User talk:MichaelMaggs

I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Talk page archives: 2006-7, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013


Wikidata weekly summary #244Edit

Wikidata weekly summary #245Edit

Wikidata weekly summary #246Edit

ref on Gentleman's Magazine to Road MapsEdit

Dear Michael Clearly you have the skill and knowledge to add whatever you feel is necessary from these three references at Wiltshire History ONline

The Road from London to Landsend 1760 Gentleman's Magazine

The Roads from Bristol and Bath to Worcester. 1765 Gentleman's Magazine

The Road from... Marborough to Huntspil. ca.1765 Gentleman's Magazine

for which an example weblink is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/WIL/genmag_road-lon-landsend_1760.html What, for you &/or Wikipedia is a 'sufficient reference' ?! Thanks NoJoking —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.159.84.62 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. The page you've linked to appears to be a user-uploaded scanned image of the strip maps, from the ancestry.com website, with a heading mentioning The Gentleman's Magazine. I'm afraid that's not sufficient to be a reliable source as user-uploads aren't acceptable under the WP:SELFPUBLISH Wikipedia policy. What would be needed is either a citation to The Gentleman's Magazine itself (online or to the original printing) giving the exact issue and page number, or alternatively to a reliable third-party publication that discusses the fact that the magazine published these maps.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That almost seems like overkill. Why would a source such as Wiltshire Online History produce a list of maps without sufficient validation? I can't even find if there are complete copies of Gentleman's Magazine from which to access page numbers!! Clearly there seems little point in pursuing this or any similar edit unless one has a quite startling level of validation; which is very offputting. (I won't bother to comment on why Wikipedia is filled with Basketballer's personal information - ha.) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.156.100.212 (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is unfortunately a huge amount of poorly-sourced stuff on Wikipedia, but see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #247Edit

Wikidata weekly summary #248Edit

Wikidata weekly summary #249Edit

Reguyla and othersEdit

In the absence of any instruction at Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block - how do you want to deal with unblock requests from Reguyla (if/when it happens) and other users (such as L'honorable, who has been making unblock requests in recent days) where e-mail and talk page access has been disabled ? We don't have a UTRS type system or mailing list which can be used, so these blocks are now essentially permanent as they have no appeal mechanism. I'm not advocating unblocking either named party, but I do think we should have a process in place to allow an appeal to take place. Any thoughts ? I'm only asking in the event you've already thought about this and have an idea already. Nick (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick. It did cross my mind that this could be an issue, and it's another area where our policies are not as well-developed as they ought to be. I'm not quite at the stage of working up a definite proposal yet, but I agree that there ought to be some defined appeal mechanism. For a standard block, the policy states “Before granting a request to lift a block placed by another administrator, the reviewing administrator should consult with the blocking administrator, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases” [bold text in original]. In cases that are serious enough to merit indefinite blocks I would like to see a process that requires a formal consensus of the community (not just consultation with the blocking admin) before editing privileges can be restored. The procedure ought to include a mechanism for any agreed return to be made subject to specific conditions.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi MichaelMaggs and Nick, there is still the option to contact OTRS which in turn could forward such a request here at Commons. We practice this at de:wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@AFBorchert, Yann: Thank you both for the suggestions. Both suggestions are good and I appreciate it but I am not going to request unblock. If the Commons community or someone in it wants me to edit and continue to improve it then they can start the conversation and act on whatever the result is. If I get unblocked great and I will forge ahead and resume editing and if not then the block remains. Cheers! Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:CC0C:4368:8CD3:44E2 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I have offered Reguyla to post an unblocking request on his behalf. Since he refuses, the issue is closed. I also semi-protected his talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
That's fine and thanks again Yann and AFBorchert for the offers. I didn't ask for the block and I am not going to ask for the unblock. Indef blocks of editors in good standing should not be done at the whims of individual admins and should not be done without escalating blocks first. They should be done by a community decision. If the community decides they want me to edit then let me know, otherwise Commons loses an editor. A high output one. I'm not going to go off the rails like I did at EnWP but I confess disappointment. No big deal though. It has been suggested by a couple folks that I should take a break and come back in a few months. If people won't support me after doing over 100, 000 edits a month for several months straight, then they won't support me after several months of inactivity. Only on the WMF projects does that even make sense. Cheers! Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:CC0C:4368:8CD3:44E2 19:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yann, Nick, AFBorchert, MichaelMaggs, Revent: Since it appears there is no interest in me contributing to Commons may I suggest someone update my user rights and revoke my AWB access. If I am ever unblocked then I can request those again but there is no point in having it on there if I can't use it. I figured someone would have done it by now so I didn't say anything before and now that it's pretty much confirmed the block won't be lifted there is no reason to have them. Reguyla 138.163.128.42 13:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

@Yann: I tried to post this to your talk page but it's protected as well as mine but I wanted you to know something for clarification to your last comment on my talk page. I am always open to collaborating and assisting other editors, I always have been. So please don't make this about me not being collaborative. But some contributors refuse to collaborate and insist it's going to be their way or the highway. I have always, 100% of the time, helped anyone who asked me and many who didn't even ask. I have never, in my history on the projects, not worked collaboratively with those who were willign to collaborate. Comments to the contrary are simply not true. Reguyla 138.163.128.42 14:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I removed all Reguyla's rights. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks Yann. Let me know if the decision changes and there is an interest in unblocking me so I can get back to editing again. I'll continue to watch my page just in case. Reguyla 138.163.128.42 15:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #250Edit

Wikidata weekly summary #251Edit

Weekly Summary #252Edit

File:The Boy's Own Paper, front page, 11 April 1891.jpgEdit

  File:The Boy's Own Paper, front page, 11 April 1891.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Lays of Ancient Rome.jpgEdit

  File:Lays of Ancient Rome.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MichaelMaggs".