User talk:MPS1992

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

Is this how we communicate with you? Sorry don't get it fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenPellerine (talkcontribs) 17:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. MPS1992 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Kelli Ward[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

German war effort arbitration case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or 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/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Hey MPS1992, I was wondering whether you're going to add evidence to the ArbCom case based on your initial statement? I was thinking it would be good if you'd expand on that and cover the Rommel issue. I'm not that familiar with it and my evidence text limit is full anyway. Remember that the evidence section is open just 3 more days. --Pudeo (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pudeo: thank you for thinking of me, and thank you for your work in exposing some of the fallacies in operation at this arbcom case. Unfortunately I am in something of a quandary here. Although I can see that there are accusations that do not make sense and should be rebutted, equally there are many more accusations where I have no professional standing and have never had time to make detailed study of the sources involved. To any reasonable person, it is obvious that the Military History WikiProject has made colossal efforts, over many years, to cover World War II accurately and in accordance with the reliable sources of the times. Like others, for me it was only through Wikipedia that I learned of certain concepts now considered myths by modern historians, and how modern (21st century) historians view them. Is this revisionism? If something has only "come to light" since 2004, then why was it so magically concealed in the 50 years of supposedly reliable secondary sources before that? Were all such academic and scholarly sources totally suppressed just because someone thought that alternative voices might impede some Cold War re-armament programme? Since when did academic opinions, on either side, have any impact on the colossal expenditures of the Cold War? It's all nonsense, of course, but no-one is likely to realize that until long after this arbitration case is over. MPS1992 (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand, no problem. Fair points. --Pudeo (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pudeo: I have added some evidence, although not about Rommel -- 500 words does not go a long way. I am hoping not to get involved in the Workshop section, but we'll see. MPS1992 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well done - I think you had an eye for bringing something new, since the topic area is so big there certainly are enough articles to cover for everyone. Yeah, the workshop phase doesn't look too fun. Perhaps I added my suggestions there too early, but I just didn't think it's that serious - they are just suggestions by users and arbitrators will always come up with their own. But I think it's in the air that there's already a predisposition to who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are. And I'm not going to explain for the third time why mass removals of "intricate detail" shouldn't be done without a RfC first there. --Pudeo (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pudeo: thank you. I could tell my evidence hit some bullseyes just from the reaction it got. I agree about the intricate detail, and it is disappointing that it's apparently not obvious that suppressing the birth-dates and birth-places of notable individuals is unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Thinking on the positive side, damnatio memoriae of the losing side in a conflict (of whatever sort) is not a new thing, and most of the ancient Roman attempts at it were not especially successful, in part because later historians did not share the same reservations about documenting the lives of those on the losing side. In the same way, blanking out birth-dates and birth-places, or re-directing articles, does not prevent our own successors from re-constructing (from revision histories!) the sum of all knowledge at some point in the future when political motivations are set aside. The air smells of smoke here tonight, the sun has turned red and there is ash in the air -- I hope it is not a bad omen for the outcome of this particular phase of the struggle to preserve the sum of all knowledge. MPS1992 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to say, just today I encountered another fellow who seemed to want to erase all mention of certain people from history. So it is nothing new; but this one did not get far either. MPS1992 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

Hello. M trying to include a real time edit counter as part of the userbox on my user page. Could you please help me out with this? Thanks Vinyl Guy (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vinyl Guy: sorry, I do not know how to do that and I am not sure that it is possible. Do you know of any other user that has this on their userpage? MPS1992 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

I've reverted the changes that you've contended as advertisement, and removed the related headings. -Reignfall (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Reignfall: thank you, although you do still need to declare any conflict of interest -- as mentioned on your user talk page -- if you intend to continue editing. MPS1992 (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Tripartite Pact[edit]

The remark I removed was not a comment on the article. (The IP's talk page comment was made in March and the article text was corrected days later.) It is acceptable to remove such remarks (alleging editorial ignorance) from talk pages. In this case, the IP is not editing any longer, so there was no use contacting him/her. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I do not feel any need to contact the unregistered editor. If the unregistered editor's talk page comment led to the correction they had requested, all the more reason not to censor the fact that they had brought up the issue, and how they felt about it. Editorial ignorance is a social evil which we should all do our very best to eradicate, by whatever means necessary. MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Controversy sections[edit]

