User talk:MSGJ: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:50, 14 February 2019

Please leave a new message.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

can you please add the leicester helicopter incident?

its really important and its tragic. please add it.

ITN

Can you revert your latest headline? I don't see any sources claiming that a terrorist attack in Mali and diplomatic relations of Chad are related. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did check that was sourced before proceeding. E.g. [1] Care to look again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's there now. No need for an immediate revert; I'll continue to discuss on ITN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have blocked the user for violating 1RR but now you are refusing the revert his edit and you have locked the article for 2 weeks.

There was always consensus for this [2] before user:nice4what reverted it 2 times breaking the 1RR. You have blocked him as a result but his edit still stands there. Worst of all you have locked the article and you are refusing the revert back to the original. Meaning the article is stuck with the rule breaking revert now for 2 weeks. Jim7049 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can demonstrate there is consensus for the change then I will gladly look into it. Please post on the article talk page, not here. I'll be over there shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can demonstrate a consensus but there certainly isn't an objection, other than the user who made a rule breaking double revert and is now blocked. Do I need a consensus for you to revert rule breaking edits? Jim7049 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordial Greenery

As per the AN3 report that you closed yesterday, he has started edit-warring on BAMN again. I would block him immediately myself, but edited the page yesterday. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be fair to block one side of that dispute and not the other. And he is using the talk page. I've protected the article for a week. Hopefully that helps build the discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just stopping by after looking at the page and was going to ask. It looks like it is protected indefinitely, is that what you meant to do? PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it certainly wasn't. Shall we try a week? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No issue from me, I just wanted to make sure what was happening. PackMecEng (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just swinging by to say thanks for the measured response to a situation that seemed like it was close to getting out of hand. That goes to everyone involved. Cheers, mate(s). CordialGreenery (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

angel of the north

Thank you for welcoming new users, for gnomish work such as "fix link to dab page", for admin services, fighting vandalism, and nominating others for the job, for helping articles for creation, main page errors and ITN, for a spectacular clear user page, - Martin, repeating (22 July 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda for your kind words — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

Hi, Martin. I noticed that you said in this recent discussion that you would keep an eye on both of them. Considering what a hot topic it is, we have had almost no aggravated problems (aside from one blocked sock) at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Because Jim7049 had the wisdom to remove both of his personalizing attacks himself, I don't want to escalate to ANI or 3RR, but he seems to need to use talk pages appropriately, and gain consensus before reverting. Particularly with a controversial topic that is on the main page right now.

Here's the succession, if you are still keeping an eye on him.

Dubious text with marginal source remains in the article, pending input/consensus from others. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia You make me laugh, the source you are calling dubious is the 4rd most circulating newspaper in Spain, you really make me laugh that you report those edited out words to a mod. Can't you accept that you are in the wrong for once? Jim7049 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that on 26 January, Jim7049 edit warred to insert India under the list of countries supporting Maduro (India is firmly neutral, still, three weeks later): 22:21, 22:31, and 23:08. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha you bring up other stuff about my page stalking me? This is the biggest personal fury I've seen so far. This user is clearly trying to prove himself in a non logical way. Jim7049 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have lost the edit war you have started by removing the sourced content I placed, you complain to a mod about my past edits. Users like you should be banned for such behaviour. Jim7049 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, in all my years editing, I have never before encountered an admission of edit warring as "you have lost the edit war". The problems at the Presidential crisis article have subsided, but I see the problem at Commons regarding the image is aggravated.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been monitoring this editor for a while now and finally decided to take action. I hope they can improve their editing style. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid making any mistakes: Am I free to revert to the last stable version on 2013 Egyptian coup d'état? Or does the current version (which has been rejected by other editors on the talk page and which violates policy, ref. talk) have to stand while Jimbo is blocked? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unwise to continue the edit war, especially as it might be seen as taking advantage of the situation. However if there is a clear consensus among editors, then it should be okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Alright, thanks for the response. It's a rather obvious case and comments by other editors underline that, but I wanted to make sure I don't come off as taking advantage of the block. Best, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMCD bot

Thanks for trying to remove the ugly move discussion banner. That bot is particularly stubborn, and will probably be back again. The easiest thing to do would be to close the move discussion. The discussion has run its course and I was honestly surprised that it was re-listed (and after I'd requested a close at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves to get rid of the banner). I'm an involved editor so I can't close it myself. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN 2

