User talk:MSGJ

Please leave a .

Entry for Peter Hofschroer

77.98.245.96 is NOT vandalizing this page. The culprit is Tirailleur. If you see his talk page, you will see he has a personal grudge against Hofschroer.

The situation is that Hofschroer's mother is the victim of abuse and serious crime. Lord Maginnis has raised her case in Parliament several times, to no avail. Her son, Peter Hofschroer, exposed serious oficial corruption in his mother's case and was framed by the police.

Simply google "Maginnis" and "Barbara Hofschroer" and you will see the record of the statement in the House of Lords.

And do see this TV interview with Barbara and Peter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PER__Kx-EPs

Human rights in Rojava

Hello, first of all thanks for your patient and dilligent work on edit requests in the Human rights in Rojava article. I do not think that there is anything like a consensus to be reached with that ultranationalist colleague on the one request you disabled now (add para on FSA war crimes in Al Bab and broader northern Aleppo), but there are three other requests still active, two of them not challenged by anyone, and with the third request (add para on ISIL war crimes in the Tell Abyad area) his objection there rests on so incredibly weak arguments, just look at it if this can be considered a valid objection, any decision of yours is fine with me. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Hello Sir, as the title suggest, this article lists the human rights situation in a newly created region (that has no historic presence nor international recognition). This entity control large areas in northern Syria and have internationally and locally unrecognized territorial claims. The main problem in that article is an editor (who called me an ultra-nationalist, though im not even a nationalist and I dont edit any ethnic articles nor do I write ones about how "glorious" my country is) who treat the territorial claims as actual control on land and hence, he tries to list the violation that happened on those lands as if they happened in Rojava even though the said entity never controlled those lands, or those violations happened before the involved lands came under the control of the entity. It is like if China claimed a land in Vietnam and an editor came to list any human rights violation in the Vietnamese land in an article about human rights in China.

Now, the article has seen many edit wars (mainly because the other user insistent that anything Rojava claims become automatically a Rojava) and we need a consensus on the scope of the article to avoid such wars. Until then, the article will be a reason of disturbance and constant edit-wars.

The reason why I came here is because the protection will end in 1 November, and none of the problems were solved and thats why its a better idea to extend the protection. Once the protection is lifted without any solution, the edit wars will comeback cause the very enthusiastic user (who is a one purpose account btw, who only edit articles connected to Rojava) have no intention to at least support his edits with sources that mention that a certain human rights violation happened in an area named Rojava even though I asked him over and over to do this.

I hope you would take this into consideration cause its very hard to deal with edit wars and pushed edits that has no sources connecting them to the subject. Thanks--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you want the protection extended to protect your preferred version. A better solution might be to unprotect and then block any editors who edit war. I will investigate whether any discretionary sanctions can be used to enforce a 1RR restriction on the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I see it already has a 1RR restriction. So I plan to let the protection expire (probably replace with semi-protection) and then enforce that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I will stop arguing, but I have a new question, in light of what I showed, is blocking edit warriors the right solution when a party can bring 10 people to get his edits passed ? This will only drive me to just step back and the article will be taken by a group of activists and become a POV page. Im losing any faith in the way things are dealt with here cause whoever have more friends and patience, gets his way sadly.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

More

Hello, 2A1ZA inserted a paragraph implying that it was you who gave him the authority in his edit summary. This paragraph was controversial, it was discussed, no consensus was reached, and it is out of the scope of the article which had a consensus after a long discussion. You placed the article under the one revert rule and that editor is taking advantage of it now by inserting whatever he want and he know he cant be reverted. Is his behavior accepted.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I am monitoring the article and will strictly enforce 1RR. Please take this discussion to Talk:Human rights in Rojava — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for monitoring but now he is using you to force his edit by implying that you gave him the call. How will the one revert rule stop this kind of behavior ? It only benefit him. He is inserting controversial edits with no consensus and no discussion and hiding behind the one revert rule. I understand perfectly the damage of edit warring, but is this the only criteria here? He can do whatever he likes as long as edit warring is stopped ? Please help me understanding how wikipedia is going now. Cause all I can see is that a motivated activist can hide himself and take advantage of the rules. From now on, he will insert whatever he like, with no consensus and no talk page and hide behind the one edit rule. This is getting so bad; his edit is against the consensus and the scope of the article, yet he is allowed to keep it and others are the ones who should take it to the talk page !!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I went to the noticeboard here. An admin wrote that if the paragraph didnt get a consensus before, then undoing it is the way to go until a consensus is reached. Hence, I undid the edit and I am not violating the one revert rule. You wont be disturbed again. I came to you cause the other editor used your words as a justification, so it concerned you, otherwise I wouldnt have posted to your page. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sciences Po changes

