Jump to content

User talk:MPS1992

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.36.105.25 (talk) at 09:31, 18 June 2016 (→‎"Serious" MH issues - good catch: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, MPS1992, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Justice007 (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grant Shapps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bingo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always ujdnxnxxkxbdkdhnintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPS1992, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi MPS1992! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Military History project

Hello MPS1992! Thank you for your contributions.
If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Link 22, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compatibility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

It's very nice of you. Thank you (Mona778 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

You are very welcome. I hope all goes well for you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being hassled by Taichi

Hi,

Thank you for being so handy. You are such a blessing and understand so much. But regarding Commons, no, They don't have different rules. I checked it myself, exactly the same rules applies there as they do in Wiki English. [1] "Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage -- either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them." But I wonder, can we ask an administrator from Wiki English who is also in charge at Commons to intervene? Since we have a decision in our favor from the noticeboard/Incident?--- Thanks again, and god bless You dear. (Mona778 (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

A decision on an English Wikipedia noticeboard probably would have none or not very much importance at a Commons noticeboard.
Also, the rules are indeed different. The Commons guideline that you linked to also has this quite strange rule: "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in dispute resolution."
As far as I can see, the material that Taichi and others have edit-warred to restore on your Commons talk page, is only templated information notices. So I think they are probably not "personal messages" where "a reply would be appropriate". So I still think Taichi is wrong to restore them, even on Commons, especially without explaining why.
The history of your Commons talk page is very strange. In particular I do not understand why User:Thibaut120094, who is an experienced administrator on Commons and on French Wikipedia, would be making edits like this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMona778&type=revision&diff=162689371&oldid=162684138 over a long period of time repeatedly.
These problems have not happened for over two weeks now. So I suggest this. If these problems happen again on Commons, please let me know here, and if so, I will then ask on Commons why administrators and others are behaving in this way. Perhaps there is a simple explanation. MPS1992 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thank You so much, You're so nice. I wish You the best dear.---Bye for now (Mona778 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Dear MPS1992, You said I let know if these problems happen again on Commons, well it did! See here

Hi Thibaut, I'm Taichi from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm notifying you about the constant blankings from the user Mona778, in his archive, including a message sending by you few days ago. The user believes that blanking all the messages is OK in Commons, but I don't find any policy or rule that permits the blanking as "courtesy". If I'm wrong please tell me, because the user persists about blanking all the messages. Thanks. --Taichi (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC) I'm really fed up of these people, please do something about these provocations, and harassments.---Thank You (Mona778 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure I can do anything about behaviour on Commons. But, I have left a message there with my opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. You did a lot already, thanks. Just this final question , what do you thing if I contact an administrator who is in charge of both projects (English, and Commons,) and let him/her know about the incident in Wiki English? (Mona778 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
The incident in Wiki English was finished a long time ago. The incident in Commons is now a discussion about what people are allowed to do with their talk pages and talk page archives in Commons. You could contact someone, but I do not know if it would be useful or not. MPS1992 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This administrator for example, he is in charge of both [2]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona778 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it seems he is an administrator on both. That is not quite the same as being in charge on both. Other administrators might disagree with him, for example. MPS1992 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see! Well, we just have to wait then? Anyway, Thanks again for being such help... You're the best!(Mona778 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
You are very welcome. Here is another suggestion. Set up Automated archiving on your talk page on Commons, as the guidelines there say you can do. Perhaps set to have things archived after 1 day. Then, take your archive off your watchlist. Then the other user could make whatever edits he wants to your archive, and no-one else will know or care. MPS1992 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I almost forgot! look at this [3], They promoted a suckpuppet at English project, to patroller, rollbacker! (Mona778 (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
You did again! They finally back down becauce of you and a fellow from Turkey, whom I left a note of appreciation at their IP's talk page [4] for shedding light on "the reality of the affairs" by attaching link to the User talk page of Drmies [5].---Thanks a lot, and have a nice weekend With a very warm hug!

(Mona778 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@MPS1992: Hi, They don't want to back down, do they? (Mona778 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Turkey? All this inter language confusion is very strange.

