User talk:MPS1992/SmellyArchive 3

German war effort arbitration case opened

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)

• @Pudeo: The Arbcom elections are upon us, and a number of respected MILHIST contributors previously encouraged us to respond to the outcome of this arbitration case by voting appropriately in these elections. Well, I am not sure exactly how I should vote, but if I had time, I would start by drawing up a table of which of the candidates had any role in the German war effort arbitration case, and simple diff links to one or more of their comments or actions in that case. (By just providing links without comment, one can't be accused of misrepresenting them or personal attacks or whatever.) Because I am a lazy person, I probably don't have time for that, but perhaps you could find time? MPS1992 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, you don't probably even have to dig up diffs because some people asked questions about the German war effort case on the questions page. Also, not many candidates have much to do with the case - with the exception of DGG, who supported most of the aspects I was critical so I would oppose him, but on the other hand I wouldn't publish a guide that's just a hitlist on one candidate. Oh, one other candidate certainly did submit evidence in the case, but that must be it. I think it would be perhaps best to analyze those replies on the questions page and maybe put that in a table. I'm feeling lazy, though. --Pudeo (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: it was polite of you to not publish a guide attacking just one candidate. It turned out that the electorate voted such that the one problematic previous arbitrator and also the one problematic commentator, both did not get elected to arbcom this time. I hope that both of them are more thoughtful in future, and I will try to encourage them in that. MPS1992 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Rachael Runyan

Hi can you look over Murder of Rachael Runyan for any problems please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat

Please note that what I reverted was a legal threat. Please see my user talk page post. Please self-revert. By WP rules, I have to report the threat to ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Please don't post silly things on my talk page. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't? It didn't help that the post was written in broken English, but how do you interpret, "A Case Can be registered In IT Act. So I AM GIVING SHUT UP CALL to Those Immature Admins." What case is he talking about? Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears he's giving a SHUT UP CALL, whatever that is. To me, it sounds like an excellent idea. MPS1992 (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid he is referring to Information Technology Act, 2000 whose WP page states, "The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as ITA-2000, or the IT Act) is an Act of the Indian Parliament (No 21 of 2000) notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic commerce." Please explain how that is innocuous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

On Fazal Ahmad Khalid

Hey, just letting you know I remembered what you told me. :) Levvy^owo? 15:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: OS stuff

Hi MPS. I wanted to take this to your talk page to address your concerns in a place with less of a limelight, mostly because I think a lot of cross-talk has resulted in a rather massive miscommunication. I do appreciate the fact that you're concerned for user privacy, and I don't want you to feel like oversighters are minimizing those concerns. We especially appreciate that we've just effectively announced that a functionary handled private information improperly, which doesn't exactly engender lots of trust toward the functionaries as a whole. I hope this message will serve to repair some of that by correcting some misunderstandings.

Currently, every instance of suppression is logged and searchable by any oversighter. This is true for all oversighters performing suppressions and all edits or logs being suppressed. Oversighters have multiple different methods by which they can search for suppressed edits and logs, and they routinely use all of these methods to check the work of their peers. This is intended to increase accountability within the team, which helps avoid issues related to improper use of oversight. Consequentially, there have been no identified issues with abuse of oversight during my term on the Arbitration Committee, and we are actively checking for them as a team. There have been several instances where oversight was used in questionable circumstances and later reversed after group discussion, but these instances of oversight were all self-reported by the oversighter who preformed the suppression to the team for discussion. This is something we actually encourage oversighters to do - suppress if unsure and then discuss. Because suppressible information can cause substantial real-world harm if left on-wiki for even small amounts of time, this method of "suppress and discuss" is intended to prevent harm while ensuring that oversighters are acting within the bounds of the Oversight policy. This has successfully created a culture of accountability, constructive critique, and consistency within our oversight team.

Now back to the bug. The current bug is that some suppressed edits are not showing up when searching for such edits by the editor who posted them. All edits are searchable (and, therefore, auditable), but some currently can't be searched for by the editor who posted them, only the editor who suppressed them or the page they were suppressed on. This does not substantially hamper audit capabilities, since if we were looking to audit an oversighter, we would look at the logs of what edits they suppressed. Those logs are completely working.