Hi Martin,

Can you explain why you made the changes to the Sciences Po page that Launebee requested on 21 October? If you read the discussion that preceded your response to making those changes on 21 October, there was a long discussion and a consensus against all of them, and no one supported any of them in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.29.221 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I will take another look — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The three changes made on 21 October were:

• the shortening or the deletion of the gallery
• the deletion of the paragraph between history and 1872–1945 sections
• changes to lead

These changes were made because they were first proposed by Launebee on 7 October and received no comment or opposition until the request was made on 21 October. If you wish to see these changes reverted, you should start a new discussion on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, but I think you may have missed the discussion regarding the changes to the lead. In fact the four changes to the lead: (1) Remove "Collège universitaire", (2) Remove the mention of "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain", (3) Remove "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe," and (4) Remove "Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France," were all discussed by several editors and were all opposed by everyone except Launebee.

More Sciences Po changes

Regarding the discussion above about your making Launebee's changes to the Sciences Po article: In fact the four changes to the lead: (1) Remove "Collège universitaire", (2) Remove the mention of "encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain", (3) Remove "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe," and (4) Remove "Founded in response to France's crisis after the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of the Second Empire, the goals of its founders were to train new elites and produce modern knowledge for a new France," were all discussed by several editors and were all opposed by everyone except Launebee. These changes were proposed 18 September 2016 by Launebee, were all voted down, then Launebee asked why they had not been made on 21 October 2016, at which point you accepted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.49.94 (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Politics of the United States/sandbox

A tag has been placed on Template:Politics of the United States/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Village pump (proposals)

Just for the record, had that other user not undone the close, I was more than ready to undo it myself after seeing your message. :) However, I will accept your trout with honor. How are you? Do you remember me? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think I remember you, although did you have a different username back then? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I did. Zhang He. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving RfA discussions to the Talk section

Hi MSGJ. I agree with moving long discussions on a particular RfA position to the talk page. Do you think that one reply-level should stay on the main page to indicate the substance of the discussion or disagreement? AlexEng^(TALK) 10:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Why should the first reply be given special treatment? There is no reason why it should be any more or less important than the other replies. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't think of it as special treatment, just the start of the discussion. I can see what you mean, though. If you don't agree, then I won't challenge it further. Thanks for the reply. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really care either way ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Reguyla/Kumioko

Please note that there is a sockpuppet block log at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Reguyla-Kumioko_community_ban which should be updated following your block of his latest sockpuppet. This log keeps track of when this user is eligible to appeal his ban, and this timer is to be reset upon the detection of any sockpuppet accounts. 24.38.6.106 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I'm sure the editor I blocked was a sockpuppet I'm not totally convinced it was the editor you mention above. Indeed it could be someone else pretending to be him. So I'm not going to update that log at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:John

Hi, as the editor that filed the initial report on this editor, I have been following the discussion closely. I just posted a message on his talk page (see this diff [1]), but he removed it. I just wanted to make you aware of this, because I think he needs to understand that other find his behavior to be in need of improvement, especially now that his status as an admin is known. I'm not going to revert his deletion of my comment, as I think his edit summary when he removed my comment says everything. Thank you. KirksKeyKard (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think he knows how others have perceived his behaviour now, and I don't think your interventions there are particularly helpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If he does he doesn't care. You should be aware that he has rejected the admonishment: [2]. Make of that what you will. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

He can reject all he likes. The warning was received and knows the consequences of edit warring next time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick question from FriyMan

I was working on an article about Kubinka Tank Museum and while making the info board, stumbled upon the coordinates of the museum. However, I did not understand how to input them. Can you please help? FriyMan (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@FriyMan: the best method is probably to use |coordinates= followed by the {{coord}} template. If you follow that link you can read about the correct syntax. Let me know if you need more help! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, but the conflict was already resolved.FriyMan (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I tried adding a portrait of William Chester Jordan to wikipedia, but I failed. I do not really understand, why I am not allowed to upload this portrait. Can you please help? FriyMan (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Give me some more details please - do you have an image that you tried to upload? Where did you try to upload it? Did you get some kind of error message? What kind of licence does the image have? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	==Thanks for the heads up== My mistake. Thanks for just pointing it out. I have reset the article. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually not precisely

Regarding this edit. The consensus was to replace {{Too many photos}} by {{Cleanup images}}. There was absolutely no discussion to indicate which picture is a likely candidate to be removed. As a matter of fact, other pictures are also under discussion, so please remove that parameter from the template. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please check again. The only parameter on that template is the date. (The spacing change was done automatically by visual editor and does not affect the rendered output.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

edit request

hello - could you answer request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election_recounts#protected_edit_request - Govindaharihari (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted my request, it is over two hours on a current event article since I requested a change - If you full protect an article of current event you shout action requests currently - Govindaharihari (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I do my best. Two hours would generally be pretty quick for an edit request to be attended to. As your request was not supported by clear consensus, it took a lower priority. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)