I said, "Do you speak my language?"
But he just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich

- Down Under (song), audio at File:Down Under by Men at Work.ogg

MPS1992 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you surprised? 'cause I lived there for a while at Sariyer district, Istanbul, some years a go (2009-2010). By the way, from now on I think is better that we use another medium for communication, I don't want you to get in to trouble here because of me. You saw, how they tried to manipulate the situation concerning your User talk page, they're watching us 24 Hours a Day! I want to give you my private email, but I just don't know how to do it without some trouble makers notice it? (Mona778 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Craig Harrison (sniper), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dog handlers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear MPS1992, Thanks for your input on Administration notice board/incidents, it's greatly appreciated. I closed my user page account at their project couple of days ago as I said I will do [6], and as long as those people are in charge there I will stay away from that project. Therefore, I hope that finally they will leave me alone and move on! With regards, (Mona778 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Ip hopping

Hello. In response to this [7], I found an example. Here: [8].

On the 15th of October I user the following ip address: 94.253.23.60 . On the next day I used: 194.152.253.49 when I was editing via cell phone. You can see what the admin had said: "Now we have an IP-hopping editor from 194.152.*...This is considered abuse of multiple accounts". I replied: "EdJohnston, if you didn't notice, all my posts today are done over mobile editing, thus not surprising my Ip is changing..." but nothing had changed.

Best regards. PS my ip is again changed from 141..to 89..and I had not changed it myself. IPs are changed by some ISPs more often. If you turn off/on your router you will get another ip assigned (at least I am). If you have a bridge connection, you can change ip in an instant by disconnecting and connecting. Mobile users have their ip changed very often. Also you can do it yourself by turning off/on mobile data. 89.164.142.196 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I am not sure the example is very clear, indeed there is no block made I think?, but I will look into it further. Thank you again. MPS1992 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I chose this one because it's the clearest I could find. As soon as I posted with a different ip admin had said that this is an abuse of multiple accounts and done an action against me, protected the page so I as an ip can't edit it. I don't remember whether I was blocked that time, indeed, but the admin had acted against me because my ip was changed. 89.164.142.196 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Had you looked at the case. I'm interested in your opinion on the matter. I don't know if you noticed but the RfC on the talk page that was in the 3RR report was closed by a random editor who had closed because he had disagreed with it. Then I tried to revert that and that had led to the referenced report. I really couldn't do anything although I had only tried to introduce a source to the article. There are no sources opposing it and there are really no valid opposition apart from nationalistic stand on the matter. That's the worst situation to edit as an ip. In that case one side often prevails and builds a fort. Anyways, seems you are more interested in the cases I actually got banned without any report and without any misdeed apart from the accusation that I'm a sock, so here: [9]. It's quite long but to sum it up: User Shokatz started a discussion. FkpCascais was extremely hostile to him and even tried to ban him which caused him to leave that discussion. I took part and FkpCascais immediately started to get rid of me as well by accusing me to be a sock. He often called admin HighInBC to block my ip. That was done without any report or any cause on my side. I hadn't done anything wrong apart from disagreeing with FkpCascais. No other editors apart from him had any complaints against me. Not only that but it was me who managed to bring arguments and sources to close the RfC. It was even formally closed by an experienced editor according to what I had brought to the table. I can say that was extremely hard with my posts being deleted and me getting blocked for no reason. What I'm trying to say is that any IP can be accused to be a sock and with an admin on your side you can block him with no report, no questions asked. I tried to complain so I reported that admin but that was, of course, futile. I tried to insist that by behavior is exemplary but that was not enough. I was blocked only because of those 2, although I was always discussing in good faith following every rule that there is. Notice that no other editors in that discussion had any problems with me. Not only that but they agreed with me and my sources and arguments. You can even see that one editor had changed own opinion on the subject matter because of my arguments. So with an exemplary editing I was blocked with no report. I guess I can't be editing with an exemplary behavior because someone living in my region was disruptive by using the same IP which is assigned to majority of computers in that general area. My only misdeed was using proxies when I got blocked for no reason, but I'm not sorry since I managed to bring that RfC to other editors who then took over and agreed with me. Without me being persistent and them noticing I really couldn't have done anything as an ip. Sorry if this is too much for you, but you seemed interested. I'll understand. 141.138.22.141 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is fine. And I need a reminder sometimes. Actually quite often, as I had mostly forgotten about this, other than watchlisting numerous IP talk pages which probably does not achieve much for reasons already discussed.
I will try to remember to look into it further, but it will be several days at least, partly because I am working on an FAC at the moment. MPS1992 (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

still not done with the FAC and also some other important discussion MPS1992 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I still come here from time to time. 89.164.74.150 (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to look at this. I have started looking. Only started. And it is still a mess. I have begun at the top. But do not worry, I will get to everything in the end.