Again, I do take your point regarding lack of trust, and that's something that will take a little time to rebuild. In particular, I'd like to see the Arbitration Committee begin consistently randomly auditing our CheckUser team to ensure all checks fall under the local and global CU policies. This is not currently done, but it should be. This is something I plan to take up with the Committee when I am next able.

If you have any questions, please let me know. My point in posting this is to be as accountable as I can be, which is especially important after such an announcement. We genuinely aren't trying to cover anything up or sweep anything under the rug. We're trying to do the best we can given a set of objectively bad circumstances. And sorry for the wall of text! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: walls of text are never a problem here. Thank you for this thorough explanation, it helps makes things clearer. I see revision deletion a lot -- often after I've requested it -- so it's easy to understand what that looks like. It's nearly as easy to understand how suppression operates, from a theoretical perspective, but when one doesn't see something then the theoretical understanding is slightly less than a perfect comprehension. For searching (and auditing) of suppression, the understanding is one step further removed, so a lack of awareness can contribute to a lack of confidence. Your explanation here has helped a lot, both with the mechanics, and with how it's being dealt with to promote accountability. Thank you for your work in dealing with accountability issues, both with oversight and with checkuser. MPS1992 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that! I just wanted to stop by to note that the small bug noted earlier was fixed on all WMF wikis as of February 7th, and the technical issue with a maintenance script that led to the problem was patched today, so it won't recur. Cheers! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sara Duterte protected

Please see this closure of your complaint. There appears to be a standoff in which nobody wants to be the first to identify the BLP issues. You mentioned at BLPN that you do see some problems with the article. It would be helpful if you could mention some of them on the talk page, or even better, make edit requests to restore any text that you think is OK. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

No refactoring I reverted your edit at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost per WP:REFACTOR. You have absolutely no business removing other editors comments on talk pages, unless those comments were on your own talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC) ... or unless those comments were made ignorantly. It's one or the other. MPS1992 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC) The drama pages are generally pretty tedious. You end up wading deep in drivel alot of the time. Only foraying occasionally and otherwise sticking to content space and discussion is a much saner way to edit here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC) @Casliber: thank you, that's good advice. One of the participants here seems to have been given it before at least once but isn't paying much attention. As for me, I think even foraying occasionally is a little too much :) I've bookmarked Wikipedia:Peer review and will spend some time there -- it's annoying that it's automatically generated, so watchlisting it won't serve to give me reminders. But I might end up visiting Slough later anyway, if the peanut gallery get their way. MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"obvious canvassing going on"

Could you please clarify this diff. Who canvassed whom? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Why does this fellow take such care to ping you to get credit, after posting to agree with your point of view? Even carefully including "Message text." which presumably he was supposed to remove before pasting!!? MPS1992 (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If you have concerns, please take them to the appropriate admin noticeboard. Article Talk pages are not the right venue for this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As you wish. MPS1992 (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Then you should at least sign the template. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I will consider it. MPS1992 (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Like the other templates with similar usage for AfD and MfD, and so on, the template documentation does not recommend signing it. Are you really suggesting that a !vote that includes "Message text." should be taken seriously by the closing administrator? MPS1992 (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sidney Lanier, etc.

Hi! While I agree with you that Sidney Lanier should be mentioned as more than a confederate soldier, please consider your approach to editors with whom you have disagreed, specifically @John from Idegon:. Your comments on the talk pages could be construed as a personal attack. Throwing a template on his talk page as if he were a newbie is kind of insulting. If you want to gain consensus, it is far more productive to approach it kindly, and civilly, discussing the facts, rather than the person. Remember the old saying, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar". Or maybe I just like old sayings :). Anyway, let's work on getting the article right by discussing. Don't blow things up by adding unnecessary confrontation, the facts and the sources should speak for themselves, or they should just shut up. Thanks for your work. Jacona (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, it appears you might be following @John from Idegon: around the encyclopedia. Remember that stalking is not acceptable behavior.Jacona (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ip sock editor