I want to bring to your attention a concern I have with your recent contributions to ITN. I hope you will understand my criticism comes in good faith. However I do believe that your recent early postings of some RD nominations has been undercutting the mission of this project. ITN has become an amazing pipeline for improving the articles on recently deceased notable figures. Please remember the ITN section is not only intended to memorialize, recognize, celebrate these people. Like everything on Wikipedia, it is intended to improve the encyclopedia. Building the best encyclopedia possible is our only purpose. Everything else comes second. We also have a responsibility to make sure these BLPs are verifiable to reliable secondary sources. In the future, I hope you will take posting decisions with the same seriousness afforded closures of RfCs or deletion reviews. Consider !votes of support critically and ensure the pages meet some basic standards of neutrality and verifiability before post. You MUST review the article's references yourself to ensure that serious BLP violations don't make it to the Main Page.

You are the final guardian at the gate. Forgive the presumption to instruct and thank you for your service to the cause! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message; you voiced your concerns constructively. I am well aware of my responsibility in posting content to the main page. I always check articles before posting, and while I am unable in the time available to check out every reference I do aim to ensure that the most important statements are all properly sourced. However isn't this is the duty of everyone commenting on a nomination and no more so of the posting admin? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My only hope is to give you pause. I consider ITN as a carrot, a reward to editors to encourage them to improve the article. A death brings an otherwise lightly edited article to prominence and leads to heavy editing to improve it. When an RD nomination is posted too early, it undercuts the article's moment in the sun. Once a nomination is posted, editors have little motivation to improve the page. My only advise is to let the pages have a few more moments in the limelight, to take any oppose votes more seriously, and treat singular support votes with suspicion, especially those support votes coming from editors who do not frequent ITN regularly.

If I notice any editors giving support votes without good cause, I will be sure to begin similar discussions on their talk page to point it out to the user.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but if an article is good enough then I don't think holding it up to encourage editors to make the article even better is part of the aims of ITN or supported by the guidelines. I suspect on the contrary, that it is eligible items going stale and not being posted that would rather cause editors to be discouraged and stop participating in ITN. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I share the view point of MSGJ here. ITN is an extremely time sensitive topic and it is blasphemous to hold back articles that are good enough as per ITN standards hoping that editors will try and bring it closer to GA. what happens that way is articles get stale. I recently got involved with ITN and posted 5 ITN RDs successfully, but my last ITN Eckstein went stale in spite of being ready to post simply because newer entries were already promoted. (more discussion here User_talk:DBigXray/Archive2019_1#Eckstein_at_ITN). I am upset about its non promotion and this has indeed demotivated me to nominate ITN RDs. I will steer clear from nominating stuff at ITN/RD if its not already a GA candidate or eligible for a B class. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the talk of article class is a pure red herring. RDs are BLPs. If they are beyond stub and well referenced (and that is fundamental to BLP), they can be promoted. If they contain BLP violations, unverifiable claims etc, they must never be promoted to the main page. It's absolutely nothing to do with GAs or B class or any other scale. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it more simplistically. Given the number of items that you have promoted which have to be pulled, I would urge more caution before just simply seeing some kind of consensus. As noted above, posting admins are the last quality gate we have, and it's all too easy to just go with the two supports (for example) and blame those editors for overlooking the shortcomings of any particular article. RDs are based on quality alone, but stories need proper discussion and consensus, not just posting after a few hours with two supports. If you need any advice, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

176.224.57.211 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

I replied to your thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - although I did not receive your ping, so suspect you may not have received mine.
A subsequent edit by Lowercase sigmabot III has moved that entire thread into an irrelevant collapsed hatnote to the thread above. There seem to be problems on that page. - Arjayay (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oops. help:)

Hello ! I made a mistake here: History of the Jews North Macedonia. I forgot the IN. Can undo the move. Please help! Thank you in advance.--APG1984 (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it for you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But do you need "the" in the title? History of Jews in North Macedonia seems clearer — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the "the" makes it sound like Borat speaking hahahah--APG1984 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanq removing my ip

From edit warring notice board (183.83.107.223 (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 == Thanq removing my ip ==
+From edit warring notice board
 ([[Special:Contributions/183.83.107.223|183.83.107.223]] ([[User talk:183.83.107.223|talk]]) 08:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC))