User talk:MSGJ/2019

Active discussions

Your recent posts at ERRORS


I see that you have closed the discussion re the new species hook / Trump issue and reopened the nomination. I recognise that this action is within discretion, but I think it was unnecessary given that a consensus was emerging. I am unimpressed, however, with your comment in this post attributing blame. I have been trying to move the discussion from conflict towards a focus on the hook, and I feel like I was making good progress. Your post is, in my opinion, unhelpful and needlessly likely to provoke indignation and divert attention away from the actual issue. I'm not an admin and I recognise that ERRORS is not meant to be a place for long discussions like that one, especially ones where progress is slow (or even glacial, at times), but stepping in when you did was poor judgement, in my opinion. I hope that you will recognise when progress is being made and consensus appears near next time a similar situation arises. EdChem (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have struck part of my comments because I probably should have posted that on the user's talk page rather than there. but I do feel it is part of my admin role to call out inappropriate actions when I see them. Anyway I recognise and appreciate the attempts you have made to move this discussion forward, and hope you understand that I have not stopped the discussion but moved it to a better venue. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for striking. It is true that calling out inappropriate behaviour is appropriate and necessary at times, and I believe that it is part of the role of all editors, not only the place of admins. My point was that your timing was poor and that your method made your action moving the discussion with a side order of petrol to throw on the fire. I am hoping the MPJ-DK will choose not to respond. If you were going to step in, the time for it was much earlier in the thread, not when progress was finally being made. EdChem (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree that the discussion should have been moved earlier. However I was not online earlier so could not personally take action. I feel I took the best action I could at that time. Yes, all editors can call out inappropriate behaviour but it is much easier for someone uninvolved to do it, and this was me yesterday. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Given what has gone on at the re-opened nomination page, my expectation that a resolution and consensus was close has been shown to be overly optimistic. I thought I had moved things forward and that the fire was under control, and I was annoyed at what I saw as your not seeing that and risking a flare-up. Turns out it was me that was not seeing that "under control" was more a temporary lull in the conflagration, and moving hostilities to a different location was desirable for minimising interference at ERRORS. I wanted to acknowledge that. Regards, EdChem (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if you've looked back at that page recently ... Never underestimate this website's ability to make drama :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, I have. :( EdChem (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


To clarify, the bot that performs the Commons protection also includes files currently in use on the main page, so adding one to WP:CMP has no short-term effect. The same is true of files transcluded at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, which contains the next TFA, DYK, OTD and TFP files in the queue (along with TFL, if that section will appear on the following day).

WP:CMP is useful mainly for protecting ITN images, given the section's lack of a queue or timed update schedule. It's also used when replacing another section's file during or shortly before its appearance on the main page.

For ITN, in addition to any upcoming images, we list the current image and at least one previous image (to accounts for possible reversions at ITN).

Thanks very much. —David Levy 16:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I half worked this out yesterday but the clarification is appreciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Lost link in POTD blurb

Could you restore the link to List of geological features on Europa ? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this in time. In future you can raise requests like this at WP:ERRORS — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Error in the news today

This is the current wording: "In an ongoing Venezuelan constitutional crisis, Juan Guaidó (pictured) and the National Assembly declare incumbent Nicolás Maduro "illegitimate" and start the process of attempting to remove him."

But it doesn't say what it is he's incumbent of. Is he the President?

I couldn't add this to the talk page there as it is locked so apologies if this is inappropriate. (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please post to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news which is not protected. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I have copied your comment to that page and also acted on it. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Patricia Wald

Hi. Just want to ask about this article being in ITN RD. I noticed that you didn't post to my talk page recognizing the nomination. Did I do something wrong? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No, you have done nothing wrong. If it's important to you, I will do it shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Could moving a script cause part of it to stop working? Or...