MPS, the IP address is a Chicago based IP used by HughD who enjoys hounding several editors here. It was tagged as likely in 2017. Admin NeilN frequently removed such edits though they haven't posted in several months. Note the ip editor previous edits. I will file a SPI when I get back to a real computer later today. Springee (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The comments did not look like "hounding" to me. I'm sure an administrator will take care of any issues as needed. MPS1992 (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Look at HughD's rap sheet. The editor was indef'ed due to failure to abide a politics topic ban. As I hope if you look you will understand. Springee (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not all that interested in politics, sorry. MPS1992 (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Answers to my cats bizarre behavior

My cat Boon’GaBoo, a newly adopted trailer park cat, has a strange habit. A fetish really if u ask me. She developed an attachment to me right off the bat the 1st time i let her inside my home. Now, quite often, while im laying down (on my back) she will put herself between my left arm and side and starts forcing her head into my arm pit and starts licking my shirt sleeve really fast (like she drinking water)and at same time wraps both her paws all way around my upper arm and starts kneading her paws and claws into my arm like she is a kitten nursing on her moms teat. But she is licking. Not suckling. And purring vigorously. If i let her she will do that until she finally gives up and falls asleep right where she is. Its always my left arm and it doesn’t matter what shirt as long as im wearing it. Doesnt matter if i just got off work and smell bad or if i just got out the shower n put deodorant on. Doesnt matter as long as it is me. She wont do it to my brother who lives with me or anyone else. Also fyi... i have never known any cat to be so calm and really laid back. Even when my brothers cat starts getting frisky and starts trying to play rough with Boonga, i mean claws n biting, If Boonga isnt in the mood she will just sit there and let the other cat bite n claw away until it loses interest. Then boonga just lays back down. At the same time she is very very very needy when it comes to having my full attention. And extremely jealous when my brothers female cat gets close to me or trys to go inside her mini bedroom i built for her. Ive provided all this info in the hopes of having my question answered. WHY does she do that to my shirt sleeve??? BoongaBoo (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Two trailer park cats go round the outside, round the outside, round the outside

@BoongaBoo: I am sorry that I do not know the answer to your question. My initial thoughts:

• This is clearly a behavioral issue that you have been unable to resolve despite attempting multiple other avenues for resolution. On Wikipedia the next step in such a situation is normally to open an arbcom case.
• An indefinite pheromone block might be an alternative.
• Or you could ask for help at the Reference Desk by clicking this link

While on this topic, I am concerned that the Bio for this Instagram account is out of date. Would you be able to assist in updating it? MPS1992 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Emigrate vs. Immigrate

For Aayan Hirsi Ali, "emigrate" is from the point of view of the country one's leaving. "Immigrate" is from the point of view of the country being arrived in, and is correct here. See this article for elaboration. --Dtwedt (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I regard it as a horrific abomination of a neologism, not a question of point of view. But it's no big deal I suppose. MPS1992 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: socking

Please don’t advise editors who have just been blocked to evade their block in a few years. I get that some people don’t care, but the community as a whole has rejected this approach and encouraging a CIR case to sock isn’t ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the community's view, I'm not sure that's the case.

When a user is advised to take a break until they are a year or two older [and more competent], and indicates that they plan to do so, following that up by blocking them indefinitely does not seem helpful. Although admittedly I haven't checked if the user actually followed up their statement about taking a break with new disruptive edits elsewhere.

If the user comes back in two years and is still not competent enough to edit, then they'll get blocked whether on a new account or the old one. If they come back in two years and are competent enough to edit, they will not have any problems even on a new account.

But, feel free to remove or refute my suggestion on the user's talkpage. I've unwatchlisted the page, and I'm not planning to make a habit of giving advice to the indefinitely blocked. MPS1992 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If a user is indefinitely blocked, they are ineligible for a clean start under a new account per the clean start policy and the blocking policy, both of which are the documented community view on this topic. They have to appeal under their blocked account. This is important because lying about one's history on the project (which block evasion is), harms community trust. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm already aware of what those pages say. MPS1992 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 11:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

wumbolo ^^^ 11:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: student edits

Hi - I didn't want to use my work account for this (Shalor (Wiki Ed)) since I wanted this to be more of an informal note. I'm responding about the content with the student's article on Túpac Amaru II. Basically, the main thing to remember here is to always assume good faith. This can definitely be hard to do sometimes, especially if you're frustrated, tired, etc, but it's easier to resolve things by approaching them calmly than by being heated as starting off with being upset only puts the other person on the defensive. They're more likely to see the response as an attack and be less likely to see any points you may want to make, so they'll respond to a heated note by also being heated, which makes it very difficult to resolve things.