So, where there is edit-warring then unregistered editors (including you) have one small advantage and one major disadvantage.

The small advantage is that if you revert twice with two different IP addresses, maybe the two reverts will not be connected and no-one will complain. Admittedly this is not much of an advantage because registered editors can also revert at least twice, and sometimes three times, without action being taken against them.

The major disadvantage is that when there is edit-warring happening, or even a suspicion of it, then unregistered editors cannot be "measured" in the same way that registered editors can. Registered editors can be told not to revert more than three times (but also can be blocked for less), and on some articles they are restricted to one not three. Because some unregistered editors change IP address frequently, the same structure does not work for them and therefore the easy thing to do is to semi-protect the page so that only editors with identifiers that do not change can edit.

Is this unfair? I suggest that it is not unfair, it is just necessary to keep things under control.

For this particular instance, if you had been a registered editor (and using the same account each time) then User:EdJohnston would of course have had no reason to suggest "abuse of multiple accounts". I would also like to suggest that, if you had prefixed every single comment or edit summary by saying "same person as the 141 ip above" or something equivalent, then EdJohnston would in fact not have suggested that there was abuse of multiple accounts. Whether it is fair for ordinary Wikipedia practice to put such a burden on unregistered editors, I do not know - I guess it depends on arguments about whether it is reasonable to expect people to register in order to participate in heated disputes, when there are supposedly no disadvantages to registration.

Those are my thoughts on your first example, but not on the contents of the dispute itself or who should have closed what -- I guess I will look at that aspect of it later. MPS1992 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. 89.164.222.199 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I recently posted a short article on the NSA page, but it got taken down. The message I recieved made it sound like I was just making an experimental edit. I was wondering what I did wrong in the process of uploading my article. September5453 (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @September5453: Unfortunately, I had misinterpreted your edit. The Wikipedia VisualEditor sometimes disrupts edits by jumping around the page, and in the case of your edit, it had replicated one of your references right at the start of the article, causing problems in the lede. I thought this was the only change.
I have now restored what I think is the contents of your edit without the misplaced reference, as should be the case at the current version National Security Agency. You can see the article history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Security_Agency&action=history
I think your addition is a useful one because it gives some information about what powers were added when, as a prefix to the existing material in the article which only discusses the public discoveries, at later dates, of these powers and their use. Thank you for improving the article. MPS1992 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LARRY JAY LEVINE Page you edited.

Are you also involved in the fraudulent deletion of references? MajorViolator1961 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may inspect all of my contributions, deletions or otherwise, here. MPS1992 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

van der Weyden

Cheers for such a detailed reading and the many copyedits. I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't know what a split infinitive is, but will survive. Ceoil (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. It is refreshing to meet someone who openly disavows knowledge of grammar -- due to my background I spend a great deal of time listening to people who make assumptions about how much more about grammar they must know than me.
I am embarrassed that I don't even know how or when the split infinitive disappeared from that article.
I think the text "a angel" is still in the article, which might be wrong. MPS1992 (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will take look. Re grammer; I was educated as a young child in Ireland in the early 80s, a time when English wasnt that highly though of by Christian Brothers, so grammer was not really on the agenda. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So can you please close it?

As you are an univolved party. A non admin action can be defended here as it clearly is consensus to close and proceed to Arbcom. There is no clear support for an indef block. Irondome (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. I see clear consensus for an indefinite block, a proposal that was made some time ago, and has been open to discussion where consensus has emerged. The closure and move to arbcom was only proposed very recently. There are some Opposing that already, and time should be allowed for others who may not yet be aware of it to offer their views.
Also, I am not an uninvolved party, just as you are not. Please re-read the policy carefully! MPS1992 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I have been reverting myself, then :) Well, it will all be sorted out one way or the other, I suppose. Someone has just come up with a very clever method of making sure that it stays closed. Wikipedia teaches me things about human nature, that is for sure. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there was consensus for an indef block, you could post that as a comment in the arbcomm request. If they agree with you they might implement the block or invite an observing admin to do it. I think that section was a mixed call, while tossing the matter to arbcomm was solidly supported. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPS1992, are you still contesting the close? 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why in gods name revert the closure ? ... Either way the bloke's gonna end up blocked (hopefully) and seeing as the ANI report's already complex it makes sense to hand it over to Arbcom where hopefully they'll do a better job than us!?..... –Davey2010Talk 02:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After how long, exactly? What it needed was a close by an uninvolved administrator, which really shouldn't have been so hard to achieve. Not an edit-war for a back-slapping, beer-swilling close by editors who for the most part have been in favour of Wikicology continuing to edit despite all that he has done to damage the encyclopedia. We do now at least have a close by an administrator -- though far from an uninvolved one -- and a public instruction to Wikicology not to edit outside the arbitration case and the supposed "clean-up". So that will have to do, but one is left feeling that the community has been its own worst enemy on this one. There's to be no complaining at anything arbcom may do, not do, or be slow about doing, when we had a clear chance to take action ourselves but deliberately chose to find ourselves incompetent. MPS1992 (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comments

