User talk:Master of Puppets

Master of Puppets' Talk Page Leave a message below! I'll reply on your talk page. Archived Discussions Archive 1: 39 topics. (27 November 2005 - 27 February 2006) Archive 2: 41 topics. (28 February 2006 - 15 March 2006) Archive 3: 40 topics. (15 March 2006 - 23 March 2006) Archive 4: 40 topics. (23 March 2006 - 5 April 2006) Archive 5: 42 topics. (5 April 2006 - April 16 2006) Archive 6: 38 topics. (16 April 2006 - April 22 2006) Archive 7: 40 topics. (22 April 2006 - 7 April 2006) Archive 8: 40 topics. (27 April 2006 - 1 May 2006) Archive 9: 46 topics. (1 May 2006 - 5 May 2006) Archive 10: 60 topics. (5 May 2006 - 16 May 2006) Archive 11: 65 topics. (16 May 2006 - 22 May 2006) Archive 12: 60 topics. (22 May 2006 - 30 May 2006) Archive 13: 119 topics. (30 May 2006 - 15 August 2006) Archive 14: 45 topics. (15 August 2006 - 24 September 2007) Archive 15: 24 topics. (24 September 2007 - 29 November 2007) Archive 16: 93 topics. (29 November 2007 - 31 December 2007) Archive 17: 75 topics. (31 December 2007 - 24 January 2008) Archive 18: 136 topics. (24 January 2008 - 24 February 2008) Archive 19: 102 topics. (25 February 2008 - 14 March 2008) Archive 20: 100 topics. (15 March 2008 - 23 May 2008) Archive 21: 100 topics. (24 May 2008 - 30 September 2008) Archive 22: 100 topics. (31 September 2008 - 10 November 2008) Archive 23: 100 topics. (10 November 2008 - 16 December 2008) Archive 24: 100 topics. (16 December 2008 - 28 February 2009) Archive 25: 100 topics. (28 February 2009 - 14 October 2009) Archive 26: 100 topics. (14 October 2009 - 7 February 2011) Archive 27: 183 topics. (7 February 2011 - 2 January 2013) Archive 28: 137 topics. (21 January 2013 - 12 September 2014) If you wish to revitalize an archived discussion, please copy and paste all text, formatting included, to the bottom of my talk page. Thanks! Top of Page Help me: Herbie The article Herbie should not have its article title in italics. It should be in normal font. I looked through the "edit box", and I cannot see what is causing the article title to appear in italics. Can anyone figure that out? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Hello! The article in question transcludes this template, which automatically italicizes the page title per this policy. However, it looks like that, in this case, the italics aren't necessary; I'll fix that issue in a second. Hope that helps! Cheers, m.o.p 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Hi. Yes, thanks for the help. That was driving me crazy, as I could not figure out what was causing the italics to appear. Thanks for the help! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for information on how to redirect a page to Bucksport, California. I was bold and did it. Besides driving through what is left of the town several times a week, I noticed that all the old written references (1853 to present) spell it as "Bucksport" all one word. I don't know why two pages were created on same "ghost town," but again thank you for your help, we are now down to one page! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page. Message added 08:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC) I've left a message to you at my User Talk page Landscapnik (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC) The irony The Master of Puppets has put an end to the sockpuppets. Lol thanks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC) IP final warning Regarding the final warning on User talk:68.32.41.19, the IP does not want to stop and was warned post final again. The IP needs to be blocked, given that he admits he knows he is editing against policy, and that page probably needs to get permanent Pending Changes. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your attention. History2007 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Deletion of Mobiquant Hello, just to let you know, you deleted Mobiquant without giving due respect to the AfD process [1] which you did not allow to last even 24 hours. I understand that one of article contributors had ARV and was rightly blocked. Still, thanks if you could restore the Mobiquant page and keep it until the decision is reached in due course. kashmiri 22:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Kashmiri's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Talk page I have taken it to the talk page but these other users refuse to comment. They aren't giving valid reasons for reverting the edits. The awards are decided by the top critics in India, how are they not RS? I explained but no one else bothered to comment. What should I do? Ashermadan (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Jaideep Sahni I tend to agree with your rationale over at AIV, for putting the request on hold. It would have been great though, if they had told us from the beginning their intentions, rather last minute. Anywho, I'll keep an eye out - hopefully they'll start using the article's talk page and communicate with people. Regards, — MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at JDDJS's talk page. Message added 21:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. JDDJS (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC) RevDel I think next time, you should revdelete any edits between when the PA was made and when it was redacted. Otherwise anyone can see what was added, although not in a diff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Emmette Hernandez Coleman's talk page. Message added 17:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Emmette Hernandez Coleman's talk page. Message added 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Tajasel's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Regarding warnings/block (FYI only): For the record, I only returned 72 hours later when I happened to be online via this IP to set the record straight and defend myself. It was determined that the warnings were not justified and the block by Fut.Perf. ☼ was unwarranted (which I knew