User talk:MSGJ

Archives

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

Mafia

Hello, MSGJ, please have a look here.
Have you read? If you have not, please do it before continuing the reading. As you can see, there is one more user and also a user since 2005 who agree to add the pronunciation of the Italian word "Mafia". Is this enough for you? I would like to hear your answer to be sure, I have learnt to be careful with trigger (block) happy admins. If you have no objection about that matter, I will write in the talk page that a consensus has been reached, then one of the two users shall add the pronunciation. Is this ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.112.193 (talk • contribs)

Just an FYI

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

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

Magioladitis

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

I took a look. Next time someone should probably block and take it to Arbcom. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. WP:CITE and WP:COSMETIC are not the same argument. WP:CITE is not covered by AWB's rules of use right now. Moreover, I do not like Carl's tactic to isolate a few edits from the general editing pattern. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Reference errors on 2 March

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

On the List of social networking websites page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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

User:Mr. Granger, can you help with this error please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that. I forgot the archivedate parameter in one template. To fix it, please change

{{cite news |url=http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=125429 |title='Pause for Cause' Picks Creative Contest Winners |publisher=MediaPost |date=5 April 2010 |accessdate=5 May 2010 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100407091119/http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=125429}}

to

{{cite news |url=http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=125429 |title='Pause for Cause' Picks Creative Contest Winners |publisher=MediaPost |date=5 April 2010 |accessdate=5 May 2010 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100407091119/http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=125429 |archivedate=2010-04-07}}

—Granger (talk · contribs) 14:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time Person of the Year

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

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

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

College football / soccer football biography infobox

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

@TheBigJagielka:

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

Ifexist not redirect

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

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

Noinclude on templates

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

We should not be sticklers for rules, but feel free to use our common sense! I haven't looked at the TfD, I'm more concerned with the way that the TfD notice became substituted onto articles at the moment (see [1]) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unusual small line above the template. Not intrusive or confusing. As I said on the talkpage, should not bother anybody, as Fred Gandt agreed with me. But okay. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, initially Fred Gandt seemed to agree with your position, but then in futher comments he clearly showed that he did not agree with you ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Debresser that the text of the transcluded notice is clear and not reasonably confusing, but not that it should be transcluded. I personally don't think that kind of notice belongs in the article space, even though clearly the transclusion of the notice in that manner is by design; at some time there was probably a discussion that led to the functionality, so my opinion runs contrary to implied and perhaps explicit consensus (aww). In this particular case though, the TfD is preposterous (and I don't consider that a matter of opinion) and shouldn't being publicised with clutter on new articles likely by new editors which are already under scrutiny. fredgandt 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion of TfD notices to articles is not in itself a problem; it's a good thing, because it raises awareness of the ongoing TfD. What is a problem is if the template that is up for TfD is designed for WP:SUBSTitution, and in such cases, there must be a <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the {{Template for discussion/dated}}. This is covered at WP:TFD#Listing a template, about halfway down box I. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importing the form of infoboxes in English Wikipedia to Kabyle Wikipedia

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

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

Cowtown96

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp

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

Actually, this is exactly what has happened in the past, e.g. Graffiki was moved into mainspace by Legacypac and then three minutes later was nominated at AfD by him. I'll take another look at Chaz Knapp and look at rewording the closure. I didn't mean to imply you were actively colluding in this regard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Back_on_point, that was the prior case. The two other cases weren't that. I would agree that "moving an article you believe to be unsuitable into mainspace is disruptive" is appropriate, the AFD implication is not. This is all stupidly moot since the userspace page was later deleted by DGG under U5 but given the reverts to my relistings and repeated draggings to ANI over "admin deletionist gameplaying at MFD", I'd prefer to not leave any vague insinuations out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the close, basically using your suggested words above. Hope this is satisfactory. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Islamist terrorist attacks

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

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

Blindspot talk page

It seems as if another user has come along to revert the formatting I implemented a week after the discussion. When they restored the previous reversion, I reverted in good faith with a solid explanation, but they continued to revert under the impression that I have modified comments. I've ceased any further reverts and posted on their talk page with further explanation; I await a reply. However, I think that some sockpuppetry may be involved, as three different but similar IPs have contributed on this particular issue (217.248.20.109, 217.248.0.219, 217.248.22.214). Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to leave this alone, but the bullshit accusation of sockpuppetry is too much. Maybe you should ask for a checkuser? Oh right, that doesn't make sense, because only accounts can sockpuppet. Alex, step back, and don't touch other editor's comments ever again.-217.248.22.214 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff in question.-217.248.22.214 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]