.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hi there. I apologize for the inappropriate warning - I didn't mean to warn you for vandalism. Rather, the problem is that IMDb is not a reliable source when it comes to citing information in an article. Is there another website you can find with soundtrack information on it? m.o.p 04:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The user Zhengan ChenEdit

Also a sockmaster, as there was a sockpuppet blocked earlier today of them. Wgolf (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: Thanks for the heads up. If they keep going we'll put up an SPI. m.o.p 21:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Hey. Having looked at that unblock request I am inclined to agree with the SPA that led to their block. However you've been talking to them so I don't want to step on your toes and reject without consulting you. Would that be ok? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Panyd: This is a bit of a weird one. Obviously, they're editing with an agenda, and there have been a string of accounts - belonging to one person or the same organization, doesn't really matter - that have been blocked. However, given that they're disclaiming paid status, I'd like to give them a shot to see if the content they want to contribute is any good. If it is, we submit it for discussion on the article talk and maybe even clear up some BLP stuff. If it isn't, we tell them thanks, but no thanks.
Does that sound acceptable? I realize it's likely a colossal waste of my time. Do you think it's better to just decline and move on? m.o.p 22:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It sounds acceptable! May God have mercy on our souls (or may we get a lovely editor...hopefully the latter). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
(also many props for the patience) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Panyd: I like to remain optimistic no matter what, hopefully it pays off! I appreciate you stopping by before doing anything. Best, m.o.p 23:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion on my talk pageEdit

@Master of Puppets:

Hi m.o.p,

Just letting you know that I've responded to your comments on my talk page. Thank you. Tryadon (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello, this message is regarding of un-salting of Shalom Television article. And also i had requested an unprotection for this with a prominent reason. Revert soon as possible. SuperHero👊 11:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@D'SuperHero: Hi. After looking through the sources you provided, I'm not sold on the validity of an article here. Out of the sources - one of which is a blatant press release disguised as an article - only one makes mention of 'Shalom Television' explicitly by that name. There are a plethora of references to Shalom World Channel, Shalom America TV, Shalom Television Network, Shalom Media; the list goes on. Given that these articles are focusing on the broader entity, or concept, of this particular group, Shalom Television would be the wrong title to use.
Is your intention to use the salted name as a redirect to another page? Do you have a draft article incorporating these references into text? m.o.p 17:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. It needs to be un-salted before a redirection. And for the title issue some titles i've been rectified which have a "blatant" name like "Charas: A Joint Operation" for which it has been redirected to Charas (2004 film). So needed more assistance for this.

SuperHero👊 05:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@D'SuperHero: Where would you be redirecting the page to, out of curiosity? m.o.p 21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Master of Puppets obvious on its disambiguation page of "Shalom". At least for now. SuperHero👊 05:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@D'SuperHero: It now redirects there. Best, m.o.p 16:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

AIV clerking (Technical Village Pump)Edit

I'll be back later to share more of my ideas on this[10]. I need to take a walk, seeing as my opinions are being overlooked. Boomer VialHolla 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Alright. Don't rush to come back, we'll still be here when you're ready. m.o.p 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


He or she has actually done it with a few different ip on my talk page and seems be purposely trying to revert my edits for some reason despite me explaining to them that the source was already listed they kept changing it. (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@ It's worth noting two things:
  1. You have not once attempted to communicate with the editor, rather immediately jumping to clearing their warnings and reporting them to AIV
  2. Your 'sourced' edits were actually going against sourcing, making the revision perfectly acceptable (at least, that was the case here) m.o.p 19:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The source box office mojo lists both the domestic and foreign total i added them both up which i explained to them also after i reported them they reverted my edit on that page then the user 42V81 came in and removed my edits again and this user has basically no other edits so i suspect thats an account that they just made anyway i thought there behavior was strange thats why i reported them thanks for responding to my comment. (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually 42V81 removed it twice strange behavior for a brand new user. (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello Master of Puppets. You recently deleted an attack page on Donald Trump under the Test Page criteria, while it was an attack page where the contents had been erased because of their attack nature (see the article's history), as suggested by policy. Could you reword your deletion rationale? Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for immediately blocking the creator of that page. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xender Lourdes: I wouldn't worry about it too much. Rationale isn't crucial for small stuff like this. Thanks for the concern, though! And you're welcome. Best, m.o.p 03:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I am relatively new here so don't know the nuances about the general practices at various desks. But following the work of editors like you helps. Thanks and much. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xender Lourdes: No problem! To clarify - with such a blatant instance of vandalism, there's little chance that someone will be confused about why the page was deleted. Rationale is much more important when dealing with nuanced, complex deletions that are likely to receive significant attention. That's my view on it, at least.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. m.o.p 03:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I will drop in if I need assistance. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts?Edit


I have come across two users/accounts that are clearly used by the same person per the accounts' names and the behavioral evidence of the two accounts. First off, I found it odd that the two most recent differences/edits from the accounts were only ten minutes apart from one another.


