Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:00, 10 February 2012

Note: If you post me a message here, I'll respond here, so please put my talk page on your watchlist if you are expecting a response. I don't leave talkback thingies. Likewise if I leave a note on your talk page, I will watchlist your talk page for any replies.

• /Archive1 (December 2009 to April 2010)
• /Archive2 (April 2010 to May 2010)
• /Archive3 (May 2010 to June 2010)
• /Archive4 (June 2010 to July 2010)
• /Archive5 (July 2010 to September 2010)
• /Archive6 (September 2010 to October 2010)
• /Archive7 (October 2010 to November 2010)
• /Archive8 (December 2010)
• /Archive9 (January 2011)
• /Archive10 (February 2011 to March 2011)
• /Archive11 (April 2011 to May 2011)
• /Archive12 (June 2011 to August 2011)
• /Archive13 (September 2011)
• /Archive14 (October 2011)
• /Archive15 (November 2011)
• /Archive16 (December 2011 to January 2012)

Malaysia

It's been awhile, but I was wondering if you had any further comments or concerns in regards to Malaysia. Your input on the previous FAC was quite valid, and I'd like to try and fix as much as possible before another FAC (if I decide to try again that is!). Thanks, CMD (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a detailed go through the article, if that would help. One thing that struck my attention was the sentence in the "History" section: "The country has since maintained a delicate ethno-political balance, with a system of government that has attempted to combine overall economic development with political and economic policies that promote equitable participation of all races". This sentence seems a bit unnecessary: first, because it suddenly jumps to the present tense out of a chronological sequence; second, because the source doesn't seem to support it; and third, because it seems unnecessarily open to debate (Most Malays and Indians will have very different view on what "equitable" means!) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, any help helps! You are right that it is definitely debatable, and its probably not a good idea to say the system of government is designed to do that without any elaboration, which would be a bit too much information I think. Do you think the sentence can be rewritten/replaced or just scrapped? CMD (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I reckon scrap it. Other sections of the article deal with current race and economic issues. I was also wondering about the end of the section mentioning Anwar's dismissal and the Bersih protests. Are they notable enough events? If not, their inclusion in this necessarily brief overview of the history might be recentist. For example, it's arguable that Anwar's dismissal is no more historically significant than the UMNO Team A/Team B split a decade earlier. The history section in the FA on Australia doesn't really include any 20th century domestic politics. Just a thought. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wp;drv listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wp;drv. Since you had some involvement with the Wp;drv redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ZZArch  22:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome (again to Arbitration Enforcement)

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

Hi Mkativerata. I haven't checked into Arbitration Enforcement very often in recent months, and when I logged on today, I was pleased to see your contributions there as an uninvolved administrator. I'm not sure how recently you began contributing there (again, I suppose, as your earliest edit was in 2010), but thank you for the time you have given to that noticeboard. I recognise that it is not an easy place to work, and your time is well-spent and appreciated. Regards, AGK 20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, AGK. That's very kind. I like to flit in and out of different backroom areas from time to time (AE, CCI, AfD) to keep up my interest in the project generally and not get worn out. Appreciate it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban of Tom Harrison

Tom is and has been a long standing contributor to 9/11 related articles and has been one of the coolest heads in this topic area...you may not be aware of his period of service in this area as well as how much better Misplaced Pages is for that service...I am sorry but the diffs provided by The Devils Advocate hardly demonstrate that Tom Harrison has violated the now oldish arbcom case in any way. I'm not into Rfc's, but this matter is truly troubling. Are you aware of the 9/11 conspiracy theories? How well versed are you to render judgement in this area? The immediacy with which you and two other admins reached a decision on this was surely rapid...what might I be overlooking that was a point of contention for you?--MONGO 22:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As an example...Tom Harrison has the most edits to September 11 attacks.......again, I have always found his efforts in these articles to be well and even tempered...if indeed you see trouble in the diffs that were provided at arbcom enforcement, perhaps a warning of potential sanction rather than an outright one would have been the way to go.--MONGO 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Devils Advocate was previously topic banned from the same topic for 30 days...in a case Tom harrison made a few brief comments on......and has been blocked twice in the last 3 months due to this topic area ...Tom harrison has never been blocked ...not once in 8 years of editing!--MONGO 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that Tom harrison has asked "please don't pursue this" I am going to help you comply with his request by not responding in substance to this message.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't talking to me...but I am here talking to you and I would like an explanation...or shall we just use more dismissiveness to demonstrate that you don't want to explain why 4 hardly incriminating edits eliminates an editor that has made possibly 5 thousand substantive edits to 9/11 related articles...me thinks you have applied extremely excessive force here....how about a 30 day ban akin to what the filer had a couple months back?--MONGO 01:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read my comments at AE carefully, you will see that the ban might end up being 30 days. The length of the ban is in the hands of Tom.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the fact that many of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (CT's) have anti-Semitic undertones a revelation to you...I only ask because I do not know...are you aware that indeed, especially in the first few years after 9/11, that anti-Semitic conspiracy theories laid the groundwork for some of the perpetuated myths that 9/11 was an iside job? Have you heard about the supposed Israeli/USA government connection in which this destruction would force the USA to wage war on predominately Muslim nations...all to the supposed benefit of Israeli security? What I am getting at is you may not be aware that while Tom Harrison may not have used the most optimal of sources, that his edits were actually spot on for the most part in the diffs provided...he and I have been working on these types of articles since 2005...we're both well versed in these issues. This is a minor content dispute I assure you....his edits are not topic banning offenses.--MONGO 03:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of all that, thank you for the history lesson. Nothing in that affects the fact that the edits were blatantly unacceptable and sanctionable violations of NPOV.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason to believe?

I know you said that you weren't going to comment further, and that's fine, but you can at least read this. You said at the AE talk page, that you have "no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area."

Then consider this. At the main September 11 attacks, there was a long-standing content dispute over if and how conspiracy theories should be mentioned in the article. The debate was contentious and polarized. But one editor proposed a possible solution. It took 2 months of hard-work and consensus building to finally hammer out the wording, but in the end, a solution was reach that was acceptable to all.

You may be interested in learning the name of that editor who started the ball moving and was instrumental in building that consensus which resolved the content dispute:

Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_57#Proposed_wording

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Past editing behaviour is no excuse for current egregious violations of NPOV. It is nothing unusual for an editor to take a turn for the worse, whether temporary or permanent, perhaps out of disillusionment. By that same token, the sanction will be lifted if the current, sanctioned, behaviour changes.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second. What about your behavior? Your user page says that you're involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that won't use your admin tools. How is Islamic terrorists attacking the US because of US support of Israel in the Israel-Palestinian conflict not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Recall

Your user page lists you as open to recall. Under what circumstances would you accept a recall petition? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)