Thanks for your input. All of the HI01 candidates have 'controversy' but only the Kaniela Ing, Donna Mercado Kim, and Doug Chin wiki pages included such a section. If such a section remains, the fair thing to do would be to treat all 6 HI01 candidate wiki pages equally and include such a section with each. That would require too much monitoring to ensure impartiality. My stance now is remove the 'controversy' section from all the HI01 wiki pages. Is this good approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.255.108 (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Your latest edit description [1] gave me a laugh, thanks.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahahaha, you are very welcome. Although, it's only now that I see that the addition of Cuba and the others was vandalism as well -- purposely misrepresenting the source. Possibly that whole sub-section could do with revising, but I can't quite think what to do with it. MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your acts of kindness to go the extra mile to be nice. Mona.N (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mona.N: thank you very much! How are you? MPS1992 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing fine, how about you?

Precious[edit]

better wording welcome

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Bocca di Lupo and Salade niçoise, for welcoming some thousand new users, for trying to find better wording, for copyediting articles such as Vladimir Lenin and Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, for supporting good admin candidates and assisting fellow editors, - Mo, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Re Rhodes House page[edit]

Hello I left a little message for you on the Rhodes House talk page. Basically at the moment I just want to remove that small paragraph about Tony Blair's band and replace it with something more useful for anyone trying to research the building. I have a few more suggested edits but will seek consensus on the talk page before making any major changes. Pug of the day (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

maps showing half the world speaking Bengali, Japanese, Vietnamese, Tamil, etc. etc. etc.[edit]

Hi MPS,

A few years ago we went through, w the consensus of Wikiproject languages, and removed all the maps like this. If Wyoming is colored as being Bengali (or whatever) speaking, then there's a clear implication that that the language is spoken by that community. It would be different if, as a few maps do, significant expat communities were indicated (e.g. Vancouver, NYC and Mexico City, not the entire continent), or indicate official recognition, etc., but otherwise such maps provide no value.

kwami (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: thank you, I was not aware of the prior discussions about this. I still don't agree about the nature of the claim being made, but I see you have done the needful on the article as according to existing consensus, so that is fine for me. MPS1992 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I could see using them if their meaning were clear from context. E.g., in a section of the article discussing expat/immigrant speakers, with a legend giving what percentage of the population each color represented. But if e.g. 0.01% of the US population speaks Bengali at home (I just made that number up), then readers might wonder why that's notable enough to put on a map. Or, there might be different sized dots over cities for expat populations of 10k, 100k, etc. Without something like that, there's no evident criterion for inclusion. E.g., since there are Japanese fishing vessels in all the world's oceans, a Japanese research station in Antarctica, and Japanese immigrants or ex-pat workers in probably every country in the world, why not just color the *entire* globe blue as Japanese-speaking? At some point, with no context, the maps become meaningless. In any case, the info box is for basic info, and I think for most of us here, that means things like native range, not immigrants all over the world. If we're talking the Japanese-speaking towns in Brazil, or the Welsh-speaking town in Argentina, then sure, let's include them, and the same if there are Bengali-speaking towns outside the expected area, but they should be located on the map. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:SECONDCHANCE ? Hmm..[edit]

I didn't know you were such a good prankster! Mona.N (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mona.N: hi Mona, it's good to hear from you. I'm not sure I understood your comment about my !vote on the RfA. I don't see in what way anyone is proposing or denying giving JBHunley a "second chance". Nor do I understand how it is a prank. MPS1992 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi MPS, how are you? If you weren't sarcastic, then why did you refer me to this page in response to my comment? Mona.N (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't being sarcastic. I was expressing surprise -- and I am still surprised -- that you thought someone was being offered or denied a second chance. MPS1992 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, let me clarify myself then: I believe everyone deserves a second chance, an opportunity to right the wrongs, that's all. Mona.N (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, but that's not really relevant to that RfA, is it?
When we talk of second chances, we tend to mean principles a little more like this. MPS1992 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is: Give them a break. Mona.N (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Opposing their candidacy for a position for which they appear eminently unsuited, might be doing exactly that. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. It's your call. Take care.--Mona.N (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. You too. As regards second chances, this is beyond ridiculous. MPS1992 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about Revert[edit]

Short on time here, so I'll be brief. If both spellings of 'inquiry' and 'enquiry' are acceptable, but one is used multiple times in an article and the other used ONCE, I'd opt for the more common one. That's why I changed the Death of Mark Duggan article. I'll look forward to your reply tomorrow. Thanks! WesT (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Having returned to the office, I see that you implemented both of my changes, though with slightly different words. Thanks! WesT (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Castle entry assistance[edit]

Thank you for your warning about not posting at the beginning of the discussion; I will remember that in future. Re the Castle entry, I will discuss it with some academic friends and then see what material I might add to the talk page that would enable editors to improve the entry.--WLBelcher (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
  2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
  4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
  5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Information icon Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Aamir Liaquat Hussain. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Störm (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, this is the English language Wikipedia, and "He remains a controversial figure surrounding many controversies" ain't any kind of English I've ever heard. MPS1992 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Advice and Notifications[edit]

Sir

Thank you for calling my attention. I will pay attention to this matter. Am sorry for the omission.