Keep in mind that it takes a lot of editors a while to adapt to Wikipedia's writing style, so it's not something that is especially limited to students. It's just often easier to spot with students since they can often do larger edits and are sometimes more visible because they're typically labeled as students. I know that my first edits are kind of cringeworthy, to be honest. (I will just leave this here.)

Part of this is because many of the guidelines on here are fairly different than they are in other areas. I didn't get a really good idea of how differently other aspects of academia and professional scholarship tended to think until I took on a volunteer gig with the Library of Virginia and had to explain some of the basic guidelines to historians that worked there. Terms and guidelines that sounded reasonable to myself were actually pretty foreign and in some cases almost in opposition to some of their guidelines. Writing styles and notability were two of the biggest examples of this. For them notability was judged on things like what the person did (not only very major things, but things that could mark someone as notable to them, such as being a major plantation owner or leader of several local organizations) and if the LVA or other institutions archived their papers. Independent, secondary coverage was actually not one of the most major determinants, although they didn't discount it, which is in fairly direct opposition to how things are done on here since it pretty much comes down to coverage for almost everything. With writing styles, they would use words that would seem innocuous to them were fine to use despite them not being OK on here or include details that wouldn't really be seen as very pertinent for Wikipedia's purposes. The average editor is actually more likely to approach things from the perspective of a student, since they're more likely to assume that it's going to be similar to writing an academic or scholarly paper, which means that they're going to have even more of a culture shock than the historians did. I've found that just pointing out guidelines doesn't really help things unless you personalize it somewhat to the individual's edits, especially as the pages on Wikipedia can be pretty hard to understand on their own. We've tried to simplify this for the students, but there's still some confusion her and there.

I'm not really trying to excuse poor edits, I more wanted to give you my general perspective on things as a general editor rather than solely from the viewpoint of someone working with students. This is all a bit long so I suppose that my main takeaway will be that it takes people a while to get used to editing Wikipedia, even with supervision and guidelines, because the writing styles can be so foreign to them. In some cases they may just need a bit of further explanation to help make something really seem clear. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: thank you for these notes, that is very useful. I see the student has taken some of the feedback on board and ultimately added some (mostly) unproblematic material to the article. I've not contributed further to the discussion on the instructor's talk page because I think they're right that my approach there was far too confrontational. I remain a little concerned and a little surprised that there are so many issues with student edits, but I can see that a great deal of effort is being put in to try and guide them in the right direction. MPS1992 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

– Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	A compassionate human being who knows that Desmond Napoles is only a child. scope_creepTalk 12:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hawker Hurricane page corrections

I see I will need to add some sources.

First, the image I corrected the title from Yugoslavian Mk.I to Mk.IV (mark 1 to mark 4, the RAF used Roman style numerals until 1946 or 47) here [[1]]

is actually listed in the photo caption as a Mk.IV RP, and a colour image of the same aircraft is shown on the same page further down,

Hawker_Hurricane#/media/File:Yu_Hurricane.jpg

as on display in Belgrade. the aircraft in question is has the serial LD975 in the first photo As the Mk.IV was built to carry various of equipment, Mk.IV RP (RP = rocket projectile) is a an inaccurate description too. the markings are of the Yugoslav partisan airforce as well. (modified RAF markings, which supplied the aircraft) there are images of Yugoslavian Royal Air Force Hurricanes here if you wish to compare with the image above] https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Hurricane/RYAF.html

Regarding the Sea Hurricane IC comments, please note the standard references are wrong, and I linked to a Britmodeller discussion on this, where sources are mentioned.