Hi I was talking about removal of my comments. Please make your comment here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman ad60 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

Mona778 (talk) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

A what?!? My goodness, thank you! I am reading all about it right now! MPS1992 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome dear! (Mona778 (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

No, It's not about those. But I can't tell you now, because I'm really tired and need to sleep. Tomorrow I'll tell you about it in detail. So for now, have a good night, and thanks for your prompt response. (Mona778 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Is this about talk page blanking and deleting again? If so then I cannot really disagree with the advice that you have already been given.
Or is this about the West Papuan independence movement? If so then I support it, but I cannot really do much to help due to my current geographical location. MPS1992 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Neither. It's about a rough attitude yesterday at Commons, that did really hurt my feelings. I mean, I tried to be nice, but instead all I've got was a slap by a rude User! (Mona778 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

They are so common at Commons! Or some of them are, anyway. I will try to have a look when I find time. MPS1992 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Commons is a no-go zone for women! Especially the young and fragile one. (Mona778 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

No problem. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. (Mona778 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

You are talking about the block on English Wikipedia, not now the incident on Commons, right? MPS1992 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPS1992: Hi, Ponyo says "The external links page is a guideline that outlines current consensus and common practice, which is different than policy (such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV for example). If you think something needs to be changed, be bold and change it. If your changes are reverted, then you can discuss the changes with the other editors involved.," What do you suggest? (Mona778 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • I think your changes have been reverted, so you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article. That discussion has happened, right? So, what conclusions did you draw from the discussion? MPS1992 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I suggest that if you do not want to get into a discussion with that guy again, then you forget about that article and edit in a completely different topic area. MPS1992 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. You're gonna leave me all by myself? Well, thank you (Mona778 (talk) 00:00, 16

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in 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/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.
What if I want a party? MPS1992 (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I think after "that talkpage" perlava we both need a drink or 5! ,

I've noticed on more than one occasion I've had a go at you and so I apologize if I have in any way upset or offended you - It's never my intention to offend or upset anyone (well except the trolls lol),
I tend to get annoyed easily and end up saying crap I later regret so I apologize if I've offended or upset you in any way,
Anyway have a beer on me - You deserve it :),
Thanks for all your contributions here and Keep up the great work :),
Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 02:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: that is fine, it is no problem. That talkpage thread was certainly very strange, but these things happen. Wikipedia can be strange in many ways, I am not offended. Thank you for the drink, although I do not really drink beer and it would be non-alcoholic if I did :) MPS1992 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

My unending gratitude for your support and kindness.--Mona778 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Brian Shaffer revert

I saw a while back you had posted a query about the issue on which you based your removal of that text to the BLP noticeboard. No one seems to have responded. So you chose to act unilaterally.

I understand that BLP supports this kind of boldness, but nonetheless I think you should have tried harder to get some sort of consensus, perhaps posting on the article talk page before you made that edit?

In any case, your query was really one that should have been taken to WP:RSN, since you were wondering about whether The Lantern, Ohio State's student newspaper, is a sufficiently reliable source. If you'd like, we can take it up there, since by extension we would be considering this question for all college student newspapers.