Account #1: [11]

Account #2: [12] [13]

From what I can tell so far, I don't think they are legitimately abusing these two accounts, but I thought it might be something worth looking to... Thanks! (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@ I think this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I've blocked the sock, since it seemed to have no legitimate reason to exist. I've also left a warning for the user, as some of their changes have been borderline disruptive. Thanks for the heads up! m.o.p 05:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Your namesake(?) musical work made TFA! LeadSongDog come howl! 17:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: Yeah, it's indeed my namesake! By association, I am now a featured user. m.o.p 21:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


Hello, it's me, Darkknight2149. You remember Nolantron (who just became the subject of a sock investigation)? Well, now he is going around and impersonating me and @TJH2018 with a new IP address. You can see the IP's edit history here. Every single edit is either targeting me or TJH2018. DarkKnight2149 22:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Blocked. I may shoot a message over to the Rogers' NOC in Toronto to see if they have any tricks for giving this guy a timeout. Let me know if any new socks pop up. m.o.p 23:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Master of Puppets: Here's another one. Special:Contributions/ This user hasn't shown any sign of stopping any time soon. DarkKnight2149 00:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: Blocked. Just throw the addresses on AIV with a link to the SPI, they should get dealt with soon enough. m.o.p 04:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Will do. DarkKnight2149 04:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

6 months -> 31 hours?Edit

Thanks for your recent block here. From what I'm seeing in their contributions page, though, it's for 31 hours after returning from a 6 month block? Am I reading this wrong? - SummerPhDv2.0 06:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: The original length didn't apply for some reason. I've fixed the oversight. m.o.p 07:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Confrontational UsersEdit

I recently liked the way you told TJH2018 of the dangers of confronting users. Similarly, can you do the same thing with Darkknight2149? See his confrontational posts against User:Nolantron here ([14]) and here: Darkknight2149 warning, which is only encouraging him to vandalize his pages more and more. Is this the way a user should behave on wikipedia? How Darkknight handled the situation was strictly inappropriate, which only stirred the pot up, resulting in the vandal to instead carry vandalizing on but at a greater intensity. Do get this admin wannabe Darkknight to think about his actions. (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'd take your concerns a bit more seriously if you weren't a confirmed sock of Nolantron. I've explained this warnings to you before in a polite manner (even going as far as to pretend I didn't suspect you were Nolantron) and you know it. DarkKnight2149 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Checkuser's Barnstar!Edit

Checkuser Barnstar Hires.png The Checkuser's Barnstar
Thank you for your help with the Nolantron case! Cheers! TJH2018 (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

TJH2018 is correct. You have been very helpful and that help is appreciated. DarkKnight2149 02:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@TJH2018 and Darkknight2149: Thanks so much, guys! Glad to help. m.o.p 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Discrimination adEdit

Hey, m.o.p. I read that you create Wikipedia ads for people. Would you please consider creating an ad for Wikiproject Discrimination? Most users in the Wikiproject are so inactive, and we have lots of articles in need of expansion. Thanks, MediaKill13 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sonic the Hedgehog (film)Edit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sonic the Hedgehog (film). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protectionEdit

Padlock-blue.svgHello, Master of Puppets. 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. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User page designEdit

Hi @Master of Puppets:, I was looking through the user page design center and stumbled across your user page. I was wondering if I could use the frame of your user page (one large box at the top and three smaller ones at the bottom) in order to redesign my user page. No worries if you want to keep the layout for yourself, just a question. Thanks, Daylen (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

New newsletter for NotificationsEdit


You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for adminsEdit


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)

A new user right for New Page PatrollersEdit

Hi Master of Puppets.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Master of Puppets. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You beat meEdit

You beat me to this edit by seconds]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And this one, sorta. ;) m.o.p 11:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean to only block for 31 hours on this IP? (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Good catch, that was supposed to be 2 years. Fixed. m.o.p 12:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Being an admin is probably an often thankless job, so ...Edit