Sincerely

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Again[edit]

You were already told to stay off my talk page. This latest post of your yours is not only unwelcome, but it is also, quite frankly, bizarre. You are not an admin so stop acting like one. And again; stay off my talk page. Clear enough this time? Don't bother answering, you're continued absence from my page will be sufficient. - Coyote-head.svg wolf 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. Fancy finding you here. Read and learn, my friend. MPS1992 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Schmidt science fellows[edit]

Hello and thank you for clarifying the position on this for me. Would it be possible to use the primary sources in liew of independent sources until some independent sources become available? Pug of the day (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so -- it all sounds rather too promotional to me. Transcending things and so on. MPS1992 (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. How about if I re-word the passage and use this independent source? https://www.forbes.com/consent/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/anismuslimin/2018/04/24/former-google-chairman-eric-schmidt-announces-new-science-fellows/ would that be ok with you? Pug of the day (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please try that. MPS1992 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but...[edit]

Hi, you deleted an image I had on my userpace. You claimed that it wasn't "free." Can you explain what you meant? The image is used on Wikipedia itself. Why am I not allowed to use it on my userspace? Thank you! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kingdamian1: sorry about that, unfortunately the rules are rather odd. That specific image is uploaded to Wikipedia only for use on certain specific articles -- the one about the Beatles album, the one about Abbey Road, and one or two others that I don't necessarily agree with. The reason is that the image is copyrighted to ("belongs" to) some music company or other such entity, and Wikipedia is a "free" project where we are trying to use only materials that are freely useable by anyone. So, we (Wikipedia) only use the Abbey Road image where it is essential and important to understand or identify the topic of an article. We don't use it on userpages or on talkpages or most other places.
This is because the Abbey Road image is a "non-free" image -- as I said, it belongs to some music company or other such entity. And they can restrict what anyone does with it.
There is also a properly "free" image -- this one -- of Abbey Road, which anyone can use for (almost) anything they want. And equally, you could go to Abbey Road in London and click a photo with your own camera and release it under any license you want, including a "free" one. (If you can persuade the surviving Beatles to walk across the road while you are clicking the photo as well, that would be even better .. )
This is all to do with Free content.
Images released under free licenses can be used on user pages and talk pages and anywhere else -- so long as it doesn't make a mess, obviously. Images that are "non-free" can only be used on Wikipedia under non-free content criteria for specific named pages, for example the rather tortuous justifications for exactly four articles at this image page.
I wrote this while listening to Lennon sing about "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world", and I guess music companies were not what he had in mind. But I think what we have in mind by preferring free content is something that Lennon would have liked.
Does it make any sense? MPS1992 (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you so much for taking your time to clarify! I will just use another Beatles' image, probably! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kingdamian1: apparently this image is freely licensed and therefore can be used on userpages and talkpages and project pages and everything. Also this one. And probably many others (those were just the first two I saw at The Beatles that were on Wikimedia Commons instead of just on Wikipedia). MPS1992 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you found a better one already. Good. MPS1992 (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Schmidt Science fellows update on Rhodes Scholarship page[edit]

Hiya mate, hope your well. You asked me to find some new independent secondary sources relating to the Schmidt Science Fellows & the Rhodes Trust partnership. I have unearthed these two sources https://www.forbes.com/consent/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/anismuslimin/2018/04/24/former-google-chairman-eric-schmidt-announces-new-science-fellows/ and https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/schmidt-science-fellows-names-inaugural-cohort Do you think these would be acceptable? Best regards. Pug of the day (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please give those a try, with as neutral a wording as possible. I think the first of the two is possibly a slightly better source than the second, but can see no reason not to use both. MPS1992 (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Wnek[edit]

You might want to contribute to the discussion as to whether this page should be deleted - you once edited it to removed unsourced and promitional material. Cdosteovsky (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)