Nearly all Hurricane references are based upon the work of Francis K Mason, and this is where this error originates. I can see this will be a problem, as the sources that refute this are not published, apart from the works of Ray Sturtivant which lists Fleet Air Arm serials, where no Hawker Hurricane IC aircraft are listed.

I appreciate that sources are needed, I started this thread on Britmodeller on an area of Hurricane detailing of common confusion to modellers,

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234980181-hawker-hurricane-propellers-and-spinners-a-modellers-guide/

Which I hope will show a level of knowledge on the subject, which is why I wished to correct long standing inaccuracies being repeated.

links to correct sourcing, and methods of verification are appreciated. Troy G Smith (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Troy G Smith: thank you for explaining this in such detail. I am sorry to be a nuisance, but could you raise these points on the article talk page Talk:Hawker Hurricane please? It won't get resolved on my talk page one way or the other. Situations where otherwise reliable sources all contain inaccuracies because of mistakes in earlier work are particularly difficult to deal with, so I appreciate your efforts to sort it out.

WP:Citing sources is a useful guide to citing sources. Using links to web forum threads is almost never acceptable, whether the forum thread itself contains details of further sources or not.

WT:AVIATION or WT:MILHIST might be good places to ask for further help. MPS1992 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992:

@MPS1992 Thank you for pointing me to the correct place to discuss this, I just joined as I wished to add to the information on Hawker Hurricanes. Apologies if this is not the correct protocol for saying thank you, there is a lot to digest in guidelines, but wished to acknowledge your help in the meantime. Troy G Smith (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverting other user's comments

Hi, I just wanted to leave a friendly reminder to be careful about reverting changes, as you recently reverted my comments on AN3 [2], as well as edits by administrator ST47. You may want to at least reinsert ST47's edit [3]. Hope this helps. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thank you for the heads up. MPS1992 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I reinserted the admin's content for you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy! It's appreciated. MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries. All the best! Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

KD and WP:BLP

Hi, just noticed your removal of my link to the Reply All (podcast) episode regarding Kevin Durant and sockpuppetry of Twitter accounts from the Top 25 Report. I am curious as to why you consider this to be a BLP issue, given that it was reported upon by the aforementioned podcast, which I would feel constitutes a reliable source. I have no problem with the removal, as it doesn't detract from the commentary, so this is more a question out of curiosity than anything else. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC).

Thank you for reaching out. TBH I wouldn't consider that to be a reliable source for a contentious claim about a living person. But who knows, maybe I am out of touch with celebrity and podcast things, and saying that someone has been involved in "anonymously hyping" themselves is not a contentious claim?

I am a little puzzled that we have a regular editor at that page -- with 70,000 edits and 14 years' service, no less -- who thinks that WP:BLP does not apply outside mainspace. The very first sentence of that policy says otherwise. Probably worth keeping an eye on. MPS1992 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: - Here is the New York Times article on Durant's Twitter kerfuffle, though it states that Durant denies claims of sockpuppetry, so your removal was probably justified. I personally don't consider it too egregious a claim to make, but it is also of minimal importance to the report. Better safe than sorry, I guess. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source reports that there has been speculation that a living person had "perhaps" done X. Wikipedia page then states, in Wikipedia's voice, that doing X is the living person's "other hobby" apart from his professional career.

Not OK. Even under a "humor" banner. MPS1992 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the justified removal. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: regarding my puzzlement above about a regular editor on that page, unfortunately they now seem to be trying to jump the shark. There's already a little controversy and an attempted arbcom case over the current issue of the Signpost, so dragging in nude BLP edit-warring as well is not ideal. Perhaps you have more influence than I, and you could have a chat off-line with them in some manner? It would be much appreciated, I am much too lazy for arbcom proceedings, or even ANI ones if they can be avoided. MPS1992 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dude what is with you?

