User talk:Master of Puppets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



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




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)

I agree[edit]

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)

Thanks[edit]

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

Unblock request on hold[edit]

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 accounts[edit]

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 accounts[edit]

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: rollback[edit]

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?
Cheers!
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. Cordileone[edit]

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 Catholicism[edit]

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 problem[edit]

Hi,
You recently blocked 72.10.156.114 (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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened[edit]

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 extended[edit]

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 again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

confidence
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)