Could moving a script cause part of it to stop working? User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.js, which I have not edited, no longer displays sort errors -- which worked earlier in the same day it was moved... Or.. I hae been editing User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-test.js, could that be nessing with some environment variables... Or...? Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Seems to be working now. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi MSGJ, Thanks for your contributions and kind comment on Talk:Khalistan_Commando_Force#Protected_edit_request_on_13_January_2019, It appears to me that you have asked a question from Harmanprtjhj, but your WP:INDENT level makes it appear as though the question is directed to me. It is a minor thing but can you please check and correct the indent to make it clear that you are addressing Harmanprtjhj in your question. Thanks. --DBigXray 14:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Help me understand...

So looking at {{Japanese episode list}}. What is with all the null checks? I'm so confused... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

In the Episode list template, if a blank parameter is passed then it's converted to TBA, so we don't want to pass a blank parameter if it's not used. For example, looking at one parameter below:
Template Call Passed to Episode list template Result
{{Japanese episode list
| DirectedBy      = 
{{Episode list
| DirectedBy      = 
{{Japanese episode list
{{Episode list
| DirectedByNULL  = 
-- WOSlinker (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@WOSlinker: gotcha... Perhaps you can drop a comment on Module_talk:Episode_list#Default_to_TBA but I'm curious why this is done? Why not always default to TBA? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


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)

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

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
No it certainly wasn't. Shall we try a week? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No issue from me, I just wanted to make sure what was happening. PackMecEng (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
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)


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)

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

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)

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.

  1. 22.24 Jim7049 first inserts text
  2. 22.59 SG removes
  3. 23:10 Jim7049 reinserts
  4. 23:12 SG initiates talk discussion
  5. 23:15 SG adds maintenance tags
  6. 23:15 First personalization removed
  7. 23:17 Jim7049 removes maintenance tags
  8. 23:24 pathetic, lying personalization
  9. 23:31 SG adds different maintenance tag to encourage discussion
  10. 23:38 Jim7049 removes tag, adds another dubious source without talk consensus
  11. 23:40 put up or shup up, personalization
  12. 23:46 no sane person, personalization
  13. 23:47 removes "sane"

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

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
@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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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. --DBigXray 12:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

Fixed it for you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
Yes the "the" makes it sound like Borat speaking hahahah--APG1984 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanq removing my ip

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

Sorry for my mistake

(Pinrestop (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

No problem. And I have blocked the other IP now anyway — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Popface for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Popface is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popface until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SITH (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

  I get you a Baklava for you. Shamar54 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This page contains Democracy

  You get a democracy for you
A election has been hold due to keeping democracy a good place and autocracy gets rid of elections. Shamar54 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wish me get Starbarns of goodful, like yous is.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC) 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)

Hi MSGJ - Thanks for your range block of (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - User:FaisalMusicFan99 has re-appeared using (talk · contribs · WHOIS), having previously used (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - could these be covered by another range? Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked that range for 3 months — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Voltron: Legendary Defender

Unprot req

Was going to post this at RfPP, then remembered the "ask the protecting admin first" part:

Unprotect or reduce to semi-protection: At least one of the edit-warring parties was blocked by WP:ANEW, so the immediate issue of disruption seems to be over. There's substantial talk page discussion about the disputed material (and I just added a 16-point policy analysis), so I think the revert-warring won't resume. In the interim, it needs copyedits (e.g. basic MOS:HEADINGS stuff), but the page is locked down. (I have no connection to the squabble that resulted in the protection, and arrived at the page just now rather randomly.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for intervention over there. I am not sure that unprotection will work but I will defer to your judgement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here to inform you that G. Capo has readded the "Fan Behavior" section twice without consensus and I seek to protect the page until consensus is actually reached--Fradio71 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like disruption resumed immediately, before I even noticed the unprot or got around to doing any cleanup I intended over there. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to lock the Voltron: Legendary Defender Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like we're back to square one. I've made comments on the talk page regarding sources for the "fan behavior" section. It was ignored. I've posted an altered version of the disputed fan section with improved sourcing. It was deleted. It seems that some of our editors do not want to mention the behavior of fans towards the show's cast and crew, which was poor. A number of death threats were made towards the cast and crew. This is worthy of mention. G. Capo (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For contextual purposes this section is the source of the dispute. I've included sources here for clarification purposes...