You asked me to source it. I sourced it. Or were you just being smugly rhetorical? Serendi^podous 20:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Was that a smugly rhetorical question? MPS1992 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you accuse me of edit warring when I did what you asked me to do? Serendi^podous 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Because you were edit-warring. While we're at it, do you still believe that WP:BLP does not apply outside of article space, as you said here? MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, how informative. And yes, I've reviewed the policy, but people are still allowed to voice opinions in editorial articles, which is what the Top 25 Report is. Serendi^podous 21:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Smallbones is not as confused as you are. In time, this will be fixed. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

it is

making English How would you like your trout, sir or madam, cold or warm? I'm afraid cook is away, so it will be raw. cygnis insignis 23:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Wetterling Page

I see you removed all my edits regarding the Wetterling murder and reverted back to a milquetoast watered down version of the truth. If you have questions or problems with my extensive edits, I'm surprised you didn't make an effort to communicate with me rather than delete everything. The previous version didn't come close to establishing the truth, especially the extent to which law enforcement utterly failed to do its job and the way in which those blunders adversely impacted so many people, so I'm curious to know your stake in the Wetterling case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randleb (talk • contribs)

Hey, thanks for reaching out. I have no stake in the Wetterling case -- I have never been to Minnesota, and I don't know anyone from Minnesota, that I'm aware of. Actually I've only visited the USA twice, quite briefly on both occasions. Anyway the place to discuss proposed additions to the article, or problems with the existing article is on the article talk page. MPS1992 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

better wording welcome
... you were recipient no. 1984 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

thank you Gerda Arendt! that long already MPS1992 (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I Appreciate the Help

Hey @PlanespotterA320: Thank you for helping me a lot with the insight I sure do need it it dose help!Jack90s15 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not him, but you are very welcome anyway. The next thing I might do to help, is to steal the Shift key off of your keyboard, so that you write like ee cummings. Instead of like This. :)MPS1992 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

🤨

Special:Diff/908474286 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, and now the opportunity to remove it silently is gone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you please kindly consider taking the opportunity this time to avoid this completely unnecessary escalation? All I see is something that may look embarrassing in hindsight. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Lots of poeple seem invested in lots of foolish behaviour. Which of them are looking to offer apologies? MPS1992 (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Note on talk page

Hi, I saw you left me a templated level 2 warning on my talk page regarding personal attacks on editors in response to my efforts to revert vandalism from a certain editor and warn said editor for repeatedly tripping the edit filter, which blocked further vandalism from the user. I would encourage you to review the editor's attempts to vandalize; to wit, 1 2. Issuing templated warnings to users who repeatedly trip the edit filter and vandalize is not a personal attack. Thank you. Next256 (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, "Next256". Please tell us how in your first few edits, you learned so much about the edit filter. Most of your edits seem to be related to it. MPS1992 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been around on the site for a few years and saw various instances of vandalism so I spent time looking into ways to combat it. I monitored recent changes but then discovered the edit filter to monitor as well. It stops vandalism before it is successfully added to the site and is an effective mechanism. Next256 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. Please do a better job of explaining to new or unregistered editors, what they have done wrong. Otherwise, your edits are likely to be reverted without further consideration. MPS1992 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Gregory J. Weissenberger

Howdy, gave a quick polish of Gregory J. Weissenberger while curating. If you think it is now more readable could you remove the copyedit tag? Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The template seems to be gone now, I will follow up on the article talk page. Thanks, MPS1992 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The article creator took it down, I saw your message and just gave it a second polish. I think it is now free of the worst grammatical errors. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank You!

Dear MPS1992:

I just received notification that you awarded me a "Barnstar"! Thank you very much.

Can you tell me... Have we crossed paths - meaning that we both edited the same article or articles? I am so new at this that I don't know how to see all of the contributions that other editors have made. I can see the edits for a particular article but I don't know how to see the entire body of another editor's work.

If we did not cross paths, can you tell me the article or articles where you saw my work? It would be helpful for me to know where I have made a valuable contribution or contributions.

Again, that you for the "Barnstar." It is the first award that I have received.