already). That is not an attack, it is a fact. I saw your messages before I "returned" to clear up the false actions made against me and could have easily not come back to prove those involved wrong. Yet out of principal I knew I had to stand up for myself, so after a long "discussion" on my talk page, it was determined that the warnings were not only insufficient and unclear, they were not considered direct attacks and the block was not appropriate. And I don't need to use this IP address to be productive on Wikipedia IF I wanted. It's a good idea in the future to actually do some research and not get "warning/block" happy or jump the "bash IP/newbies" bandwagon (I'm actually a veteran editor regardless of my use of IPs or activity with Wikipedia). At any rate, I disagree with the "chatter" that took place here: [2] It was NOT a 'good idea' to block me when I hadn't even directly attacked Walter in the first place (nor create an edit war when my contributions were sourced and are now "allowed" again). But whatever, it's over. People's feelings get hurt easily [here], I get it. Nonetheless, blocks don't affect or "hurt" me anyways. That is not the answer to just get users silent. Take time to actually understand everything going on and know the facts/truth. Lessons learned? Best of luck! [3] 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Seb, and assume that your comment was meant in jest - if not, I strongly suggest you review this before you say "IPs are free to insult others". Walter: I see that EdJohnston has warned the editor in question for edit warring, but there haven't been any clear-cut warnings against personal attacks. I left one here; it is up to the editor to decide what they do next. m.o.p 07:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Ridernyc's talk page. Message added 03:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Ridernyc (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Ridernyc's talk page. Message added 03:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Ridernyc (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC) RE: Rydernyc Hi. I noticed you schooled this editor pretty good at his talk page. Anyway, I would appreciate a comment from someone who has a grasp on how encyclopedias should work, so could you give your 2cents here? His editing pal might be scheming to try their opinion-based consensus loophole again. BTW, your talk at his page inspired me to fix up Master of Puppets a bit, LOL. Dan56 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC) While I disagree with Rider's current approach, they're free to look for sources that argue their point; if the ones they find are compelling enough (and they can persuade other editors), then the genres on that article may yet change. I'm going to stick to a neutral observer's role for now in case mediation is required, as I'd like to stay impartial. And the sourcing of Master of Puppets is appreciated - in fact, I might go listen to it right now. Again. m.o.p 17:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Patchy1's talk page. Message added 11:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 11:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Thank You Thank you Master of Puppets for your help.Looks fine now. I have further questions though in my talk page.Landscapnik (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I've replied accordingly on your talk page. Glad I could help! m.o.p 19:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Montgomery High School (Santa Rosa, California) Hi MoP; still more socks in action here Montgomery High School (Santa Rosa, California). Thank you, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Awesome, thanks. Blocked - I may just protect the page if they keep it up. m.o.p 19:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Much appreciated. I've requested protection, since the vandalism well precedes the latest outburst. Cheers, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Protected for two weeks, actually - looking at the history, I'd say it's about time to give these guys a bit of a break. Thanks! m.o.p 19:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Great. The page was a wreck dating back at least to last summer--I don't have the patience to follow it further, but it's been a students' playground for a long time. Keep it on your watchlist after protection ends....seems a safe bet to recur. Very best, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I'll do my best - though being in school myself, I can only hope I'll have enough time. Regards, m.o.p 20:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Montgomery Page Hello Master of Puppets and Alex, I am a fellow peer of English lover. He is a IB student at Montgomery and everything he has said is true. Please do not block him. It is quite difficult to prove the existence of the apostrophe club because there are no articles about it online. We can only write from personal experience. This club is completely valid and I ask that you replace the portion of the article. Please help me in resolving this error. Thank you for your time. -Montgomery High IB student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.41 (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia requires content to be verifiable, especially content about living people. Calling someone schizophrenic can't be done without adequate reliable sourcing. The same applies (minus the BLP part) to the existence of this club; if it's not notable and verifiable, it can't be in the article. Nothing personal! m.o.p 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) You cannot verify that the club does not exist either. So you are working under a fallacy. Is there verifiable proof of Noah's Ark or that we actually exist? This is a knowledge issue something all IB students at MHS are taught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.16 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) We operate under the assumption that nothing exists. Wikipedia is actually the largest nihilist entity to ever exist-but-not-really-exist. But actually. Unless something has been verified through third-party reliable sources, we presume it is not notable and not worthy of inclusion. Just because something is real doesn't mean it's notable - for example, my dog is real, and I can prove she is real, but there are no reliable sources that indicate why my dog is notable (as opposed to, say, Laika). m.o.p 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Technically anything notable is based under the opinion of the person reading or writing. Your dog for example may be notable to a dog lover while someone else may care less. The apostrophe club is a notable achievement for the IB English students. Please replace the article bar the part about medicated schizophrenia. The rest of the article is valid and should be treated as such. I am not sure how I can make the fact that his club exists any clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.66.103 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC) That's why we have a clearly-defined notability policy - early on in the project's history we decided that subjectivity is for losers and that we'd instead prefer a nice, arbitrary benchmark with which we can grade all articles. If you can produce multiple reliable sources about the apostrophe club and why it is notable to people aside from those in the apostrophe club/people who have a fetish for high school English clubs then perhaps it can be re-added to the article. For now, however, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ruin all the fun. Sorry! m.o.p 20:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC) How can I produce a reliable source. The importance if the club is a matter of oppinon. How is Rubik's cube club acceptable yet Apostrophe club is not. I could send you a picture of the name written on the board In the English class but you probably would not coincider that a viable source. Just repost it without the reference to the teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.66.103 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I just removed the Rubik's club prior to your message, actually, and a bunch of the sports teams. Again, as I said, it's not like I don't believe this club exists - it's just that it's not notable per our criteria. If the club wins national awards (which are documented after the fact) or receives recognition from a newspaper/such, then that's a different story. As it is, we try to keep unsourced content off the project. It's not out of some hatred for english clubs, I swear - it's for our readers' sake. m.o.p 20:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) MoP, Aside from a refusal to accept guidelines and a lack of acknowledgement re: why these edits are not acceptable, I don't think our entirely well-intentioned enthusiasts understand the difference between adding snickering commentary to their notebooks, and what may constitute an actionable offense on the web. I'd suggest the history of defamatory edits mentioning the teacher be expunged permanently. Thanks, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The content doesn't really meet the criteria listed on this page, and the editor did acknowledge the inappropriate nature of the comment above - I'll let it slide for now. m.o.p 21:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Perhaps not, but I'm thinking that WP:CRD may apply to purely disruptive editing--writing in a Wikipedia article that a non-notable figure is receiving treatment for a mental disability has only one clear purpose. And as for acknowledgement, I'm less sanguine; both users persisted to ignore warnings re: defamatory content until you blocked them. Cheers, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC) By the way, thank you for further cutting the unsourced. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I repeat, I could care less if you remove the lander pus remarks, but please put the clubs and activities back. It makes montgomery look bad and affects the reader. No offense but you are kind of being a Wikipedia Nazi, there is no point in have a page if you take off everything that makes montgomery montgomery. It is rediculous that without a source you can't have any useful information on the Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.71.207 (talk • contribs) As I said above - I apologize, but there's a standard we must hold ourselves up to. If there wasn't a sourcing requirement I could easily go and say that Montgomery High has a team of trained shark tamers. The reader wouldn't have a clue as to whether or not I was telling the truth. That's why we rely on sources. m.o.p 21:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC) As to the comment about snickering in their notebooks. That would be considered cyber bullying so I sincerely hope that you feel good about yourself that you could put down high schoolers. Further more the creative details that have been added over the course of over a year were created as an experiment about the fallacy of appeal to authority and we were researching companies that are run under this fallacy. We wanted to see how long it would take Wikipedia to fix these. The answer confirmed to us why Wikipedia is banned in an academic environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.48 (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The results of your experiment, conducted on one obscure article over an extended period, are surely infallible and will be the end of this 4,154,988-article project. Now, please drop the issue unless you intend to bring forth some reliable sources. Many thanks, m.o.p 21:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I see--'snickering in notebooks' is cyber bullying, but knowingly defaming a person and vandalizing an article over the long term, and playing the 'Nazi' card is okay? And no, Wikipedia is not banned in academia, just viewed with some healthy reservation. Aside: MoP, are we dealing with a series of sockpuppets of the blocked accounts, and is an SPI merited? 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC) To be blunt, it's not really worth it. The IP addresses are being assigned dynamically, and I'm not going to block an entire county's IP addresses for some minor vandalism (that has now been corrected). I'll keep an eye on them in the future, but I don't think it's worth bothering a checkuser over. If I notice further malicious activity coming from them, though, then we'll see about getting a CU to check it out. Thanks for keeping an eye on this so far, by the way. m.o.p 21:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Sorry to have clogged up your page with this. Though the sheep in the corner seems unfazed. Cheers, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Do you guys realize what you are saying. Honestly, look. You are taking this incredibly seriously. This is a page about a highschool. The only vandalism has been done by you guys by deleting things. It was fine until you inervined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.64.242 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) If we don't take it seriously, then how will we ever get the respect of the academics?! ;) m.o.p 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) You misunderstood me. You are taking your job to seriously. How can Wikipedia ever be a reputable source if everything, even that which is true, is subject to censorship. I do my why can not allow a list of clubs without documented proof ( which is somewhat impossible). Why not just allow the reader to see choose to believe what they want or not instead of making them only be able to read what you feed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.64.242 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) {{Help Me}} Thanks for your assistance earlier on the 'Lazerfest' page - unfortunately, whoever is guilty of the persistent vandalism has somehow returned and has once again caused me to undo a revision. Was an IP address blocked, or just the specific username ('Creedplus1')? I'm afraid that person is back under another unregistered username. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Hellbilly515 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I've blocked them as well, thanks for letting me know. For future reference, you can report incidents like this at WP:AIV. Regards, m.o.p 02:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Commute (disambiguation) Hi. I see that you deleted Commute (disambiguation) (which used to redirect to the disambiguation page Commute). These redirects are common practice, and their use is recommended by WP:HOWTODAB. (These redirects help distinguish accidental links to a disambiguation page from intentional ones.) — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Ah, my mistake. I deleted it because it was only linked to three times. I'll restore it now. Thanks for letting me know! m.o.p 14:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you for restoring it! — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Case file related to the recent vandalism at 'Lazerfest' Just found this, thought since you've been such a great help you could take a look and see what sorts of action can be taken from here, since this person/these people don't seem to be going away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ftheoldies/Archive Thanks. Hellbilly515 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Template:help me-helped So I removed the auto-subst from this template. While making it substable is a good idea, auto-substing newbie templates isn't a good idea because it's just going to confuse them. Legoktm (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Confuse them how? m.o.p 06:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Bot substing In essence: a very good reason not to subst templates such as {{archive top}} or {{tl}} is that the substed form is much longer. WP:SLOW and such being the case, I don't think your bot should be substing these templates, particularly the xfd templates and help-me-helped. It is also replacing templates in comments. I blocked the bot, feel free to catch me when you see me. Prodego talk 06:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC) For all this and more, join in on the discussion at WT:SUBST! m.o.p 07:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC) My talk page I think I did it :D User_talk:Addshore. If you have any other ways to make it look nicer let me know! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 08:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Fakhravar Per your instructions, I've begun a dialogue of the issues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amir-Abbas_Fakhravar#Page_Protection. Notably, the same issues were the subject of attempts at dialogue on various occasions. Sometimes Siavash777 participated, but most of the time he didn't. Instead, his strategy appears to be to wait until the protection/blocked is lifted and to begin the reverting immediately thereafter. I've also indicated a possible Conflict of Interest concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Blocking of registered users Just curious, recently you blocked Lollskate, whom I reported at AIV. Since "autoblock enabled" was not stated, so was his IP autoblocked? I'm quite concerned as he is most likely a sock of an account already blocked before that. Arctic Kangaroo 08:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC) If the helperbot edit summary doesn't contain the letters "ADB", autoblock is enabled. m.o.p 08:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Block User:Tbhotch, please. Sorry for interrupt, User:Tbhotch is from Mexico, other user trying to correct edit in that day but Tbhotch undid, please block Tbhotch with no expiry set (indefinite). P.S. If someone needs unblock Tbhotch, just don't unblock.