@G. Capo: you are edit warring. Please do not add this section until you have consensus on the talk page. @SMcCandlish: please can you help out? @Fradio71: can you make efforts to reach a compromise on the talk page please — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not much involved in the substance of the dispute, except observationally for a brief period (some policy-related bullet points I added in user talk). @G. Capo:, I agree that the material should not be re-added without some further consensus discussion. I imagine that some compressed version of this can be retained, but presently the entire Reception section is mostly dominated by cruft, and especially by coatracking and undue focus on LGBT stuff, that really has nothing to do with the actual production (the subject of our article), but with trivial factionalism in the fanbase, about their fanfic (especially slash fiction) and 'shipping fantasies, which are not part of the actual content of the works. 'Shipping is arguably noteworthy in the case of The X-Files, because that's the fanbase that originated the term. And Kirk/Spock is independently notable because of the amount of RS material written about it (but note that the Star Trek: The Original Series article is not dominated by any of that stuff. I've gone over additional rationales, in article talk, for why the "fan behavior toward cast and crew" stuff is also non-encyclopedic.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I believe the non-encyclopedic argument you use here does not apply here primarily because of the numerous real death threats that cast and crew received. “Shipping” is indeed trivial. Repeated and numerous death threats sent to people who work on the show because of “shipping” issues are not. Also, the Reception section was divided because a lot of the controversy and heavy criticism surrounding the show focused on its LGBT representation (and to a lesser extent a “POC” death). This spilled over to the critics’ reviews where we can see where a number of the critics praise the show but criticize the show's LGBT rep. This is no longer merely “fancruft”. Let’s take this back to the talk page.G. Capo (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@G. Capo:, I feel that the section is too crufty to keep at all. It's a situation that while unfortunate, was quarantined enough that it doesn't meet the notability that the harassment of Kelly Marie Tran. There is very little of the section that can be salvaged--Fradio71 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fradio71: I believe the section isn’t “crufty” mainly because of the REPEATED DEATH THREATS made to showrunners and crew. This behavior was most certainly not “quarantined” as it plagued the latter seasons of the series’ run. Just because the show is not a major movie production doesn’t mean these repeated incidents should not be mentioned. Also, I’m not sure we’ve ever had a situation where we had a fan essentially blackmail an entire studio to have two [male] characters written to be romantically involved with each other. Let’s take this back to the talk page. G. Capo (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
How did the death threats plague the latter seasons? You keep making claims you cannot back up--Fradio71 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion centralized in one place. This is not the place to discuss this further; use Voltron: Legendary Defender, since these arguments have nothing to do with User:MSGJ.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kashmir at ERRORS

MSGJ, I don't normally revert such deletions, but this is an ongoing problem on the main page and needs to be noted at ERRORS. No one's paying any attention to this topic now at ITN/C. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: "Changing" link updated to current story. Sca (talk)
The choices are: remove the blurb, update the blurb (to what?) or move it to ongoing. As there are numerous options it would be better if this were discussed at WP:ITNC. I made a comment there recently; please add yours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done but I doubt it will do any good there as it's no longer top-drawer story. Sca (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

English Defence League

Hi. Sadly we have not been able to resolve the issues. May I ask for your contribution on the English Defence League article talk page? I don't want to seek dispute resolution.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I echo the suggestion by Midnightblueowl. Propose each change on the talk page, in its own section, starting with the least controversial. If there are no objections within a day or two, make the change to the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@NEDOCHAN: a good example of how to propose an edit: Talk:White trash#Proposed_edit — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks bothNEDOCHAN (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