Personally, I feel that general-interest student newspapers on major North American college campuses meet our definition of reliable sources. They are subject to editorial oversight, often have lawyers on retainer and generally have the same self-imposed constraints in favor of accurate reporting that real-world (so to speak) newspapers do. I mean, consider that OSU's student/faculty/staff community comes to about 40,000 people or so, larger than some smaller cities whose daily newspapers we would have no problem considering RSes. This was my grounds for reverting your edit. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I found a previous discussion at RSN that seems to me to support my position (I see some of the same arguments). Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Sorry for the delay in replying.
WP:BLP is very clear and unambiguous. It does not merely “support ... boldness” in upholding the biographies of living persons policy. It requires that “Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion”. I considered that the material was poorly sourced given its nature, and I removed it. I was slightly more considered about doing so on the grounds that a source was provided, in that I did in fact wait for discussion. But asking for feedback in three different places would have been both unnecessary and strongly deprecated by that policy.
WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is also very clear and unambiguous, and is part of the same policy. “the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.” (my emphasis)
In this instance, the material was restored without significant change, and therefore consensus should have been obtained first before doing so. (A lack of response at the BLP noticeboard is not, of course, any form of consensus.)
Thank you for expanding on your thoughts on the source here. I would consider a free local newspaper in a town of 40,000 or so to be equally unsuited as a single source for material of this nature.
My concerns are linked to the single-sourced material itself, the way it is presented, and the weight given to it in the article. Five out of six paragraphs in the “Subsequent Developments” section discuss only the material published by this single source, all apparently emphasizing the involvement of Florence.
The Lantern article makes a point of mentioning that Derek Shaffer, Zatko and Ruic were not asked to take lie detector tests, despite their closeness to events. The disputed Wikipedia content omits any mention of this, instead focusing solely on Florence.
To a student reporter writing about Shaffer as part of their university course, it may seem a significant fact that a police detective should choose not to return his calls regarding an article he is writing for the student newspaper. And thus this fact finds its way into the student newspaper article itself. But from a distance, it is entirely natural that a busy detective investigating serious crimes might not call back a student newspaper to discuss their theories. It would need a second source, an independent reliable source, to state that this is a significant fact in the investigation. If such a second source existed, then it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to mention a lack of return phone calls to a student newspaper in 2009, as part of the “subsequent developments”.
Similarly, when an individual retains an attorney, we expect the attorney to advise or require the individual to refer the press back to the attorney, not give unprepared interviews themselves. That Florence referred the student newspaper to his attorney is therefore no surprise at all from a distance, but was doubtless annoying for the student reporter at the time. This finds its way into the student newspaper article, but it should not have found its way into the Wikipedia article without a second source indicating that it was significant in the “subsequent developments”.
The sixth and final paragraph of the “subsequent developments” section references a Columbus Monthly article published in 2014, more than five years later than the student newspaper article on which the other five paragraphs are based. (According to Wikipedia, Columbus has a population of over 800,000.) The article is lengthy and detailed, and appears to include material from an extensive interview with one of the detectives that the student newspaper had previously lamented being unable to contact. As an independent and apparently reliable source, this 2014 source could have been expected to mention any significant “subsequent developments” after 2008 – tellingly, it does not mention most of the material that Wikipedia sources from the student newspaper.
It does mention that the detective said he rarely hears from Derrek; and it mentions that Brian's family and former girlfriend all declined to be interviewed. But these kinds of details are not significant aspects of the case, have not been mentioned as relevant by any other source, and should not find their way into the Wikipedia article, just as the similar comments about Florence should not have. MPS1992 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my delay in responding. I would just say that whether a newspaper is free or not has IMO no bearing on its reliability; otherwise we'd have to exclude a lot of websites we accept as RSes.

As for the rest of your critique, though, I see some of your points. I will consider it more carefully when I'm less tired than I am now, and edit the article appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've edited the article and removed a lot of the material about the attorneys and detectives not calling back. However, regarding the other people not taking lie detector tests, that's mentioned already under "Investigation" and I don't see the need as yet to repeat that in "subsequent developments."