Sincerely, Virgil Fairchild VFF0347 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Could you, please, stop sending pre-made warning templates and come forward to discuss your problems. I see you are Bangladeshi editor, better edit in your area of expertise. Störm (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you are Bangladeshi editor, better edit in your area of expertise -- what a very strange demand to make of a fellow editor. MPS1992 (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, that would be helpful if someone edit the topics he knows about. Otherwise, they would create mess. Störm (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that's totally inappropriate. Please don't use an editor's nationality as a qualification. El_C 22:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Why would I be inclined to withdraw my complaint? Am I wrong in thinking that Cullen328 was being overly aggressive? I mean, the guy just posted on my talk page - while his AN complaint is occurring - the following: "Now we are seeing what other editors and administrators think about your behavior. That is good." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_Sebastian&diff=next&oldid=913534988 1)
Tell me that is not the mark of someone being way, way too aggressive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: That is not the mark of someone being way, way too aggressive. You have been quite aggressive yourself in certain messages, don't you think? @Cullen328: was perhaps being rather harsh, and perhaps they were in an ill temper and perhaps they would benefit from a nice walk in a meadow surrounded by birds tweeting and summer sunshine and such. But your behavior has been problematic. You need to acknowledge that, before someone starts placing sanctions on you. MPS1992 (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I am acting on it as per my last few posts in AN. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I was not in an ill temper at all, and as for the walk you suggest, I had walked all around the historic Sonoma Plaza with my wife a few hours earlier, where we visited an art museum and had dinner at an excellent restaurant. I am firm about BLP violations but that is my job as an administrator. Perhaps I was a bit more firm than I might otherwise have been when I noticed directly above the comment "Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining." That was directed at the editor who reported the BLP violation at WP:BLPN, which I had just read moments before. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for David Morgan (pilot)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for Writing me . I’ve received notification that you have opened a discussion on my profile, but unfortunately I can’t open it with the notification link. I will appreciate if you can copy it here, or help me learn how to access my talk page. Regards Shahabimilad1387 (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Jo Cox

I have had a post removed due to being unneutral..... on the Jo Cox murder there is no evidence of Tommy Mair was the murderer. Infact video evidence proves he wasn't the man even questioned and a lookalike was used. The original article is biased. Mulder's mate (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For being so helpful and knowledgeable ! Jack90s15 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Who, me?!? :) Thanks Jack! MPS1992 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Simply for making my day!Niggle1892 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Please don't make personal attacks against other editors on arbitration pages. I have removed your comment at WT:ACN. You may appeal this decision to arbcom. – bradv🍁 04:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, thank you for stopping by my talkpage. I read your message. MPS1992 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Restoring it in diff form isn't helpful either. Please stop. – bradv🍁 04:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Re this, you called another editor an idiot. I can't believe I have to explain why this is inappropriate. If you have further questions we can talk about it here, not on ACN. – bradv🍁 04:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Bradv explicitly stated why your comment was removed above. I have removed your comment from the thread at ACN as it was off-topic. SQL^{Query me!} 04:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my talk page. I didn't call anyone anything. I realise it's important that the committee defend its decision, but I don't think that suppressing any and all comments, is the best way to do that or an approach that will instil faith in the committee. MPS1992 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You literally called someone both childish, and an idiot. So I didn't call anyone anything. kinda falls flat here. You can comment if you like, but we will not tolerate personal attacks on other editors. SQL^{Query me!} 05:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You're talking about this, I think. Now, your pal "Bradv" may be putting himself forward as an arbcom candidate, but, to be frank, I wouldn't recommend it, if that's the best he can do. Have a good day. MPS1992 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How odd. I thought it was some new message from User:BradV to threaten me. Now I read my messages and I discover that he is not yet elected. MPS1992 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I am clarifying regarding paraphrasing through dispute resolution. == Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!Guglusharma (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC) ==

I think if you could have checked each of my 3 edits for copy paste violations, rather than direct undoing edits, it would have been more useful to me as a beginner.

Wow! MPS1992 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Your revert

I saw this revert and read your note. Actually, it is being discussed on the talk page , and there's no consensus to include it at this time. Please revert your edit and discuss with us on the talk page. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Good eye

Good point :-) But, I can't shake off the feeling that there's more to it than meets the eye. There are lots of incoherence and compulsory behavior (ADHD, or 1, or 2, or some such variety, who could tell), I was really careful to find some info on what if one crosses paths with such phenomenon here.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ostracon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)