I have seen a few weeks ago you had a run in with a user that goes by Openlydialectic regarding too many citations. This user accused me of vandalizing Nadia Murad's Wikipedia page in October because I removed a photo that depicted her as an Osama bin Laden looking bearded Arabic man and she is 100% female. He promptly reverted my change and accused me of vandalism. If anything he is sexist depicting a womans rights activist in this manner, insisting I was the one who was wrong. His change was shortly axed again and the page locked from editing because of him. Today there is a correct photo of the woman who looks nothing like a bearded Arabic man. He can be seen tagging others for editing things for political reasons on his page, yet this seems just as political to me, putting down a woman who fights for rights in an area of the world where they are struggling for such rights but showing her as being a man. But it turns out he now has been banned for having sock puppet accounts, so he was in the wrong after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobotWillie (talkcontribs) 20:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Quick question: Do I need to do a new, separate report regarding User:TommyVictor? He was blocked for disruptive editing (pattern of) back on February 17 and as soon as his block was expired returned to the page to delete information again. He returns as soon as other restore what he did. I'm fairly certain he created a sock account right after, as the same user name adjusted with spelling did this and and this. Just want to know the best way to handle it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Display

 Template:Display has been nominated for merging with Template:Show by date. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of MediaWiki:Articlefeedback-pitch-join-message

  MediaWiki:Articlefeedback-pitch-join-message, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Article feedback tool messages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Articlefeedback-pitch-join-message during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


You approved this user's unblock request, writing "You've got another chance. But it's not just slavery articles you need to be careful with - last time you were edit warring on Saudi Arabia. Stop after the first or second revert and go to the talk page" here.

As such you might find [4] instructive - straight back with four reverts, the first three of which repeat reverts done just before their block.

[5] - two reverts, removing material they were also reverting to remove before their block.

[6] - two reverts on Slavery, repeating a revert from before their block, and particularly curious in view of their unblock request stating "I am not going to make any edit in there(articles that are related to slavery) at least for the next 6 months". (Also [7] is in violation of that promise, albeit not a bad edit in and of itself...)

Plainly their unblock request was mendacious and I'd be grateful if you would take action. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: You have reverted my edit saying per another editor(you didnt give a reason) . In the slavery article I made 2 reverts because the other editor made edits that were against consensus that I thought we had made and now there is a RfC about it. you are obviously trying to get me blocked. BTW the Senhaja article there was a removal of sourced information without any explanation. For my promise "I am not going to make any edit in there(articles that are related to slavery) at least for the next 6 months" as I said I didnt make any edit except in when there was an edit against consesus and I am sorry for that because I thought we had reached consensus and there is a RfC disscucsion there.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that this is an explicit admission that they broke that promise. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
We have solved that problem and I am not going to edit in any slavery article again. I have raised a report against the other editor who reverted against the consensus and firstly I reported the other editor here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and BTW I tagged MSGJ before making any edit and I said I am going to edit there and two days after I did revert and we have a RfC discussion now. You are assuming bad faith and obviously trying to get me blocked--SharabSalam (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinkbeast Also for the sexual slavery article I really didnt notice that it is about slavery I just noticed now I have been deleting Gatestone Institute sources from many articles per a disscussion we had in here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--SharabSalam (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I will look into this later when I have time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

Hi, there's some changes being done again, would it be ok to request a revert to the mutually agreed paragraph under 'Talk' and enable Protection on the page again? Thanks in advance ChopperHarley (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I see the article has been protected now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hovering over a "D" in Watchlist produces text with embedded markup

In the en Wikipedia Watchlist, when hovering the cursor over a "D" symbol on the left of a history item, a small pop-up box appears with an explanation of the symbol. However the explanatory text shown in the box reads:

Edit made at Wiki<span style="text_decoration: underline;">d</span>ata

Obviously the intent is to display the word "Wikidata" with an underlined "d", but the hover box isn't rendering the underline and the text actually displayed would be very confusing to a non-techie. I reported this to Phabricator T218936 and they tracked it down to this edit you made on November 7, 2017: [8]

I think the simplest solution would be for you to undo that edit. It was a nice idea, but my guess is that almost all users of the watchlist seeing the message will be able to figure out that D stands for data without the underling hint. --agr (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have undone that edit. I imagine that it used to display properly, because I'm sure I would have tested it after deploying. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a "List of abbreviations" box in the upper right that has the same text and, I noticed, did display the underline properly. I suspect you were aiming to add the underline there and it tested ok, but you didn't realize that the same text string would be used in the hover box. Maybe that should be documented somewhere. Anyway, thanks for the quick fix.--agr (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ìõl all La Palicki invincible GfK