Cop77

I've restored the thread, as I explicitly advised him to take it to ANI if he wasn't happy so it seems a little unfair to him to send him on a wild-goose-chase. If he wants to make an allegation of admin abuse ANI is the place to go, unless you want to inflict Arbcom on him; just because I think it's groundless doesn't mean the grievance isn't genuine to him. ‑ Iridescent 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, very well, thank you then. I probably had not read carefully enough. I am not sure that I agree with the advice, but I suppose he may find wild geese wherever he goes. MPS1992 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is the correct place if it were just a case of wanting the article restored, but if you read his ranting on my talkpage that led to me pointing him towards ANI, he wants me desysopped, in which case ANI or Arbcom are the only venues (and I wouldn't inflict the reception he'd get at arbcom on a good-faith new user). ‑ Iridescent 20:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think his own talkpage was the best venue for all of this, since he wanted you removed as an editor not just an administrator, but perhaps that was a misunderstanding on his part. I am not a great enthusiast of the bureaucratic painting-by-numbers of someone complaining at ANI if their complaint is already doomed. But perhaps that means I should read ANI less. MPS1992 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah; just because I know and you know the complaint isn't going anywhere, doesn't mean the complaint isn't genuine to him. If there's one thing being on arbcom teaches you (aside from "email chains are a really bad idea" and "never underestimate stupidity"), it's that if you tell people not to complain it's a surefire way to convince them that there's obviously something to hide. If we hadn't let him go through the motions and be shot down, he'd be over on Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy by now triumphantly brandishing the fact that Wikipedia hid his comments as evidence that we couldn't handle the truth. ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would such websites struggle to deal with such a claim? Actually rather, should we be worrying about the impact on them at all?
Has Wikipedia gained by ensuring that he was publicly "shot down"? MPS1992 (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Angry editors who think they've been denied due process become LTA cases; angry editors who get their process and discover nobody else agrees with them are much more likely to either change their ways to fit Wikipedia's rules, or decide Wikipedia isn't the place for them. Virtually every one of Wikipedia's serial sockmasters began as a good-faith editor who felt that they weren't being listened to. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but there also seem to be some -- at the websites you mention, for example -- who get their process and are listened to, but then become LTA cases anyway. But I don't know what the proportion is, so hopefully your interpretation is right. I am not so good at algorithms anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corps of Army Air Defence (India)

I have tried my level best to improve the article as per your advice. Please have a look and suggest me any further improvements required. Thank You.--KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 04:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will look into this in detail as soon as I have time. MPS1992 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: sorry, I am not a copyright expert, but I think the article text still follows the structure of the copied source much too closely with only small changes in phrasing. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm Nairspecht. I noticed that you recently removed some content from HCL Technologies without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hello! Thanks for your inputs on the page, but would request you to consider the content thoroughly before blanking it. I found that you removed all the awards from the said title, which I understand. Although, some of the awards ARE noteworthy. No worries, since I have edited and polished it since. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 06:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: I have not edited that article since 13 June 2016. Please could you explain what you found inaccurate about my edit summaries? MPS1992 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for not being clearer. I'm talking about this edit which was made on June 14. Anyways, it's sorted now; thought you should be intimated about it. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 08:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Intimated, or rather intimidated? Perhaps you should reconsider using templates on the talk pages of established editors in this way. I still see nothing to indicate the notability of any of the awards that you have reverted back into the article. Given the huge amount of promotional cruft that needed removing from the article, some of it copyright-violating, I stand by my edit and its entirely accurate edit summary. I also stand by my comment above -- I have not edited that article since 13 June 2016. MPS1992 (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any comments that may have affected your sentiments. I also take back my intimation which is being incorrectly perceived as intimidation. You may, thus, remove this whole discussion from your talk page because I did not know that there are certain parables for commenting on pages of editors who are established, not established, arrogantly established, or self-proclaimedly established. I agree and accept that I have used a wrong template which has led to unclear addressal of things. Additionally, I have come in peace here, my friend. I do not intend to engage in any kind of debate which may be seen as disrespectful to anyone. I just thought of letting you know that certain awards in that section were quite notable to be included in the page. But, still I respect your stand on the issue, and will try to make it more concise. Lastly, it may be due to the tricky time zones, but I can clearly see that the edit was made by you or your user account on June 14. But still I will agree with you when you say you didn't make any changes there since June 13. One last thing I would like to place on this evidently pointless discussion: I'm here on Wikipedia to make friends with the community, not be foes with them. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding and waste of time. Best, Nairspecht Converse 09:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nairspecht: thank you for your thoughtful and considerate comments, and I apologize for rather over-reacting to your previous messages. It's possible that you have set a "Time offset" in the Appearance section of your preferences, and this would result in you seeing dates and times in your local timezone rather than the server time. MPS1992 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For all the fine work that you have carried out here. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 09:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Serious" MH issues - good catch

Good catch here! I'd moved the word but not checked that it should be there at all - well done for doing so! Cheers 82.36.105.25 (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MPS1992&oldid=725858377"