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for all your work helping to protect Wikipedia. Deli nk (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it! :) Thanks likewise for all your great work. Wikipedia is worth protecting due to the efforts of editors such as yourself. m.o.p 12:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


I think he needs his talk page access revoked. He's repeatedly posting the same stuff there. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). m.o.p 03:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Steve CarellEdit

I think I'm at three reverts there and the user you blocked has again switched identities to try their bad edit. Maybe a few days' semiprotection? Either way, thanks for the response to this. CityOfSilver 17:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: -  Done by Favonian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). A small rangeblock was issued that should deal with the addresses for the next day. If they resume disrupting, let one of us know and we can consider further options. Thanks for being on top of this! m.o.p 18:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Added to my watchlist. Thanks. CityOfSilver 18:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


Just in case you don't have email notifications set, or for some reason the Wikimedia software fails to send one (that has occasionally happened to me), I've sent you an email. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sent email to youEdit

I've just sent an email to you, please check your mailbox.Jone.Hu (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Master of Puppets. 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.
@Jone.Hu: Hello! Due to your email settings, I'm unable to email you back without exposing my private address - would you like me to reply here? m.o.p 16:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@M.o.p: Hello! Hmm I see, no problem! I was just wondering if you could help me go ahead and delete my article "Mason Ji" that is currently being debated for deletion? I think there is currently consensus that it should be deleted, and I've realized that my sources were not sufficient and that some of the later sources were problematic. The debate there has degenerated, and even though I've repeatedly apologized for mistakes in source selection and cross-checking, it seems that it has gotten to a point where the comments have become more personal. I would like to delete the article now since it seems a consensus has been made. Perhaps one day the article can be resubmitted when strong, verifiable sources become available and the subject's notability is established, but as of now, I do not think that further debate is helpful. Thank you so much for your understanding! Jone Jone.Hu (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jone.Hu: The AfD has been open for less than a day - we typically do not close them until at least A) a week has passed, or B) there is significant, overwhelming consensus towards a certain end result. As one editor has already expressed their opinion that the article's subject is notable enough for inclusion, I'd like to wait a bit longer to see if anyone else would like to weigh in; I would not do a snowball close unless that editor also changed their vote to delete. Best, m.o.p 16:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@M.o.p: Thank you! The other editor suggested that perhaps it could be shortened to a stub and erase all the contentious materials. Is this even possible at this point with all the other comments? If that is still possible, I wouldn't mind going in and shortening it to just a couple lines, but it seems that a lot of people are talking about notability. If that's not really a feasible option, I would not object to a snowball close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone.Hu (talkcontribs)
A stub would not get around the notability problem - articles (especially about living people) are generally an all-or-nothing thing. m.o.p 18:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@M.o.p: Thank you! I just saw that the other editor who suggested keeping has changed their vote to delete now. Can you go forward with the snowball close? I'm a bit frazzled from all this back-and-forth on the debate, and it seems that the consensus has been reached. I will be extra careful in the future about sourcing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone.Hu (talkcontribs)
@Jone.Hu: Sorry that you're feeling frazzled. I don't think it'll hurt anybody if the discussion is left open for a bit longer. In the meantime, if you ever have any questions about sourcing, you're welcome to ask any one of our wonderful editors. Best, m.o.p 19:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@M.o.p: Thank you, and thank you for the note about sockpuppetry--I was trying to get an idea down, but I forgot my account password, and in the haste of things, I made a new account. So sorry for any confusion and trouble that I may have caused. I sincerely apologize and assure you it will not happen again. Do you know how much longer the discussion is going to be left open for? The entire week? Thank you so much for your kindness and your patience! Best, Jone.Hu (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean for this block to be longer? Regards. (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Yep, thanks for catching that. The interface does this to me from time to time... m.o.p 20:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Unblock of User:FizencorEdit

Greetings, I see you blocked Fizencor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), noting sockpuppetry. However, the master account, FriendsofCliffHyra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), was soft-blocked. Since the block message explicitly said that creating a new account was a valid option, I'm not seeing why this account should be blocked. Any reason to keep the block? Otherwise, I'm unblocking. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I think that's fair - I saw block evasion and a bunch of spammy activity, but I think that was a misjudgment. Thanks for making things right! m.o.p 14:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Esoh OmogbaEdit