Pit stop by FC Barcelona vs Chelsea and Liverpool FC Barcelona and Liverpool Street and Liverpool Street station is major railway stations on my friend is major and minor or ngabantu year and Liverpool Street my war on terror attacks on this device is not send anything from Mthatha is myself from Mthatha and minor or uqhubeke uqhase be talking with me know if there Situation power — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)



Just enquiring how you saw that discussion as a no consensus? With roughly 8 supports and 4 opposes, and also the weight of a guideline established by recent RFC behind it as well, I would have thought that was a fairly clear consensus to move. Any chance you could reevaluate, or provide some more context around the close? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I will take another look. It didn't help that there were three parallel discussions going on. See also my note at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I've undone my close; you were right to question me about it. I'll keep thinking about it and may reclose, or perhaps someone else will close it. Unfortunately the RfC was not that well attended and produced a rather vague outcome, otherwise it would have trumped all these discussions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has reverted me and reclosed the discussion. This is not really acceptable as I do not stand by that close anymore. There is a new discussion ongoing at KCLA (defunct). I'm not sure what to do anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The new discussion at KCLA is a combination of the two discussions, radio and television. We actually had competing RMs going on due to a goof by Raymie and the TV RM would have been a Support, while the Radio RM would have been an Oppose (same discussion, two totally different decisions). So the decision was made to close both discussions, notify all who had taken place and restart the entire thing all over again with all pages listed (radio and television) in one place. The close was not made to shut down a discussion, but to move that discussion to a place where it would make more logical sense. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:12 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
You should not be taking such actions, as you are not neutral on the issue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I asked to help. You had already closed the discussion, then reopened it, making it difficult for us to combine the two discussions. I just reverted your revert of your closure. There is a new discussion, a combined discussion, on the exact same topic, so what are we talking about here? - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:25 on April 9, 2019 (UTC)
I realized that a measure I had taken — splitting the requested move of 96 titles across four pages to make it more manageable — had the opposite effect. (I left Talk:WLQR (AM) in place as that case is a little more complicated.) The RMs of 70, 11 and 13 pages have been combined into one 94-article RM (one of the original articles was instead merged and I found a new article that would qualify for a move), on which I pinged all participants in any of the RMs and also notified the Manual of Style, Radio Stations and Television Stations projects. Raymie (tc) 20:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User: again

Hi MSGJ. Back on 8 April, you kindly intervened with User: in response to my report at WP:AIV. This user has a nasty habit of reformatting references to remove all spaces from them, which makes editing very hard. They have been repeatedly asked to stop this and engage in a discussion, by multiple editors over the last 3 months. You left them a message on their talk page asking them to engage in discussion. Unfortunately the have continued with their disruptive editing - for example in this edit - and they have not engaged in a discussion of their behavior. Could you to take another look at this IP's editing? Many thanks for your help, Railfan23 (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Railfan23: Sorry for the delay. I've blocked the IP for a month. I hope this encourages them to start discussing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Zak Smith is having problems again

Two edits today removing the allegations against established consensus, both by redlinked accounts that have edited no other articles, both with similar writing patterns to their edit summaries (and they feel similar to our good friend FixerFixerFixer; possible sockpuppetry?). It would be greatly appreciated if you were able to swing by and have a look. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And now there's an enormous comment on the talkpage that seems to be skirting awfully close to a legal threat. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Accusing everyone who agrees with me or of being me is bad faith. The page is left with the vandalism up because of a supposed "consensus" and whenever any use disagrees with it their vote doesn't count. How many people have to point out these edits are harassment before it stops being a "consensus"?FixerFixerFixer (User talk:FixerFixerFixer) 24:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I see FixerFixerFixer is now blocked indefinitely and the article is protected again. Hopefully his will stop the disruption. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


