MSGJ

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:WikiProject Women in Red meetup 2018 articles

A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Women in Red meetup 2018 articles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ,

I hate to send you CSD C1 notices but it looks like these categories were intended to be temporary. Hope all is well with you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ooh, that means DreamRimmer's bot has done its job. Thank you DreamRimmer! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	As per. qcne (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Closing too soon

Just in case you missed my ping in a sea of notifications, I just want to point out that your community ban on Larry Singer was acted too quickly and is likely to be challenged. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a block not a ban — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No, it's a ban, because, per your own words, you were enacting consensus, and per our policies, consensus to indef is a cban. It says so right at WP:CBAN. Look, you pull the trigger, you file the paperwork. You need to either clarify that this is a unilateral admin block and not the enactment of consensus (bad idea! don't do it!) or else follow the procedures at WP:CBAN (which prob means undoing the block and waiting until the 72hrs is up). Levivich (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I blocked per the strong consensus for the indefinite block at the time, but I was not invoking a community ban because (i) there were relatively few comments on that aspect, (ii) I recognise the additional bureaucratic requirements of a ban, and (iii) there was still discussion about other options including a partial block. Therefore I deliberately did not "close" the thread, to allow that discussion to continue. I have re-read WP:CBAN and acknowledge the potential confusion, so apologies if this muddied the water. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you going to release a statement on the block? Guz13 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You really should - it's fishy to be absent in the entire discussion while enacting an out-of-procedure block and not explain yourself. ~2026-36357-96 (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

you are a funny man

Larry Sanger is one of Wikipedia's co-founders. Priklemin (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

MSGJ, you got yourself in a Private SNAFU💀 Priklemin (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

he was defended by Wikipedia's other co-founder Priklemin (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your hard work with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Code review/edit request

If possible, could you review and (unless you spot an issue) merge the request I have pending at Module talk:Check for unknown parameters? It is blocking my forward progress on a project. Would greatly appreciate it! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Savile Club

I am a neutral and experienced editor who rated an article for two of its WikiProjects. You can disagree with my rating, but leaving the article without a rating is an unproductive edited. Were you acting on behalf of a specific WikiProject? I was rating for architecture and organizations. Maybe this is a case when the other WikiProjects should add a different rating. BTW, I started editing/adding sources to this article after I added the ratiing. This is not "my" article. Rublamb (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I tried to explain in my edit summary. You set the parameter |B=start or |start=B or something like that, which is invalid. I could not fix it because I don't know if you meant B or start. So please fix it yourself, thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Got it. My bad. Rublamb (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Main page

Where can I find the discussion for why the "encyclopedia" link was removed? Idacticus (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Please check Talk:Main Page/Archive 211#Sea of blue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Idacticus (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused: those two words aren't together, which seems to be what MOS:SEAOFBLUE is about. (It even suggests rephrasing to put a non-link between two links.) Idacticus (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

We had "free encyclopedia" before, which is two separately linked words next to each other. But I think some people also use SEAOFBLUE to mean there are too many links generally — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

That seems awfully subjective. Shouldn't we have a link for every interesting idea that we can explore? Idacticus (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

WiR messaging

Hallo, You sent out the last WiR message formatted so that the heading was "July 2026", which usually means that someone has sent a templated warning message. Previous WiR posts had headings like "Women in Red - June 2026", which is better. But thanks for helping the WiR project - I feel mildly guilty at not stepping forward to help with the admin, just contributing each month. Thanks. PamD 07:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

That was not the worst thing I did last month. The initial batch so were so badly formatted I had to do a mass rollback and send out again! I found the instructions rather opaque, but stepped in because no one else was doing it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject templates

Hi Martin, thanks for helping with template updates re renamed assessment categories as requested/recorded elsewhere. There are still some incoming links to dead categories recorded at WP:CFDWML, and while it would be satisfying to fix links to redirects or deleted pages, those are not very important.

I'm finding some entire assessment category hierarchies that are empty. I left a note for Gonnym at Template talk:WikiProject Belize, in case it was his recent edit that emptied that set, but then I came across the same current result at Category:2010s articles by quality. You made the latest edit to Template:WikiProject 2010s removing the importance assessments, but can you figure out why are the quality assessments are not working, please? – Fayenatic London 13:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, it must be this edit. All other examples I checked of WikiProject banner templates tagged as inactive had no assessment categories. I guess someone will redirect that set to WP Years or the like. – Fayenatic London 14:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the project has been marked as inactive since 11 June, and that disables all the assessments — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)