Is it possible that you can restore Esoh Omogba since the page was deleted before I had a chance to contest the speedy deletion. The reason that I created his page (even though I knew it has been deleted many times before) was that Omogba has played in a [Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues fully pro league] for Yadanarbon F.C. (the Myanmar National League) in 2016 and all the deleted versions were created prior to his stint there (he transferred there in November 2016 while the latest deleted version of his page was created in February 2016). He has also made appearances for the club, scoring a goal against Warriors FC in the Singapore Cup.Das osmnezz (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

a commentEdit

"master of puppets" not so "master"

"disruptive editing, personal attacks" tell that to yourself "smarty" one!

the disruptive "editing" with "personal" attacks is you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8205:6700:844D:42F3:F8F6:C37A (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Xth Young Scot AwardsEdit

Hi, Master of Puppets! Instead of removing wikilinks to any Xth Young Scot Awards, you should merely change the link so that only the Young Scot Awards part is wikilinked, so that the phrase reads "Xth Young Scot Awards". Would you mind going back to your removals of these links and replacing them with the wikilink to the existing article? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I won't have time to do so for a while - apologies! m.o.p 17:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks for letting me know. I've just now gone through your recent contribs and done that, so unless there's more, that's taken care of. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:YuRi YuZiEdit

Hi MOP! YuRi YuZi removed the block notice(s) while he was blocked by you. I think you will have to revolt his talk page access. See:1 2 Thank you. Z.A.P (Reply/Edits) 12:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @ZaperaWiki44: Users can remove block notices from their talk - I've left you a message on your talk page -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Master of Puppets. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStatesEdit

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 05:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signatureEdit

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User talk:Master of Puppets|<font color="#0">'''m.o.p'''</font>]] : m.o.p


[[User talk:Master of Puppets|<b style="color: #000;">m.o.p</b>]] : m.o.p

Anomalocaris (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire for deletionEdit

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Verified Cactus 100% 22:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Old signatureEdit

Hi Master of Puppets,

Just thought I should let you know I removed an old signature of yours in this edit, as it was breaking the rest of the page – see previous version. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Master of Puppets. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Well butter my buns and call me a biscuit...Edit

...but this AfD close has got to be the worst edits I've ever seen that I'm not personally responsible for, phhht.

I mean, it wasn't a keep, it was a speedy keep the next day after nomination, with you basically making the point that the matter isn't even worth discussing and won't be discussed, and no reasonable person could hold otherwise. (And "I understand that it has only been a day since I closed the previous nomination" as if the previous nomination was anything but "relist this group individually")

But I mean actually it's a terrible article and egregious memorial. I mean not only is this something that a reasonable person could say, but it's almost certainly true:

  • The person's single, only, and solitary claim to notability is that he was mentioned -- not even by name -- in one single sentence by the President, in a list of examples. There's nothing else. That's it.
  • And the single, only, and solitary source that he did any of the things ascribed to him is his sister-in-law's avowal. This is not a neutral source and is not fact-checked and can't be. For all we know he actually said "OH FUCK OH FUCK I'M GOING TO DIE OH FUCK AND THIS IDIOT IS CRYING AND BEGGING ME STAY WITH HIM OH GOD" and his sister-in-law just made up a story to make him look good. I mean what she claims is probably true I suppose, but "probably true I suppose" is not usually considered sufficient for a ref.

And it wasn't even a terrific article. It was a poor article that among other things opened with describing his religion even though that has nothing to do with anything else in the article or his notability (if he had any, which he doesn't), "many believe they prayed together during those final moments" with actually no source and zero reason to believe this is true, and so forth. Lol.

This actually made my day... I mean, woot, what the fuck... so even tho you're not really active and probably won't see this, I just wanted to thank you. I'm still laughing. Carry on! Herostratus (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, I guess! It's always fun when Reddit sheds light on seven-year-old AfD closes. And hey, you're always welcome to flesh out or nominate it for deletion - the power is yours. Best, m.o.p 04:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Nah, it's fine. The article's not hurting anyone, so I've no desire to delete it. Can't worry about these things. It's all good. And yes, since this is The Internet, everything you ever say or do is there to haunt you forever! Could be worse. It could be a photo of you at age 14 goofing around with a blow-up sex doll, and now you're running for congress. So count your blessings! (Uh, unless you are running for congress and there is a photo of you at age 14 goofing around with a blow-up sex doll. In which case, my condolences.) Herostratus (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Return to the user page of "Master of Puppets".