I was wondering if you might consider running for RfB anytime soon. From what I've seen you have a 10+ years solid adminship stint, and people know you have a WP:CLUE. I'm sure you won't have dearth of co-noms either (count me in!). Given that the community has looked favourably to RfBs this past while, I was thinking if you might be interested. --qedk (t c) 20:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: many thanks for your kind words. Has it really been 10 years?! I'm not really interested in becoming a bureaucrat for two reasons: I don't think it perfectly matches my skill set, and there is not really much for the crats to do these days, so I don't think any more are needed. But thanks for thinking of me! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
No worries, but again, crats don't need to do crat things to be crats! You'd make a good addition but I do get your point. --qedk (t c) 15:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Winchester School of Art

Hi, Would you be able to unprotect this article? It's been protected for 8 years now and seems unnecessary. Thanks Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, let's try it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Martin Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Gotarzes I of Parthia

There's really no need to move that article imho. The reason is that many of the articles have 'of Parthia' is due to having the same name and regnal number as many other kings in the Middle East. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to move it back. I was going for the consistent look. Nice work on Mithridates III by the way! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: I was just wondering how many of the articles shown at Mithridates IV of Parthia (Q317695) relate to Mithridates III and which ones to Mithridates IV. Can you help with that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure; these two articles are related to the actual Mithridates III of our English Wikipedia [9] [10] --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I sorted those out — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Divided Heaven

Kindly explain where you looked when you found no consensus to move from a title which is mentioned in only one of the sources for the article? Do you go by length of comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I will check and reply tomorrow as I am just logging off :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I've made a brief comment on the talk page. As well as being correct, you also need to be able to persuade other editors that you are right! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I also replied there. I don't mean to persuade, just to point out facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I gently suggest that the facts may not be as clear cut as you perceive. I have made another comment on that page (probably my last). Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Buffyverse

 Template:Buffyverse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 10:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi Martin. Thank you so much for your close of the very messy Spygate move request. However I'd like to request that you take another look. At the end of your analysis, you say that the top 3 vote-getters were all basically the same title. This is in fact not accurate. If you look at the arguments among them there are very specific arguments for or against one or the other. Pursuant to WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, I think you're supposed to evaluate those arguments and the support for them rather than simply tallying up !votes. And if it's too close a call, then I believe you could propose a runoff between the top 2. R2 (bleep) 21:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The top two choices were Spygate (conspiracy theory) and Spygate (political conspiracy theory). There is not a substantial difference between these and I believe the word "political" does not add much to the meaning. This was borne out by editors in the discussion because a lot supported both of those choices rather than just one of them. At the end of the day I feel a runoff is unlikely to be a good use of editors' time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there is a substantial difference between those two. Several editors argued that "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" isn't an effective disambiguation because it's confusing with Spygate (NFL) (another Spygate that involved a conspiracy theory). There was some pushback against that argument as well. R2 (bleep) 22:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
As the dude who wrote the original article and who has watched the whole "what to name it" argument back and forth and sighed the whole time but who has not read over all of the extensive text on that article's talk page, I have to say I agree with R2 here. The NFL controversy is also a conspiracy theory, and so it seems to me like this one aught to be distinguished from that one in its title by the use of the word "political". I know it seems like unnecessary disambiguation, but given the fact that there are apparently two "spygates", it does seem we aught to distinguish. Not that I think anyone is going to be confused about which spygate they are learning about when they read the article, and not that anyone isn't going to be able to find THE "spygate" they are looking for! My sympathy, though, for trying to figure out what the consensus was. My head would hurt. And probably my eyes... and my lungs, maybe my liver. A loose necktie (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
A loose necktie, you should have !voted on the move requests! R2 (bleep) 22:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahrtoodeetoo I know, I know. I was afraid to even begin getting involved there because of the morass that it was becoming. I am not always as brave as I should be sometimes. Let me see if it is too late to throw my 2¢ in there even now... A loose necktie (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

How did you know I copied and pasted 2020 NASCAR Cup Series?

99721829Max (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

By looking at the history of the two pages. We have a move button which is the proper way to do that. See Help:How to move a page for more details. But please wait for that discussion to be closed by someone. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank for approving the unblock request.

The new user name will be selected as instructed. Please advise if the prior draft article which was in the editing stage restored. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Publicationaccess (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sheesh, sorry about that

The curse of clicking edit on a page when you're viewing an old version! Thanks for sorting it out.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Easily done :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your help- I really appreciate it.Newton78531(Newton78531 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC))

Unblock declined for Citation Bot

Hi MSGJ. I see that you declined an unblock request at User talk:Citation bot today. I think that the debate on that page has been based on a misunderstanding of the policy. As I just posted at User talk:Citation bot#The current block is not well-founded on the policy, the policy, specifically WP:BOTCONFIG, allows for a bot to be controlled by people who are not the bot's operators. That is exactly how Citation Bot works. Users who trigger the bot are not "bot operators", and are not covered by WP:BOTMULTIOP. I would appreciate your feedback on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srleffler (talkcontribs)

There was some discussion on the semantic differences between "operate", "control" and "trigger", but without any clear resolution. In any case the wording in the policy is "edits of a specific designated type, at the direction of more than one person" (my emphasis). It seems clear to me that the bot is acting under the direction of the user that makes the request. There is a discussion on this very point at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Clarification on "Bots operated by multiple users". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Srleffler (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Freaks listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Freaks. Since you had some involvement with the Freaks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I happened to see an interesting SPI case while visiting a user talk page. In cases like this, should the account ideally be blocked? Evidences are compelling and one unrelated user and a reviewing clerk urged to block, and more over it looks like this guy was hiding during the SPI and did not came to defend/explain himself despite being informed about it in his talk page, and neither did he left a message on the accusing user's talk. He returned to editing only after the case was closed and archived. Isn't this strange. It pretty much looks like a block evasion went scot-free. (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

ACC tool access request approved

Thank you for your interest in the account creation process. I have verified that you have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and approved your request.

You may now access the interface here. Before you begin handling any requests, please ensure you have read and understood the account creation guide and username policy to familiarize yourself with the process.

Please subscribe yourself to the private ACC mailing list by clicking here and following the instructions on the page. I also recommend that you join us on IRC. We'll be able to grant you access to our private channel (#wikipedia-en-accounts connect), where a bot informs us when new account requests arrive and you can chat with the other members of the team and get real-time input, advice, and assistance with requests.

Please note that repeatedly failing to correctly assess and process account requests and take the correct resulting actions will result in suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Processing account creation requests is not a race, and each request should be handled with your upmost diligence, care, and attention. Closing each account request correctly, accurately, and within full compliance of the ACC tool guide is your goal and your priority; never sacrifice accuracy and compliance of policy in exchange for quantity, or to close a high number of requests that are in the queue.

Releasing any kind of nonpublic personal data (see access to nonpublic personal data policy), such as the IP or email addresses, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is treated as an serious violation of policy and breach of confidential information and will generally result in immediate suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Depending on the severity of the offense, the intent, and the level of misconduct that occurred, the violation and the breach of the confidential information will be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation, which can result in further sanctions and actions being taken against you (such as being blocked, banned, or having your access to nonpublic personal data status revoked). If you have questions about this, or aren't sure about anything in regards to this policy, please ask a tool administrator.

Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you for participating in the account creation process, and we're glad to have you as part of the group! Welcome to the ACC tool user team! — JJMC89(T·C) 05:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Core on purple background.PNG


The file File:Core on purple background.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

  The Reviewer's Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 14:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for everything. We can, I believe, pull out of this! And I look forwards to welcoming you back. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

  Ran out of beer. Here's falafel. Thank you for all the good work you've done for our project. Much respect. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Groruddalen – Grorud Valley

Would you please reconsider your decision not to move Grorud Valley to Groruddalen. Counting in the nominator (me), there was a 4-2 vote to move according to WP:COMMONNAME and to maintain the style of other -dalen names from Norway.

While you deemed that as no consensus, I've taken the effort to look at the results from other Requested moves from May 14th; the day you closed the discussion. The majority of the discussions from that day were obvious and based on consensus. There were also 5 discussions with split vote. One discussion with votes 5-4 were not moved, whilst discussions with votes 8-3, 4-1, 6-2 and 6-5 were moved. Compared to this, a vote of 4-2 should be considered decisive enough.

One should also see this in light of the editing history of Category:Valleys of Norway, where one of the voters has a solo project changing article names on a few, random norwegian place names into alledged 'english style' names, without any discussion or cooperation with other editors. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Orland, thanks for dropping by. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it is not just an exercise in counting votes. Determining consensus is a subjective and nuanced process which involves reading all the comments, identifying common themes, balancing arguments with Wikipedia policy, etc. You ought to come to me first and asked me to explain my decision in more detail. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, then. Can you explain your decision in more detail!? Bw Orland (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Hello MSGJ, though you did not explicitly request it, your IAdmin flag was removed per criteria #4, should you resume admining one day you can request reactivation of IAdmin at WP:BN. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 10:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


Wildflowers for your time on strike --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  • You have my best wishes Martin, I'm sure this project benefitted inches and miles from your contributions. --qedk (tc) 18:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TOCpastweek

 Template:TOCpastweek has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Ten years!

... and thank you for a firm stance in a kafkaesque situation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Vassil Bojkov Collection


My name is Jim Svensson,

I've noticed that our page Vassil Bojkov Collection has been deleted.

What is the reason about deletion and is it possible to be restored?

What do we have to improve on it and is there something that is not correct on it?

Kind regards, Jim Jim19finsbury (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason given is "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Please contact the deleting admin for more details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unprotected

 Template:Unprotected has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi Martin, I'm sorry about having to specify the fetchwikidata and onlysourced parameters for just a simple retrieval. I introduced them because of the insistence of several editors that infoboxes had to be opt-in by default and only show sourced data by default. To make it easier, I made shortcuts so you can write fwd=all and osd=n to see all of the results. Hope you sorted it out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I'm getting there. I left a couple of queries at Module talk:WikidataIB and another question at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata in case you have time to take a look — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll be back in action in a week! :-) --RexxS (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Great Backlog Drive

 Template:Great Backlog Drive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Kremer, the forgotten

Hullo, I've noticed that for the Nobel Prize in Economics, the pictures are being switched for Duflot and Banerjee for "variety". Somehow, the third winner is completely overlooked. Can you rectify that? Thaks Manish2542 (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a picture of Michael Kremer — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please adjust page protection

Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have lowered to semi-protection — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Buffs (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Marieke Vervoort

 On 24 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marieke Vervoort, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


Do you know what happened with Pp-extended? The parameter "small" no longer works, resulting in all pages having the huge banner: Fatah, Kuttichathan. Do parameters not reach Lua if there is a redirect? Can we move the template back until this module thing is fixed? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Figured it out, the module needs to be updated as well – Thjarkur (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"IEEE TC" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IEEE TC. Since you had some involvement with the IEEE TC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Márta Kurtág

Thank you for thinking about Márta Kurtág (failed ITN, but now DYK)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Asbox/templatepage

 Template:Asbox/templatepage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialpears (talkcontribs) 23:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Interval/core

 Template:Interval/core has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Time ago/core

 Template:Time ago/core has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Deontay Wilder

Re: Talk:Deontay Wilder, please consider restoring this edition of the article, which has been the most stable throughout the year. The user who removed the content in question was completely wrong and disruptive in doing so, and has been trying to do the same thing for many years: [11], [12], [13], etc. Observe also his past claims to ownership of the article: [14]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for SMS Scharnhorst

 On 6 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article SMS Scharnhorst, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 02:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


Would you mind reopening and relisting this one? I agree there was no consensus so far, but discussion was ongoing and I even had an outstanding question that wasn't answered yet. Thanks. --В²C 00:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure. You had a full 10 days but no hard in relisting if you think it may be productive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you a Chinese goverment employee

Why did you remove Hong Kong protest and if your not Chinese goverment employee did they pay you to remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dq209 (talkcontribs) 16:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Basil Butcher

 On 18 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Basil Butcher, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, MSGJ!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Delete "Jordan Chandler" as a category request

Hey there,

Considering Jordan Chandler doesn't have a standalone Wiki page, is it necessary to have it as a category, here 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson ( If not, please remove it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthGuardians (talkcontribs) 18:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MSGJ/2019".